That's a great answer, thanks! I hadn't considered crashing price of silicon with my stockpile, with the idea of continuing to make glass with the lower price. Then wait until everyone else gets into glass then sell my glass stockpile :)
Frogboy, I did realize it. My post was in part a kudos. The rest of your post is a good satisfying response. Ticktoc's point about EA: I bet you could get away with a founder/founder-elite program so you still get some player feedback during development, but not do EA. Much of pre-beta we were under NDA, and I could see extending that until much closer to release. Yeah multiplayer would be hard to test, but I think players vs. devs Friday helps a good bit. Perhaps do two a week to
I recently purchased Offworld Trading Company and WOW am I impressed. Frogboy likes to ask "What is an RTS that released recently that was better that Ashes at release?" The answer is OTC. Last I checked it has a little higher steam rating and a much higher metacritic rating (even throwing out the Gamespot muck job). OTC has an incredible amount of depth in skirmish and multiplayer. The dynamic resources system means all games play differently, sometimes drastically so, and your appro
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="25" id="3634460"] Quoting eviator, reply 24 Just a heads up. I started about a dozen matches of Proving Grounds today while working on some ideas for a scenario. I thought I'd let you know in case you happen to look at my stats and come to the mistaken conclusion that I prefer tiny maps.</di
I am extremely joyed that you have been able to accomplish #3. If other companies can learn to adopt this strategy it s a huge win for good capitalism.
Just a heads up. I started about a dozen matches of Proving Grounds today while working on some ideas for a scenario. I thought I'd let you know in case you happen to look at my stats and come to the mistaken conclusion that I prefer tiny maps.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="14" id="3634237"] I tend to trust our stats more than forum anecdotal evidence. [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] Good grief Charlie Brown, I thought you guys were computer scientists. It's not the stats that are the problem. It's your interpretation of what those stats mean about player preference that is possibly folly. By your same logic people prefer Brutes over Zeus because they are more numerous. Sound ridiculous? Exactly. <br
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="10" id="3634139"] I've been meaning to write a long article on the vast differences between forum goers and the average gamer. Examples I've learned (the hard way) Very few people play on big maps Very few people play on difficulties above easy (forget normal) Now, I am much more like a forum goer which is why we all get along so well. But when it comes
It is clear watching Draginol's/Frogboy's/Brad's "play against the devs Fridays" that he prefers the Substrate. And more, he loves to heavily utilize the avatar. After the game he tends to chalk his win up to having built more quantum generators, which is probably partially true. But it's also true, arguably moreso, that the avatar spam was actually a key factor. If the avatar could not be spammed as such, the avatar would still be good (could even be buffed), but would not be
Megas, I've made the "unfinished" argument before. The game doesn't meet your expectations for a polished product. The devs' counter-argument is "name me a recent RTS game that was this far along upon release." Said another way, it's not fair to compare a game just released to a game that's been around for a couple years. I am still torn on the right approach as a game player. I gave GalCiv3 a negative steam review at release because I was very unhappy with the sta
If someone doesn't find the game fun there are two likely issues: 1. They don't really understand the game. Often this comes down to not knowing the power of quanta/research/orbitals or not understanding the value of unit composition. Can you come up with scenarios that highlight the depth of these in a way that convinces them that such aspects are more than just "oh isn't that nice" but actually crucial to gameplay depth? Show them how powerful each orbital can be when us
If they add a little micro, one thing I think they could do to liven things up is stances. Aggressive means long leashes, defensive means short. Retreat means higher combat speed, no return fire, and serious meat shields. Punch-through means break the enemy line of units and try to get to the ones in the rear, but perhaps take more damage. I don't know if any of this fits within the vision of the devs and even if it does I doubt it would take the form I'm envisioning. Option n
Well I would think that is exactly what a Nemesis does: target dreds first. And if it doesn't that should be fixed. I like that you cannot pick off the individual units that are making your life difficult. It means that composition (and research and orbitals) is more important than it otherwise would be. If there is an imbalance because X is too powerful unless you do Y, which is way more expensive to achieve, that is a balance issue. Balance is a constant thing, but it is appropriate to
Okay. Good luck and have a pleasant day.
You missed this: Additional Notes: 1600x900 Display Resolution Minimum
Ashes has high minimum requirements. You laptop does not meet them. Maybe you can get a refund if you haven't played too much.
To make counters, either you tweak numbers so that X does more/less damage against Y, or you remove manual targetting and establish automatic targetting priorities. Ashes seems to take the latter approach to reduce micro. Is there a better way to reduce the targetting micro but keep the counters?
Wow, great list! I will check it out. I already build diverse armies with what I think is a good mix of units. But I would think if I can intelligently tweak my standard factory queue based upon what I'm seeing in the field and what goals I want to accomplish, I could do better. Also it is starting to feel boring and shallow to keep using the same old mix.
Best I can tell probing force is used to take regions the enemy has taken and left undefended. They cannot take on an avatar nor can they take developed neutral regions since the latest patch, which buffed the creeps. We already have incursion, which is a little slower but much more powerful, and which can be used to effect in many other situations. Incursion seems superior in nearly every way. What am I missing about the probing force?
What units/compositions are good against others? I see posts here and there talking about building counters but I don't know how you all figured them out just from the unit descriptions and weapon tooltips. I'm an SP player and I'm thinking counters would help me kick it up to the next level of difficulty.
Art is expensive, both in terms of development and performance. May get better over time as the development budget increases and hardware gets better. My perspective differs from yours in that I'm more interested in a deep and replayable gameplay experience, not so much art. The former holds my interest for many hours, the latter for only a few. It's funny I read one post that said "This game is terrible without a fully-fleshed out campaign experience" and another that said "I
Frustration in rant form. But what does this do? The man in me asks "how do we fix this?" Or is this a case of, as my wife says, "I don't want you to try to fix things, I just want you to listen!"?
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="25" id="3632377"] The reason is the genre, budget, and price. First, price is a huge factor. If you're $20 most people will let it slide. Have you played Factorio? While I personally like it, if it had been priced at $49.99 it would have gotten murdered in reviews. [/quote] I hadn't considered this. Now your earlier comment that you wish Ashes was $39.99 makes sense, and I agree. That f
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="16" id="3632330"] What are these best games available in the RTS genre that you are comparing Ashes to? You do realize that the same complaint could be made of nearly every independent game from Factorio to Undertale. [/quote] Hoping to repeat my point once again for clarity, I didn't say "best games available in the RTS genre", I said "best games available". That's right, I'm talking all games. To get an "ove
It will be nice 1-2 years from now when Ashes will be in a state typical gamers will find comparable to the best games available and be nearly unanimously reviewed positively so you end up with a 95+% rating. I did my part. Hopefully the current average ratings don't stop that progress. In the mean time I look forward to your iterations. ASADDF, one may argue that the OP's criticism is an attempt to support the game, not just complain. Or maybe it's to help others make an