Ticktoc

A very minor thing but have you considered another symbol for the nodes which have both a radioactive resource as well as metal ones? Perhaps a triangle inside a circle. Huge maps sound...huge, which is going to be especially great when we get sea and navy. You mentioned before some problems with water and VRAM limits. Can you go in to that more? Does the fact that it moves make it more expensive than rendering land? Wouldn't you use repeat tiles so to speak? Civ 5's w

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="4" id="3634684"] Quoting Ticktoc, <a

Sortable map lists F3 selects all of your unattached air on screen (needs keymap picture updated) Various improvements to formations Pathfinding improvements Army formation improvements Great to see those and will be interesting to try them. Will be interesting to see what "UI Support Huge sized maps" entails as we only have large at the moment. We've had a lot of (important) small balance patches which is good

[quote who="eviator" reply="16" id="3634274"] Quoting Frogboy, <

http://steamcommunity.com/app/228880/discussions/1/364040166674376811/ This week's Micro Update! Just a head's up that we did a small update to Ashes of the Singularity today! Here's what's new: + New Mission: Rigel III (campaign mission between missions 1 and 2) + Nexus Armor increased from 12

[quote who="Sargeras77" reply="9" id="3633321"] If some of the maps are added to the ranked pool for everyone in order to diversify the ranked map pool and change it up from time to time I wouldn't mind the DLC it at all. I just don't want what could be great maps kept out of rotation because they are optional micro-DLC. [/quote] In the Steam forums Frogboy has said ranked could use them as the server can hold the content even if the players don't have it.

I agree with Moomo, on the smaller maps you don't want to be pumping out Quantum generators all the time, especially with 2 engineers as the Radioactive cost is just too high. I often had one engineer at it much of the time until recently when I worked out why my radioactives were always in such bad shape. I do like to get up to 3 of them if possible though and of course on the large maps you can pretty much have an engineer on them all the time and end up with loads of them.

haha, you won't get banned for this post. I would also like better responsiveness to targeted/focus fire. I know it is not the focus of the game but I still think it can be improved upon. A few months back while trying to see at what points the smoke and then fire and smoke started coming out of a Dreadnought I walked a Hyperion into the enemy base. I have to admit I hadn't realised how bad the dreadnought was at listening to my commands, as I observed that I had almost no ability to

Hopefully in a month or two you will be able to load it up into the games Steam Workshop for all to enjoy. Right now I guess you can only upload it onto one of the free cloud storage services and then put the link to it into a post on here and on the Steam forum. One of the Founders on here did create a website to put maps on but I haven't seen him on here for a while. Perhaps you could send them to him to add to his database: http://www.havagame.com/Hava/maps/

I think a map and Scenario DLC is fine. The units won't be in the DLC, the money from the DLC is going towards funding more units. I think it has been said if you don't own the map DLC you can still join and play with someone who has created a MP game with one of the new maps, which is fine I think and the way to do it. It just means they won't be able to do SP skirmish on it and likely won't be able to create a lobby and choose one of the new maps for MP. At $3.99 it

[quote who="Sim_Kill" reply="1" id="3632981"] Why would you make Substrate more OP than they already are by making their anti-frigate unit an anti T1 unit as well?! [/quote] Frigate and T1 are the same thing. The Avenger was always designed to be the T2's anti-T1 unit I believe. I agree that Substrate may have balance tipped in their favour a bit at the moment (after being behind for a while) but the Avenger is not the reason for that.

[quote who="Moomo" reply="8" id="3632737"] Quoting Ticktoc, reply 7 I didn't get the 3rd line of instruction but it works fine regardless Copy the TAGMOD folder, and paste into the "Assets\UI\Art\" folder. This is not essential, it is just an image that is displayed in the menu

Cool initiative. I didn't get the 3rd line of instruction but it works fine regardless. Running in the background as I type this. The numbers of troops is actually growing quite slowly as they are killing each other. By far the greatest reason for poor performance/jerkiness seems to be the actual graphics for beaming down the troops. Possibly for the same reason the close-to-victory glowing and pulsating Turinium generators hurt performance in a skirmish game - they knock a good 20-30FPS

[quote]Two new difficulty levels: Novice and Intermediate [/quote] Will you be making Easy easier now with the introduction of these two? I introduced the game to a friend the other day on small - medium ish map. Him and me vs Easy and Normal. I was just gonna kick my feet up playing with normal, trying a few different things while he was more lined up to take on Easy. Easy started very slowly but by the end it was throwing dreadnoughts at me and did a good job at putting m

[quote who="Moomo" reply="3" id="3632715"] Quoting Ticktoc, reply 2 try putting the Terrain Shading Samples to medium Only three options for me are Low, High, and Ultra. However, like Ultra defaulting to High after restart, Setting to High defaults to Mid after restart.

I've also reported the graphics issue on Steam as it resets them when you reboot the game so they are impossible to set. Btw using mGPU will only at best go twice as fast as the slowest card, so your 570 would be highly likely to slow your Titan down and give you worse results. Especially at your resolution and high settings as even if your 570 had the graphics crunching power (which it doesn't) it certainly doesn't have the VRAM for it. I'd stick to just the Titan.</p

[quote who="MartialDoc" reply="11" id="3632531"] I have yet to see a mob of T1s outmatch a group of T2 cruisers unless the T1 group has such high numbers and the opposition is composed too much of T2 cruisers with little or no T1 support. However, isn't that the idea? If one player relies too much on cruisers without the support of frigates, then a swarm of frigates should be able to, well, swarm them. If one player keeps T2 cruisers supported by T1 frigates then they fair very well

1) Has caught me out in the past. The host and I had finished a game and sat in the lobby for a 2nd game and waited to see if others would join. We waited a good 5 - 10 minutes before I noticed it had gone to private. Ha, we felt foolish :) Perhaps it is designed so everyone can come back to the lobby when a game is finished or something? But I agree and I think others have fallen victim to it too.

I assume novice and intermediate will come immediately before Normal? You might want to call change the name of Normal to something else and have intermediate perceived as the new "Normal". I say this as I've seen reviews and even Angry Joe's video where "experienced" RTS guys play normal straight off the bat and get beaten and blame the game for being too hard, yet are too rigid in how they see their skill level to drop to a lower level. Just a thought.

Ha, so many replies while I wrote mine and since. I agree the pricing should have been £30 instead of £40, or the equivalent in $ you guys mention. It would likely have lead to noticeably more sales. But who knows, perhaps the weaker campaign would have meant a lot more negative reviews leading to worse long term sales. So making a push for further sales once the improved campaign is done, along with all the patching etc. done in the meantime, may in fact garner similar sales but

[quote who="psychoak" reply="20" id="3632344"] When you live and die by your metacritic/steam review aggregate, spending twice as much money to get a 90 average instead of the mid 70's isn't a bad investment. You guys barely hit the top ten with Ashes, it's so not cool when it deserves to sell way better than it is.[/quote] So if they have a $3m budget for the game then they just double that to $6m? How does an indepentent studio do that? Borr

I think Eviator's breakdown is not bad. The worry I have is that GalCiv 3 is a primarily single player experience where Ashes is more of a MP one. That means if the game comes out at a AAA price but is not polished and gets average reviews not so many people will pick it up and the MP will die before it can establish itself. So even if the game is much better a year down the line people won't pick it up because the MP is too small. You could argue that SP skirmish will keep it alive l

I like the idea made by RazzorLight above where we get more than one T4 to choose from but that the number you can build is limited through one mechanic or another. I like that there are lots of plans for improving the game. I kinda wish you had consulted with the community on the 3rd race. I haven't really brought them up before as from other posts dating back to Early Alpha you have, on paper at least, gone quite far in their planning/design. My personal hope

If sounds like you are doing a map DLC. I am glad people who don't buy it can play it in MP. As Utter says, please keep the price low, the vanilla game is not cheap in itself, which is likely why 200,000 people put it on their wishlist instead of buying it outright (according to a post you made earlier). Also I hope we are looking at 20+ maps at least :) I'm only a basic Founder so I'll be buying it no doubt and I am happy to support further development through well priced DLC.</p

Thanks for the preview, much appreciated. Some nice things to look forward to and try there.