Ticktoc

Ticktoc

Joined Member # 6377229
16 Posts 1,006 Replies 4,900 Reputation

[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="15" id="3613825"] I am certainly not fine with it, if its along the line of SupCom, which had even less faction diversity than original Red Alert. And while StarCraft had no doubt way bigger budget than Ashes, i think those money mainly into fancy single campaign and creating and maintaining Battle.net...not designing diverse enough factions. [/quote] Obviously a lot of money was put into the campaign for Starcraft. But they spent years and have

26 Replies 127,038 Views

[quote who="Sargeras77" reply="2" id="3613655"] Liking it, the slight increase in size for t1 was a good change, as was the size reduction on the building. [/quote] Yup! [quote] Were the terrain pieces for this desert map not affected by the tree scaling? I'm not 100% sure if they are supposed to be trees or small shrubs. If they are the latter the scale seems fine, however if they are trees maybe consider increasing their scale to match the

5 Replies 7,756 Views

[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="13" id="3613754"] Bottom line, i hope those shields, slightly different unit roster (in the mould of SupCom, where factions differ just by subtleties, but generally mirror each other) and different sets of those orbitals is not the entire difference from PHC. [/quote] I would expect it to be more along the lines of SupCom (which I am fine with). Starcraft way (as an example of very significant difference) takes a very big budget, more time,

26 Replies 127,038 Views

[quote who="cpletourneau" reply="45" id="3613712"] I found a real life player to test out the AAA a squad of 10 planes is able to kill a HQ by 50% ON A SINGLE RUN WITH 15 AAA around the base and killed the HQ on the 2nd pass, i do think the AAA needs the to be added to the HQ and maybe have a better AAA system then the standard AAA you can build to help protect the HQ. [/quote] Interesting. Perhaps try a similar test but put a bunch of fighters above/around the Nexus instead

50 Replies 195,275 Views

[quote who="eviator" reply="5" id="3613608"] Buildings for metal and radioactive storage was in during the first founder pre-alpha release, and many found it to be tedious. I know it adds to the immersion, but it sucked a lot of fun out of the gameplay, as did the logistics buildings, which had us spending an undue amount of time in our base instead of directing armies. [/quote] The problem may have been because it had both. TA had storage but no logistics buildings. Starcra

11 Replies 8,512 Views

[quote who="eviator" reply="20" id="3613609"] "Leading" is a loaded word here. If it leads an army in the sense that it is up in front, probably not the best idea. But it's okay for it to be the army leader, as long as it sits in the back of the formation. This might be nuts, but here is an idea. If during the course of a fight you are doing next to nothing because of an abundance of capacitors, it would make sense to target the capacitors. However if the capacitor is havi

23 Replies 758 Views

[quote who="eviator" reply="18" id="3613603"] I'm sure this is, at worst, a tweak of CSV files, but it seemed to me that the capacitors acted a little bit like meat shields for the other T1 units. Sure they have higher health and shields, but without capacitors the other units are sitting ducks, which would handicap the whole army. So it would seem to me that capacitors need to be protected, not protectors. On the flip side, going against the Substrate means that enemy uni

23 Replies 758 Views

Impressive work. It would take a lot to do that though. Adding extra cannons and other upgrade to units would need a bunch more model variants. More importantly the current models would have had to have been designed with room for extra things to be stuck on in mind. The advantage of course is that you could see what many of upgrades people have are. Certainly some good ideas in there though if the Devs want to make research a bit more refined, instead of just increase h

11 Replies 8,512 Views

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="11" id="3613541"] Most of the Hyperion weapons can't hit buildings. Might change that. [/quote] If it is a pure anti-unit T3 I think that is okay, it just has to be very good at it. I think you also asked in the video if people had alternative names for Dreadnoughts. It's not a bad name as it stands. Battleship could be used but you could also save that for the Navy and/or T2.5 (I reckon there is potential for a unit

23 Replies 758 Views

Big engineers do have a real world precedent. You can get truly massive cranes and construction trucks which dwarf military vehicles. I think lighting the engineer in a similar fashion to the repair unit would work but the larger engineer does work too, even if you have to accept it is just massive :)

4 Replies 17,602 Views

Cool! Perhaps for demonstration videos you can drop the AI down a touch in difficulty, just for ease of demonstration of course ;). Though I half suspect it was on purpose so you can keep the hype going for the T3 and orbital abilities going longer :) Bit of feedback: - Possibly not a popular voice but I would make the T1 a little bigger. 1) It doesn't matter how unique the shapes are if they are so small that when you zoom out they are just a fuzzy dot 2)

23 Replies 758 Views

Ashes of the Singularity Total War: Warhammer Civilization 6 (Have played and liked them all except Civ V) Will look at Cossacks 3 , meant to have thousands of units, and kinda old-school, might be fun. Doom - better have co-op though! Deus Ex: Mankind Divided Serious Sam 4 Not heard much about it for a while so ma

32 Replies 243,064 Views

Are all the armours in yet? I guess you put in Nexus armour at least partially to make bombing snipes harder to pull off. Going by memory, but just the way you wrote this compared to the Substrate...the Substrate do sound way cooler :) Can you tell us what kind of point defence the Substrate have? Really appreciating the frequent posts.

4 Replies 246 Views

[quote who="Sargeras77" reply="4" id="3613252"] If units lose their orders when their meta unit gets killed why would I want to even assign my units to an army vs just leaving them ungrouped and using control groups like current RTS games to give orders? I like the thinking but I'm not sure that it will be a good thing for pushing players towards army usage. [/quote] I think you misunderstood him (unless I have misunderstood instead :)), he says that that is the cu

13 Replies 897 Views