eviator

eviator

Joined Member # 6176744
67 Posts 739 Replies 3,542 Reputation
Reply to Important Multi-player connecting requirement please. in Ashes Bugs and Ideas AshesoftheSingularity Forums

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

30 Replies 45,003 Views
Reply to Important Multi-player connecting requirement please. in Ashes Bugs and Ideas AshesoftheSingularity Forums

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

30 Replies 45,003 Views
Reply to Possible solution to the 25% speed combat problem in Ashes of the Singularity AshesoftheSingularity Forums

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.

16 Replies 74,259 Views
Reply to What I would like to see in the game. in Ashes of the Singularity AshesoftheSingularity Forums

Yes it works. T2 units can do it too. Queueing units this way creates a kind of build order queue that gets filled on demand by available factories. The new units automatically become part of the battle group upon spawning, catch up to the dreadnought, then get into formation to do their duty. Pretty awesome way to keep your groups stocked with units. Ideally the empire tree would do a better job of making it obvious how many of each unit is already in the group so we can quickly determine wh

37 Replies 127,206 Views
Reply to A GOP hopeful and his 'grain' issues. in Politics AshesoftheSingularity Forums

[quote who="Chasbo" reply="3" id="3600741"] The problem is that at the time this came to light Carson was leading in the polls for the nomination of the Republican party for President of the United States. Carson also believes in creationism. Carson is also pro guns. Carson is a fraud and a liar as evidenced by the statements he has made and the things he put in his book. Carson also has other beliefs which I strongly disagree with which I won't mention here because I don't want

9 Replies 23,503 Views
Reply to Possible solution to the 25% speed combat problem in Ashes of the Singularity AshesoftheSingularity Forums

Boy this discussion has me really wishing the devs would tell us whether the combat speed penalty is here to stay and if so why they think it is necessary. The design is touting strategy over APM, and with funneled maps, tactical focus on group composition, and units that must commit to win or loss battles, they seem to be trying to take movement tactics completely out of the equation. I would like to see in-game evidence that group composition actually matters, and not just "my group has a T

16 Replies 74,259 Views
Reply to Possible solution to the 25% speed combat problem in Ashes of the Singularity AshesoftheSingularity Forums

Updated from my original reply. I looked back in the August 2015 FAQ where Frogboy initially brought up the issue of Front Lines and groups moving right through each other. You have to go down to reply 40 before the first and only mention of unit suppression affecting speed in combat. That's the only clue have as to why they went this way in patch 0.50. I had mistakenly believed the speed penalty would even

16 Replies 74,259 Views
Reply to Ok, I am addicted to this game. The only thing that I want is.. in Ashes Bugs and Ideas AshesoftheSingularity Forums

The only issue with exploding dreadnoughts is that you can't get units out of the way in battlegroups, the game encourages us to use battlegroups, and degrouping units and moving them would be very micro heavy. They could put the logic into the battlegroup AI, but then the mechanic would only punish non-battlegroup play. So I dont really see them developing that mechanic.

5 Replies 3,896 Views
Reply to GalCiv III: Economics, Command Economies and Citizens in GalCiv III Dev Journals GalCiv3 Forums

I must admit I didn't understand the coercion mechanic after reading the OP three times, and I posted two replies with that misunderstanding. The use of the term "Goods and Services" harkens back to early betas, being replaced by Morale. Now I understand it is a morale-altering mechanic. So, if coercion is implemented can we get rid of the Large Empire Penalty? An immersion issue arises for me, and it was stated in other posts but I will repeat it. If my planet is 90% rese

93 Replies 992,722 Views
Reply to Increase unit line of sight in Ashes of the Singularity AshesoftheSingularity Forums

In addition to the above, line of sight can impact the usefulness of the empire tree. In Sins the tree shows the nearby enemy units so you can evaluate the relative strength of force. For Ashes if you can increase the line of sight, putting enemy units in the empire tree becomes possible.

1 Replies 14,332 Views
Reply to Zooming out to 100,000 feet in Ashes of the Singularity GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="30" id="3600020"] What we want to avoid is the call to having zooming out turn into "now that we've got it zoomed out, can you put icons on the map?" path. [/quote] We won't really know until we get our hands on the heat maps. What is the ETA on that? If the heat maps don't cut it, then we don't get the high zoom out. If we don't get the high zoom out, we don't need the heat maps. Chicken and egg.

60 Replies 349,492 Views
Reply to The Galactic Civilizations III road-map thread in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

In the dev streams Paul initially placed starbase micro on the roadmap for 1.4. When 1.4 became the AI patch he pushed it to 1.5. Now it seems it's been pushed to 1.6. I guess roadmaps are subject to change depending upon what people are most interested in seeing improved. Starbase micro was a huge issue early on, but nobody seems to talk it about anymore. I wonder why that is.

121 Replies 734,295 Views
Reply to Zooming out to 100,000 feet in Ashes of the Singularity GalCiv3 Forums

It would really help us to better understand your intentions, and help us understand what is within the realm of possibility given your roadmap. Right now on your screen there are no abstractions of any of the units or buildings aside from presumably the empire tree. In the strategic view we are able to see unit blobs and control groups. Is that generally the rules of the UI that we are dealing with? Or do you have plans to present some form of unit/building abstractions that provide addition

60 Replies 349,492 Views
Reply to GalCiv III: Economics, Command Economies and Citizens in GalCiv III Dev Journals GalCiv3 Forums

Here is what happened: they created an economic system that has exponential potential because adjacency is fun. But it worked too good, and now they are considering adding diminishing returns to combat that. But all they really want is to limit production. I'm going to propose something radical, but hear me out: Let them put on a cap! Not a rigid cap like 500 points per planet, something like a cap of 30 points per planet class (I&#39

93 Replies 992,722 Views