LingWhisperer

[quote who="AoWFever" reply="38" id="3601863"] Ling, isn't the solution to most (if not all) of your "analysis" just not to use combined-arms meta-units/control groups? [/quote] Firstly, guy, I wrote my post specifically for the devs to consider - as neutrally as possible. I say, "This mechanic punishes combined arms battlegroups," not "This mechanic is bad," or "Combined arms battlegroups are bad." I said what I found to be true about how thi

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="26" id="3601069"] In the 0.62 build, coming into attack range brings speed down to 20%. IN 0.63 we're going to try 33%. During the alpha, it was a common tactic to just run right through the enemy. NOT fun. [/quote] Thank you for your response and this recent change. I will test it soon. I'm going to try to keep this response as succinct as I reasonably can, and I'm going to split it up and try to use fo

[quote who="AoWFever" reply="20" id="3599974"] Your other comments relate more to map design and unit balance than to unit speed and responsiveness. [/quote] Unit speed is an extremely integral aspect of unit balance and function. In fact, mobility is one of the single most important defining characteristics of a unit in any RTS, especially when it is played competitively. In some cases, a single unit type being made 5-10% faster can completely cha

[quote who="AoWFever" reply="18" id="3599939"] Quoting Andre_B, reply 16 Anyway, I find AoS's approach to unit "weight" refreshing, because it frees me up to focus less on individual battle click-fests, and more on my overall tactical deployments and strategies; with the knowledge, of course, that once I commit my forces to battle, they may not be able t

[quote who="eviator" reply="9" id="3599025"] Cordially speaking, to some degree you just did this. While you are offering feedback which will hopefully help the devs, you are also setting up your mindset that Ashes may not meet your expectations at release. You seem to be willing to wait and see, but you are doubtful. I guess it is human nature, even for those offering focused feedback. [/quote] I'm not sure I follow - at no point did I complain about an unfi

I'd also like to add, that overall, as a mechanic this is completely opaque and that makes it even more frustrating to the player. With no icon, visual indicator, or other feedback that this behavior is 1. Intentional and 2. Occurring at this moment, for the average player it just feels like "None of these units are following my orders - my fastest units are moving like snails for no reason!" and breeds frustration. Many players could attribute this behavior to being a re

[quote who="eviator" reply="1" id="3598656"] Are you saying the rest of us have been offering lower quality feedback thus far? [/quote] You are not an early access purchaser on Steam, so no. As I said: "Since the release of Ashes into Early Access, I figured there would be an influx of lower-quality feedback." This is a well documented phenomenon - many people who purchase discounted early access titles on Steam are often not interested into contributing to devel

In most RTSes, static defense has a cost/benefit logic as follows: 1. More expensive than a single equivalent-tier unit. 2. More efficient in damage/durability than a mobile unit of the same cost. 3. Immobile. When players put resources into static defense, it reduces the size of the army they field or slows them down in some other way - it reduces their offensive potential in the near term, and that defense can just be

Hello Devs and fellow founders - since the release of Ashes into Early Access, I figured there would be an influx of lower-quality feedback. After having tested .60 and .61 for several hours each, I figured I would go ahead and log in here to provide some focused feedback. Current version: 0.61.13854 One of the biggest changes recently was a significant buff to the movement speed of T1 units across the board. Oddly, though, I found this has had minimal i

[quote who="eviator" reply="14" id="3568819"] LingWhisperer, sorry but you are not saying anything new here. The devs fully understand this perspective, probably agree with most of it, and are continually brainstorming ideas for addressing it. IMHO we should wait patiently to see what they come up with. [/quote] I was unaware that "adding something new" was a prerequisite to participating in the conversation. I am an

Re: the zoom issue. At the end of the day, you are making a real time strategy game. I understand the aesthetic reasons behind not wanting to zoom out into a sea of icons, but the best strategy games give the player as much information as possible as efficiently as possible. In games without strategic zoom, color coded mini maps are how the player keeps an eye on the big picture - and when you play such a title "seriously" staying on top of a strategically complex situation

Hello, The age of my account is preventing me from participating in discussions in the founder forum, as I am only able to create new threads. Is there any way to get this fixed? Thank you.

To be honest, I only just started reading your post - but the first few lines I read pushed me to respond immediately: Logistic Arrays cannot be built without limit. They require power to construct. Power cannot be acquired from building infrastructure - power acts as a "supply limit" for buildings and is only acquired by taking and holding territory. Therefore, assuming you are not using power to construct factories, defensive structures, or tech structures, you

Intel Core i7 4770k CPU @ 3.50 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Nvidia 760 GTX 4gb, Windows 7 SP1

Hello fellow founders and Ashes devs, I'm a long-time competitive RTS player, and it would be easier to list the RTSes I haven't played over the ones that I have. At the pinnacle of my competitive run, I made it into the top 20,000 world-wide rankings on Starcraft 2 after the Wings of Liberty release. I'm hoping that my experience and perspective as a serious competitive RTS player is valuable. I plan on being an active participant in this game's development process, i