eviator

Posted this in the other thread, don't know which is the "right" one. I'm glad Brad is thinking on these terms. It bodes very well for the fun-ness factor. It seems to me a core choice is one that sets the tone for at least the next few minutes of the game, if not longer. Air vs. land would be such a choice. T1 vs. T2 would be. Orbital vs unit spam vs defensive buildings another. I'm having some trouble with factory vs. expand as a core choice in 0.71. If you

I'm glad Brad is thinking on these terms. It bodes very well for the fun-ness factor. It seems to me a core choice is one that sets the tone for at least the next few minutes of the game, if not longer. Air vs. land would be such a choice. T1 vs. T2 would be. Orbital vs unit spam vs defensive buildings another. I'm having some trouble with factory vs. expand as a core choice in 0.71. If you choose to build the factory right away, you forfeit your ability to gain a region

[quote who="chemie99" reply="11" id="3612839"] Buildings take soooo long now I have stopped building drones, smarties etc. Spam units seems better vs AI anyway. 2-3 min build times and the resource costs have not made defense buildings useful right now. [/quote] 100% agreement level achieved. I was going to start a topic on balance emphasizing building cost and build time, as well as research/orbital cost/benefit, but decided against it because I think these n

Thanks for putting this together. The one person spamming the forums, here and on Steam, with negative criticism of both Ashes and NVidia (you know who you are) is essentially a troll, trying to fire people up to get attention. Thankfully not too many people have taken the bait. Nonetheless that person keeps trying, and eventually it's possible that could lead to a ban as a violation of the forums terms of service.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="11" id="3612724"] When we get to the Beta (later this month) that's when we'll want to see if we've fixed it. The 0.71 code base is from November so there's a lot of fixes that have gotten in. We think we've fixed it but we have also thought we've fixed it before. [/quote] Does "later this month" mean tomorrow because I can't wait ;P I was in the middle of putting together a video on behaviors and re

In a prior post you mentioned that your work with the substrate may lead you to some changes to the PHC. Can you give us a view into what that might entail? As for the fifth T2 unit, how about a suicide unit that explodes with AOE damage? Or some other kind of AOE suicidal effect.

[quote who="Ticktoc" reply="6" id="3612429"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 5 you need t build more than new quantum relay. You should basically always be building them. As soon as I get radioactives I start building Relays, not long after that I'll add another engineer and have two Relays buildin

[quote who="cosmiccensor" reply="4" id="3612462"] Not a huge issue when you are aware of it though, just need to remember to click far enough away from the node if you control it but it would still be nice not have to worry about it. [/quote] Not a huge issue if you know how to work around it. But I guarantee it will cause major negative feedback unless fixed by release, so I hope they do something (I am confident they will). Its even worse than just this, though. You

Hi Frogboy! I'd love to understand more about the implementation of army behavior. It's one of the coolest parts of this game for me. I know some parameters like relative unit positions and leash are defined in CSV files. Obviously the high level mechanics like getting into formation and evaluating the context for different behaviors are in code. - How would you rate the overall flexibility of the current army behavior system on a scale from 1 to 10 (i.e. How easy is it for yo

Cool!

Still alpha.

Well 6 years or no, the game must feel finished at release to avoid a lot of negative publicity. GalCiv3 could have had a much better release if the devs had implemented more of the feedback that had been offered during the beta. GC3 release felt six months too early, so there are some lessons to learn in what not to do. Ashes might have a leg up over GC3 comparing apples to apples, 3 months prior to release. Ashes is fun, GC3 was tedious. But aside from the missing gameplay additions, the ga

The game overall looks way better in the video than it does on my system. Makes me want to get a new video card (running a GTX 770). Based upon the video, I agree that the Engineers look big. However I think it is wise to keep them looking big so they are easier to pick out on the screen. This is a case where I think gameplay has to trump immersion. I do like the tree scaling in the video. What exactly happened at 13:05 to 13:15? Initially most of the army hung back in formati

3 months then. Definitely not in the 6 to 8 month timeframe I've seen referenced elsewhere. That's why I think it's important to give them feedback to help them polish the game for release. We can keep asking for major changes, but we shouldn't expect them to be addressed until after March.

- Performance tuning and stability. This is a given, really, as every game goes through this process prior to going gold. I'm pretty happy already on my fairly modest hardware (i2500K, GTX 770, 8GB RAM), but there's always room for improvement. - Army behavior . AI-controlled armies are the second major selling point in this game, after scale thanks to advancements of the engine. There are various posts already showing off wonk

According to the most recent development schedule ( https://forums.ashesofthesingularity.com/472632/ ) the game is going to be released in the next two months. We know it's going to be eventful: - More Orbitals - Strategic map overhaul - Substrate + Beta - Ascendency Wars (I think this is an ongoing metaverse campaign) ----- Given the short schedule, we cannot expect them to be abl

Well it's not that early. The game releases in the next few months (the road map says February). I think we should expect some nice improvements until then, but the real game changes after release. Just a guess. I agree with some of what you said. I try not to think of SupCom when thinking about Ashes because they have their own vision and some elements of SupCom don't fit.

Great feedback Vxsote1. Some of your thoughts are new to me, others have been brought up before, so it's nice to have new players mention them. Thanks for taking the time to write all this up!

[quote who="Nilfiry" reply="9" id="3611555"] People felt the growth was high enough? Even with the best setup, the best you can get is around .3 growth per turn before. I for one am glad they increased the growth rate. It made population growth improvements and tech relevant again. [/quote] This is a good point. A 25% increase on 0.1 (or whatever it was) is much less beneficial than the same percentage increase on 0.3, making such buildings more worthwhile for the higher bas

If you can figure out a way to consistently reproduce the bugs, and yes I get them too, that would really help the devs. As it is now I'm not sure they have acknowledged the bugs simply because they occur randomly. We can help them help us.

I think this is great feedback. Those of us who have played for a while train ourselves to operate without these things, especially as the UI evolves, so it's great to get fresh perspectives. I never noticed the thing about the strategic map because I use space bar to see it.

Some are good and wise, others are not. A speed and attack boost for an army designed to get behind enemy lines is good. An armor and range bonus for armies designed to defend is good. Straight bonuses for all just means more units = more effective. That kinda throws army composition out of the equation. Not sure what they can do in the limited time before release, though.

Who is John Galt?

We can complain about what they haven't delivered, as I admit I do from time to time, or we can help. One of those is productive, one is not. These first patches were mainly getting core game mechanics up to par, it seems (well, except DLC, which funds the effort). Maybe now they are in a position to take a good look at the UI.

[quote who="Empress_Fujiko" reply="60" id="3609739"] Because to be honest, most of the problems I see with the UI seem to be caused by designing it for only small maps. [/quote] This is a terrific observation. I inquired about this myself a few months ago. According to their stats the vast majority of games are played on smaller maps, and it makes sense to tailor improvements toward the greatest number of players. The interpretation of the stats may be a lit