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.
You are absolutely wrong that nobody would want to disable specializations. It was a huge negative talking point when they enabled them during the beta.
With the low pre-1.5 growth rate, I found it difficult to sustain invasion wars on large maps. Now it's easier. I never need hospitals. Maybe a middle ground is appropriate.
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
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.
[quote who="Ragic" reply="5" id="3610755"] I guess I'm in the minority but I like having a reason to click on my planets each turn. I don't want everything controlled via universal commands. The planets feel more important to me that way. I'm just afraid you want the game streamlined for rediculously large maps to the point where the game can be played from a spread sheet. Don't lose the immersion just for efficiency. [/quote] I can understand that, but let&#
[quote who="MacsenLP" reply="3" id="3610648"] I think Constructor/Starbase what has been previously mentioned you only need constructor to set up initial starbase then modules will be handled similarly to how production to shipyards work. I may be miss-remembering but sounded good to me, would mean a lot less constructor ships and having to move them all. [/quote] I had forgotten about that. I'll wait and see.
Macsen's 2, 3, and 4 are at the top of my wish list. 2. In addition, I also need simple identification of which techs are specializations, plus which techs (and their effect) I would be unable to research by getting that tech. 3. In addition to the sorts/filters Macsen identified, I want the ability to multi-select ships for obsoleting/deleting. 4. Yes! My own constructor/starbase wishes: Let me choose the constructor and shipyard requested by starbases. Gi
These suggestions would be a terrific start to improving the UI. +1
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?
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
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.
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
[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
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
Well even if it gets countered in the next patch, I had fun figuring it out. Cheers!
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
Look back through the forums and see the many threads saying normal is too hard. Gives me trouble from time to time if I don't execute well. Either way the AI doesn't have a strategy for this rush yet, so success above normal varies depending upon how much the AI is cheating.
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
Well regardless of whether you are a godlike player or a vocal minority player, everyone can benefit from a better UI, so let's give them a nice list of our UI "needs work" issues and see if they can do it. It doesn't hurt to ask. I'm in the process of compiling a huge list now. For example, the shipyard screen, you might as well scrap it and start from scratch with the issues I'm putting together :P
You all knew this was coming. Decent execution against the normal AI on one of the new 1v1 maps. Enjoy! [video]https://youtu.be/o4aGmu5sl98[/video]
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="39" id="3609211"] So really it is not about it being a bad game, it is about 'time'? Time which can be very difficult to get much of it for a whole bunch of people, so time is a precious thing to waste fiddling about with unnecessary inefficiencies in the UI? [/quote] Yeah, I've never considered this a bad game. The gameplay uses a good recipe. Thinking back to all my negative posts, nearly all are UI gripes, not so much
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
[quote who="naselus" reply="34" id="3609115"] Or me, apparently. I love how eviator can make a post saying the UI is crap, SD are ignoring problems so they can milk more money from DLC, and that he's sick of this and will walk if it's not sorted out PDQ, and Frogboy 'loves' that,... [/quote] Yeah, I probably deserved more push-back than I got. I could have used a more productive tone. A personality flaw I'm continually trying to improve. That said, I
I'm specifically avoiding comparisons to SupCom so that I can evaluate this game on its own merits. Looking at the 100,000 foot view, I think the overall design of the game is in a good state. I'm generally happy with the units, the research, the global ability system, the economy, the region system, armies, and victory conditions. It seems to me that all of the base game elements are in (except one) for the release product. Here are things I think need work by release. I know much of
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
neilkaz, this only addresses your Precursor anomaly concern, but I think you might be happy to know that Paul specifically mentioned in the most recent dev stream that the power and abundance of those will need to be toned way down. Expect a patch on that soon.
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
Frogboy I appreciate the response. I hope I have made it clear that the UI concerns in my OP are just the tip top of the iceberg, just the things that I remembered from my most recent game. To me these things hint at a larger UI design issue that I personally don't think can be patched here and there to fix. The UI was built in pieces as new gameplay mechanics were added, and it feels like patchwork in many places. I'm recommending a complete overhaul, which would hopefully address al
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
It sounds to me, using comparisons to GC2, that you folks are cool with the idea that the game may continue to have many UI moles until we've gone through a few expansion cycles, which means years. Is that so? Sure I guess I can wait until 2018 to enjoy playing a 2015 game.
GalCiv3 Forums