eviator

This post is to offer some feedback on the current balance for research and quanta. I know balance at this stage is a low priority, but the following suggestions should be pretty easy to look at right now since it's just tweaking numbers. 1. Logistics. Even if you start building a quantum complex as early as possible, you can easily reach the initial 100 unit cap before you get the 100 quanta to research logistics. This also forces you to spend your first 100 quanta on logistics,

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="12" id="3601526"] https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=AE73D69FD38970E0!114881&authkey=!ACiM9T6YKJcG_Cg&ithint=file%2ccsv Try replacing the file in your Ashes installation with this and see how you like it. [/quote] I sure as heck hope this wasn't a placebo change, because I am loving it

Don't think you can destroy units yet. Also, did you not build quantum complexes so you could research logistics?

Patience is a virtue. Not even beta yet.

I'm pretty sure the normal AI does not cheat. It does above normal, giving the AI an eco boost. If you are losing to the normal AI you should find that impressive.

Kudos to the devs for making a non-cheating AI that is tough to beat!

Yeah, normal is significantly harder than easy. I'm sure they'll get that balanced out before release.

[quote who="Ticktoc" reply="14" id="3601529"] So they sit back and let two artillery units fire and all the brutes and units with shorter range do nothing but get shot at. Surely the idea of a meta unit is that it is smart enough to use all the units within to the best of their abilities. [/quote] Thanks for saying it so I didn't have to. I understand that the AI decided this was what the group should be doing. But as a player commanding the group, 95% of

One more thing. If you have a group selected and right click a relay/turinium node that you already control, a blue line initially shows up but the units do not move. Please fix that. Make the units move to that relay and defend it.

[quote who="Jetkar" reply="3" id="3601515"] Probably is on the Devs list to do list. There again remember this is not a final release game so will not be perfect lol [/quote] Totally agree. I'm a patient man. That is, as long as I know that eventually the bad stuff will end. Pulling from another game (same publisher, different devs) the GalCivIII devs thought 1-turn overflow was working in Beta 3, despite outcries on the forums and live streams. They finally acknowledged

First, metal early game is kinda scarce, so we need to be mindful of that if you start adjusting resources. Second, in the current state of the game defense = units. One or two Zeus with some T1 support can handle a lot of T1 units. Static defense could use a buff, IMO but that is balance, and balance should not be a major concern during pre-beta and early beta. Third, control of the map SHOULD mean the game is over. Get too far behind with no flanking opportunity means surren

Well all aircraft need lift. And lift requires motion of air over an airfoil (or a balloon). So to meet your request they would either need the same hovering technology as the land units or they would need to be helicopter-like. These are clearly planes, and planes cannot hover.

[quote who="chemie99" reply="30" id="3601414"] PLus the AI seems to ignore or defeat this and have runs run past you anyway (including capital ships) [/quote] I've read this from a few different forum posters now. I haven't seen it myself nor have I seen any video evidence. So it's hard to get on board with this claim. I'd really like to see it in action because it would be a pretty big deal if true.

Yes, I have noted this behavior since the first founder's release. The devs have not confirmed it in the forums, and there isn't much public video evidence, so I wanted to see if we could rectify both of those. We can talk about the UI zoom level and unit combat speed and whatever else, but lack of unit responsiveness will really hurt this game above all other issues because it feels buggy. And if the game has this buggy feel at release, it will be difficult to recover from th

For the entire length of this video I tried to get this battle group to attack and capture the resource node. The units are very unresponsive, and some of the shuffling is also wonky. Also, what is the AI of the medics? It seems that, while in battle, the medics just hang back. Is that intended? [video]https://youtu.be/PNQ7V2bF-to[/video]

[quote who="TheRealWarpstorm" reply="12" id="3601470"] You must be doing it wrong. [e digicons]:)[/e] That is the editor we use to make all of our maps. [/quote] Bummer, but I appreciate the response so I can stop spinning my wheels. I'll wait for someone to write up a howto, or the public version, whichever comes first.

Frogboy, we need a way to disengage man. Enemy group A showed up on radar and my nearest group B that could handle it was in the process of capping a different enemy's region. I tried to get group B to pursue group A, but it was so slow at responding that it was pointless to even try. It had the combat speed penalty having wiped out some buildings, and it spent a minute, no exaggeration, reshuffling. I don't see that kind of slow responsiveness appealing to many RTS players.

It's hidden in the MainMenu ;) So I know it's finicky, I know you haven't made it readily available for us to use. But I've been chasing my tail with the editor for a few patches and I'm eager to know if my efforts are futile. It seems to me the editor alone is not enough to make a working map. I'm fine with that, if that is indeed true, I just want to know if it's true. Or ... Is the map editor all that is needed to get a working map and I'm doing it w

I've been schooled. Thanks for the lesson. I'm usually in TCP-land where this wouldn't work. You mixed up the ports in a section in the middle, but I knew what you meant. Now say again why the ports have to be restricted? Does your firewall restrict the destination port on outbound UDP packets? Because from your description you can punch holes for arbitrary ports. Holes are punched from inside on the reverse path, and most consumer firewalls don't restrict which ports

Also, even the simplest of maps created with the map editor are not playable in 0.63.

Very quick feedback on 0.63. Having played (and lost) on the new map. - The map is very open. That should make people happy. I was getting surprised by the direction from which the enemy was coming. Would need to do a better scouting job on such map. - I now see that random maps might be asking for too much. Balanced maps are important and I think it would be too hard to make random maps balanced. I think the map editor plus steam workshop support would be better than random m

This patch looks great. Gonna try it ASAP. Tatsubj did you see the third bullet under "Gameplay"? You helped make that happen.

Even though your terminology is a little wonky, your point comes across fine. We don't need more than 100 ports, and more than that creates a hassle for firewall configuration. They probably won't tweak these ports until they start to really devote time to multiplayer in beta 2. I am in favor of legacyone's suggestion. The reason I question your focus on the word "source" is that it confuses things. Firewalls generally don't care what the source port of a particular pa

For the record you are misusing the "source" in "source port". In TCP and UDP communication the source port is generally a randomly selected ephemeral port (>= 1024). Firewalls tend not to care what source port is used to establish communication as long as it is in the ephemeral range. What you probably mean is "service port". That is the port your computer is listening on and the port to which your firewall must be configured to forward. That said I agree with restricting th

There's an old saying, "Don't tell me, show me." If you have to communicate the differences between units, whether verbally or in tool tips, then it's not obvious in the gameplay. And if it's not obvious in the gameplay, are you sure they are really that different? Numerically they are distinct. But if the T1 units can, in practice, be interchanged with one another, which I find to be the case, more work is needed, not more communication. Just a humble opinion, not a rant.