fantstc1

[quote who="Ticktoc" reply="24" id="3652326"] I think this is probably my final thought. I may be wrong but it is quite the risk, and if it went bad: people annoyed they spent money when all they do are ranked and custom games, people dismissing the whole game as MP centric, people seeing Ashes as a failure as its gone part free to play so don't go near it, and people who are happy to try it but get their fix and move on without buying the base game. Some of those would be hard or im

[quote who="ASADDF" reply="22" id="3652215"] Rivers, weather, landscape Destruction [/quote] Yes.Definitely. [quote who="ASADDF" reply="22" id="3652215"] Custom auto-match non ranked [/quote] Yes. [quote who="ASADDF" reply="22" id="3652215"] Make Air units feel like real air units [/quote] Maybe? Not sure what this means. [quote who="ASADD

Ashes still a very new game. And it's a great game, but it doesn't yet have its "formula" perfected. When the game gets there, there WILL inevitably be more players. But it isn't going to happen overnight. So, I'm sticking I'm sticking to my guns. I strongly agree with those who have indicated that the BEST thing for the game is continued development, increased depth, ongoing improvement of the UI, improvement of unit

Like the new brute. Lens of gun makes it very dalek reminiscent. Serious question... why not just change the name. I recognize branding value... but... why not give it a shot... Companies do it all the time when they sell/merge... Make lots of announcements, co-brand for a while, then rebrand. Just keep the logo.

[quote who="Sakhari" reply="26" id="3650004"] , RTS replayability is almost wholly dependent on a functional and frustration-free skirmish mode. Clear up the frustrations and continue to add reasonably balanced content and odds are, I'll continue to play and start recommending it to others. [/quote] Agree. Although I already recommend it frequently and incessantly. Good game, just with some issues. </

I played last night, and endeavored to check the graphs this time. One match in particular worthy of note, I think... assuming I am correct that the graphs at the end of the match show metal and radioactive accumulation rates (vs. what's in storage). In the match in question, I took several metal nodes before the opponent (ranked 8) even took his third node. I had maybe 4-5 metal nodes, and most were multi-mine nodes.</p

[quote who="xyphonic" reply="69" id="3649391"] Hi, I go to the pre-order page for those who already have Ashes and am not seeing the pre-order price. Thanks. [/quote] You need to be logged into steam. Although, I am not sure the sale is still on.

[quote who="DasUnding" reply="3" id="3649377"] Knigge cheated as well in a very obvious way in ranked games. I have two other guys but I dont have a record of this. I will report them if I have a record. [/quote] Makes me feel better. He beat me pretty convincingly last weekend. I should look at graphs more.

[quote who="Island Dog" reply="48" id="3649353"] Please contact support: https://esupport.stardock.com/index.php?/Tickets/Submit [/quote] Epic. +1 Standing behind the product. :) This is why I like SD.

Starcraft II does something like this. Check out "Archon Mode" in their latest expansion (Legacy of the Void). I like it for Starcraft, because there is a LOT happening very quickly. But Ashes is a different sort of game, and I don't usually find myself time pressured in the same way. I don't know if I'd like it in Ashes, due to the slower speed.

[quote who="Ticktoc" reply="18" id="3649146"] 1) Split the unit attack and HP upgrades into separate ones for T1 and T2 (and above). At the moment T1 does become a little bit obsolete, not totally, but its role becomes a lot smaller. They become easily killed and are especially vulnerable to orbital strikes. If you split the attack and HP upgrades so T1 got their own and so did T2 it means they could be made viable all the way to the end game. [/quote] This i

One one last (crazy) idea: Make the T4 unit type into one that can go "Voltron." So you produce the t$ units, in various combinations that make sense for the situation in the game, and when you have enough, you form them up into an army, and the combine into super-bots (or super ships or whatever). Abilities of the super unit depend on the recipe used (the component units). I guess point is that this w

Here's another idea: #8 temporary units and orbital abilities. By this I mean units and orbitals that aren't always in the game, or at least aren't always available in every game. These special units and orbitals could be released with DLC or at regular intervals. Here are some ideas/notes/variations. - There could be one temp unit/orbital added short term for each faction (a season, a month, a quarter, or

Some quick thoughts on replayability: #1: Polish what you have. It's great, but not there yet. There are still issues. Make the core game as good as it can be. Do this BEFORE you do other stuff, or you will likely do the game a big a disservice. At very least, this should be the major focus in the short term. Make the game at LEAST as tight as starcraft. It's nowhere close yet. #2: Achievement system. Pretty sure this is on steam, bu

1) I'm moving troops along, and one strays off, decides to pick a fight, all by itself, with a huge army at a nearby node. WHY?! Wish it wouldn't do that. Makes unit seem exceptionally brain dead. 2) I call for reinforcements, and rather than follow the trail that I've blazed around the map, the unit takes the shortest course, and plows right through enemy territory, and it killed. Makes unit seem exceptionally brain dead and suicidal. Wish it wouldn't d

[quote who="Archcreature" reply="6" id="3648697"] orbitals coulde affect the map [/quote] Some good ideas there.

[quote who="Ticktoc" reply="14" id="3648500"] I suspect the OP might be thinking much the same about your contribution to this thread. The very first sentence in your initial reply started to derail the thread onto what appears to be an area of strong opinion to yourself but irrelevant to the OP His system was under performing, it is natural to want the best performance after spending a considerable sum of money. And it was well worth investigating as it is the very best kind

+1 Eeek83. And +1 Stardock.

NOTE: Sorry about above posts. For some reason, it seems like my Mac is bugging out. When I click edit, it is adding duplicate posts. And I can't delete them.

[edit]

[edit]

[edit]

[quote who="sjo102784" reply="4" id="3648387"] For gaming, 30+ is playable. Below that, the framerate is too jumpy for me to enjoy. My monitor's refresh rate is 60Hz, so obtaining 60 FPS makes the experience much more fluid and enjoyable. The 24 FPS thing is a trick that 120/240Hz TV's use to blend photos together and refresh the screen in a way that makes the picture look very realistic due to the fact that films are captured at 24

I would just remind you that movies (film) still runs at 24 fps and it is a pretty awesome simulation of real movement. Video runs at 30fps (or something like 29.9) So... why do you need 60 again? Does it make the thoroughly smooth movement look smoother? That aside, I run a similar rig, but I'm not overclocked. Mine is i7 3.3Ghz with 1070. I run around 45 fps, I think, and that is at the top for

[edit]