eviator

Oh my, I've never seen this bug. What map?

I use the tree to evaluate the power of my battle groups. I have to keep track in my head where the control groups are because I haven't yet formed the habit of hitting Space. I also use it to help form battle groups, since there's not really a more convienient method to group up stragglers. I'm sure familiarization with the icons would help with group composition and reinforcement decisions. It's less valuable compared to Sins because you can't compare your force to

Great post! Unfortunately you are going to get this kind of feedback probably from now until a few months after release. SupComFA is the seminal work in the sub-genre of RTS that involves robotic units fighting on a large scale on land. Not many games have tried to tread on that sub-genre since, and those that did failed and were forgotten. Because many in your target audience will want to compare this game to SupComFA, they will also judge it accordingly, instead of fairly judging it on its

If you zoom out more, we all know that it becomes difficult to see units, impossible to distinguish them. Since we are not getting icons for individual units (thank goodness) we need to see what else they can come up with to abstract the battle while still providing enough information to help us assess the situation. They haven't really said when they might get to this, so we just have to be patient.

We? Given the current game mechanics 3 feels just right.

Whats wrong with the AI forming groups with only a few units?

Are you saying the rest of us have been offering lower quality feedback thus far? The speed penalty in combat was in one of the patch notes. I believe it reduces speed to 25% of max. One reason was to avoid situations where armies would move right through each other with few casualties, which really made area control and front-line combat frustrating. To add to the negative impacts, it also makes retreat not much better than just letting your units wipe. I think once t

Kazz, no. My 2.5 year old GPU is by far more of a bottleneck than my 4.5 year old CPU, according to the benchmark. For this game, and probably DX12-designed games in general, it seems a GPU upgrade is more beneficial.

[quote who="legacyone" reply="2" id="3598432"] http://www.ghacks.net/2013/02/12/test-if-your-routers-upnp-is-exposed-to-the-internet/ [/quote] As usual, the problem isn't necessarily the protocol but the implementation. Nonetheless if games are indeed moving away from UPnP fine, but they need to replace it with something that will work for the common user. FYI the common user doesn't know how to tweak their router for port forwarding, the most common scenario. Im not

Most games utilize UPnP to open firewall holes since most home routers can do UPnP. Are you saying your config cannot do this? Also, I thought games were hosted on dedicated servers, but your post implies the dedicated servers are just for creating matches. Stardock/Oxide, what are your intentions?

Well I like it. Fog of war complicates this greatly, but it seems generally like a good approach to me.

[quote who="TheRealWarpstorm" reply="13" id="3598302"] Regionalize has to be the absolute last thing you do. [/quote] Thanks. Just tried it and same result. Here are my exact steps, leaving no actions out: 1. Create a new map, name it, select 2048 for Map Size, hit Okay 2. Hit the "Rebuild Terrain" button 3. After a few seconds it completes, then hit the "Auot-Regionalize" button 4. "File" then "Exit" I accepted the default buildings,

Okay, thanks. I'll give it another patch or two before I try again. MyTest1 and 2 did use the default buildings with the same result, so it's probably something else.

Im sure a lot has changed. It's alpha this is to be expected.

I tried again, same result. I feel I'm missing a minor but important step, so I made a short video about my process. What am I missing? [video]http://youtu.be/qjHVlsLls7E[/video]

I thought I did all that, but I'm not certain. I'll try again, thanks.

Has anyone besides the devs been able to create a map that can be played? I tried creating the simplest of maps, no terrain, just a couple seeds and resource points. When I try to start a new game with that map it seems as if there are no open player slots, so I cannot actually play the match. Secondly, does anyone know how to initiate MapScripts? That can be used to place units and buildings on the map, which they have done for demos. I'd like to use it for sandboxing battles of

I would also like a modding section. So far I've only tweaked things in .csv files, like unit speed, hp, obvious stuff. Increasing unit speed seems to negatively impact pathing, so I'm not sure how far that can be safely pushed. But I've stumbled into some other interesting things, like tweaking how units organize themselves in battle groups (formations) and battlegroup templates used by the AI. I tried creating a map so I could create a MapScript in order to set u

Since the units build fine, it's not that big of a bug, I'm sure there are worse, though none come to mind. We've been able to get by just fine since our first alpha. But as I said something else is going on in my first screenshot. That different bug, where the factory builds nothing but shows the wrong queue, that is what I'm reporting here, and the one that was a major hindrance in that game.

Yes. The new units built fine.

Tatsubj, yes you are right. Part of the issue I had was due to queueing a unit before the factory was complete. I had noticed this with the basic factory, but I had not noticed that it built a visible unit at that point. But there's still part of the bug that is unexplained, namely that the advanced factory would not build anything, but its queue has T1 and T2 units, and that queue changed as if it were building. That part I'll try to replicate. I have an idea how to do that.<

Then that should be easy to duplicate, I'll try it. Right now I think this is a different bug, or if it is similar it's slightly different. The queue has units the advanced factory cannot build. And it changes. It's like the game thinks it is in part a normal factory, except it doesn't actually build anything.

[quote who="tatsujb" reply="2" id="3597696"] I'd refrain from using groups. they really under-perform compared to being separate. [/quote] That is a poor recommendation for all but highly skilled micromanagers. I have found the battle groups to be a good way for me, the average player, to have above average unit control in battle.

In the screenshot below, I had this Advanced Factory and built a Prometheon (or the third one, whatever the name is). It looks like the Prometheon finished building, but I couldn't move it out of the factory. I couldn't queue up any other dreadnoughts, and the factory queue showed other units, though that factory wasn't producing them. If I can figure out how to reproduce this bug, I will post a reply comment. <img src="http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b621/gotyoke/Ashe

I'm guessing icons are eventually coming. Not individual icons per unit, as the devs said that is NOT happening, more like icons that represent multiple units in close proximity With some clever way of representing the composition. Heck they could almost take the empire tree, condense it, spiff it up a little, and make that the group representation.