There is the "Ashes Quickstart Guide for Founders" sticky in the founders forum that I think covers some of this. Not sure if it is still accurate. Also, this is alpha, we can't really expect them to be devoting too much time to documentation. Part of the feedback we can provide is our assessment of how intuitive the UI is without needing help.
You misunderstand. They are adding a full strategic view of the entire map. It's just not going to be a sea of icons for every unit. For tilt, hold shift with the middle mouse button (or is it Alt?)
[quote who="tatsujb" reply="2" id="3588025"] ? you know you're fooling noone right? this doesn't turn what he said into any kind of rule-transgression. [/quote] We have a misunderstanding. I misunderstood what he said in the sentence before "Thank you." And you misunderstood why I thought it would be locked. There's no trickery going on here, just misunderstandings. I need to L2read and you need to L2chill.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="4" id="3588115"] Zooming out to a map full of icons where people play the game as icons is not a viable commercial game strategy. So now, we won't be doing that. However, in next week's update, we will have the first pass at the situational map where the player hits the space bar and it brings up a map of the world with what is happening on it. It will evolve over the next few months. See the Sins of a Solar Empire str
In before locked.
[quote who="naselus" reply="29" id="3587878"] Secondly, I'm getting the feeling that actually, the game might benefit from less patches. The release schedule that SD have set themselves is extremely punishing. We're getting a new DLC and patch EVERY MONTH. Macsen, you mention Paradox - PI's DLC and patching schedule runs on quarters. They have 3 months between DLC and major patches. SD has like a week between minor patches and only 4 weeks to build, test and re
[quote who="TheFunMachine" reply="23" id="3587868"] I have never, nor have I seen the company ask people to write 'positive' reviews, and I have been lurking around here and following news quite cloesly. What I do know is that Stardock want people to write reviews for the purposes of feedback, and that is what they have been getting. I'm not going to argue over your other points, even if I disagree that we haven't seen some good improvements since launch, but tha
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="17" id="3587845"] ... [/quote] Fair enough and well reasoned. I applaud your efforts to keep improving the game experience in the ways you deem most beneficial to your primary player base. I hope you can understand that at times I do not feel I fall into that category, and I base my reviews and feature requests on my personal gameplay experience, not that of the primary player base. FYI the AI section of my review was written b
It's clearly not a criticism of the effort, it is a criticism of the result. Of what you have here, none of us will experience or notice all of it, and many of us won't experience or notice much of it. Yet we all have to deal with the frustration of starbase and constructor management, and somehow it appears to be a pretty low priority given nothing has been done about it yet. How does generating 3D-print designs get done at least 2 patches before starbase micro improvements? Only one
Hope you have your prepping all done, boys, because we are about 2 weeks away from Climate Chaos! http://countdowntoclimatechangechaos.com
Retreat is hard enough now, this will make it impossible.
Was rather not interesting until about the 20 minute mark When he started talking about game design.
The AI follows the same game rules as humans on normal. That it doesn't use them to the full extent possible isn't a problem with the economic system, it's a problem with the AI. You know this.
[quote who="lyssailcor" reply="9" id="3586979"] That's exactly what I want to make unnecessary with my suggestion in another thread ( https://forums.galciv3.com/471197/page/1/#3586800 ). [/quote] No objections. I'd still disable pirates, though, because they are pointless roadblocks.
This is definitely beyond me; I'd wager you guys are well versed in what stats make the most sense. If all you can do to differentiate units is tweak their stats, they will all "feel" similar and choosing the one you want will come down to preference, not game mechanics. Rock, Paper, Scissors has worked before, but those imply some unnatural strengths and weaknesses against specific units, not pure stats. What will really differentiate units isn't stats, it's behavior. Take, for e
1, 3, 6, 4, 5 in that order.
1. Both, of course, but it depends upon what you mean by "well known". Well known from other games? Would rather have random. But if you mean a handful of static maps you create, I prefer that for balance reasons. 2. Explored. The terrain is complex enough and the units slow enough that I don't want to be sending them off to dead-ends all the time. 3. Seems fine, but maybe also a little silly. Wouldn't a scout plane be able to reveal to whole map trivially with this se
I'm Eric, husband and father and a computer security guy. My RTS experience started with the original C&C (or did the first Starcraft come first?) then played many of the Age of games. I played SupCom 1, playing some co-op and versus matches with friends. I dipped into ranked in SupCom 2, but I wasn't good and didn't want to devote the time needed to get good. I want Ashes to be a game that I enjoy playing with and against friends, with a variety of different strategies that w
I believe it is the Alt key that shows them. See if hitting Alt will turn them off. Also in the 0.49 release notes (I think) they recommended against Alt-tabbing out because the game would go wonky, so they suggested folks run in a window.
I thought maybe this thread was a couple months old based upon the topic, but nope, created today. The Substrate will have shields as their armor mechanic, but that is nothing like what you are talking about. The last word from devs on SupCom-style shields and artillery is that they are not in the current design, nor is a hard Turtling strategy. They want you expanding your territory, creating lots of units, and fighting with them on multiple fronts. There is a spectrum between rush
shurtugalll, I'll back off because you are right. As time goes on I've come to see Tatsubj as someone who wants to steer AoTS in a direction that scratches the same itch that FAF scratched. He doesn't want the same game, but really he does. He is so vocal because he cares. The more he posts, though, the less credible he seems as some kind of RTS expert, and I find myself putting more trust in the devs' decisions. I think he is being counterproductive to the point where even th
[quote who="tatsujb" reply="39" id="3586723"] .... it's not really as if you weren't aware that turinium was in the game? what the hell are you talking about? it's not at ALL having any effect of the sort on me. IN FACT there isn't enough time in the game for turrinium turnarounds to play out that way. but effectively speaking from what I've been able to gather on the battlefield Turinium has LITERALLY no effect at all. whatsoever. It's kinda like score i
I think your arguments have merit. Your strategy paradigm is missing some key elements, but I suspect that is more about keeping your post succinct and constrained than anything else. There are plenty of other "resources" worthy of fighting over beyond just those that constitute your economy, assuming they are relevant factors for a particular game. Territory provides you space to maneuver. High ground provides a superior offensive and defensive position. In chess you can sacrifice material
So if I may summarize, and please correct me where I'm wrong: - You are forced to fight over something that does not provide any kind of tangible advantage by owning it, and this flies in the face of known RTS and real-world strategy, where such conflicts would be pointless and wasteful. - Traditionally a superior economy equates to a win, barring mistakes or surprises, not so with Turinium, - There is a false choice early game between building your economy, and ca
Tatsujb, can you please provide a comprehensive rationale for why Victory Points is a concept that is not good for AoTS? Preferably without the condescension. I want to really understand your opinion, which as it stands now seems irrational.