It is not possible to play a strategic battle if you are only able to see a small number of units and no overall terrain. I get the devs do not like the icons but they also say that want large, strategic battles. Not going to happen with you zoomed into a tiny part of a huge map. The larger the map, the bigger the issue (taking you a long time to scroll to points on the map or to see how to map-control). +1 to Kazz too.
duplicate
SC and SC:FA were my top fav games...no one mentioned SupCom2 because it was a total horror and ranks among my biggest disappointments in sequentials. I don't think they are saying "play this old game instead"...more they are comparing. I have no problem comparing a game of today to many years ago. It is not meant to be exact; more how it compares quality, depth, gameplay wise etc
it seemed like is resource collection had been scaled way back
Beta 1, I could win tough maybe 50% of the time in 1v1. Now, I am running painful and it feels like Beta 1 "normal" level. They seem to not get a bonus to resource collection as I out resource painful AI which is way different than before. They do not vven get a dreag out before the end is over. I ran repair just because I was so surprised by the "improved AI". Anyone else?
by autobuild, I meant that select engineer and task to resource node and he builds the right resource collector on all the open spots. That would save a ton of clicks
select engineer, click on captured node, have engineer build resource collectors. +1 on air/ground select
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="5" id="3622452"] I'm writing from an iPhone so my responses are brief. but I will not support automating engineers. The current level of micro vs. macro is what we were going for. [/quote] Then I respectively suggest you will not achieve the desired goal of large macro military engagements on huge maps (and if they occur the player won;t see it because he is zoomed into somewhere else managing his engineers). Also, I did
tatsujb, I agree with you. I find the immediate, and incorrect summary of what I was saying and dismissing it in its entirety disappointing coming from a developer, As you point out, it is something any RTS has to deal with and my comments were I thought the balance between the time spent on the two (economy and military) was wrong. The fix is to reduce the amount of time micro'ing your economy (including the mechanics of how you direct engineers and select their tasks
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="3622436"] I so disagree here. At some point the game plays itself then. [/quote] I dont want it to play itself but you need to find a way to allow the player to fight a macro battle vs micro the whole time So you disagree with what you think I asked for (auto play) (even though I did not ask for this).... but you also did not dispute that too much time is spent on micro; or that there is not enough time spent on macro
The devs talk about epic battles with large macro units on huge maps, where the player is strategically managing vs micro managing units. The problem? 90% of my time is spent micro managing; especially engineers. Built resources nodes, amplifiers, buildings, defenses, units. I am not sure the solution since beyond having engineers auto build resource collectors, it would be tough since you need to manage resource allocation etc. I many play AI on small/med
looks...a sins of solar empire map!
so what makes a VIP?
[quote who="eviator" reply="8" id="3612481"] Quoting Ticktoc, reply 6 Quoting Frogboy, reply 5 you need t build more tha
[quote who="Ticktoc" reply="6" id="3612429"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 5 you need t build more than new quantum relay. You should basically always be building them. As soon as I get radioactives I start building Relays, not long after that I'll add another engineer and have two Relays buildin
right now PHC have to go logisitics, then logisitics, and then logisitics so EMP is great but you need to do something about quanta otherwise global abilities sit there without any spare quanta. Relays take a long time and the quanta is very slow to come until you have a bunch so early game, all quanta end up being used on logisitics.
OK. Here are results: 359.06 on "standard" and everything is fine 20-30 fps 361.43 on "low" everything is fine 45 fps 361.43 on "standard" and all hell breaks lose 3-7 fps Starting from "low", and then changing one at a time, no issues except both MSAA and Textures set to standard levels will cause the issue. Now this time I let the game play out a bit more. With "
I am running all this on 2-person map. Set at "low" fixes the issue and "standard" fails....trying to find the setting that borks things. I edited my post I ....I think the GPU memory thing was compared "in menu" vs "in game" or a riva tuner reporting issue Going to stock CPU did not change anything (it is running at 45C with OC) Edit: I see I had typo. Card is 560 (actually 560Ti-448). Yes, below minimum b
CPU is fine and not affected by the NVIDIA drivers. My cpu runs below 50C at 1.25V at 4.4GHz. This is not a system RAM issue so 1333 is not relevant either. Without changing ANYTHING, running 359.06 works and 361.43 does not. (I am less sure about GPU memory now as I have gone back and forth and it seems to vary in both versions)
Nvidia 760 560Ti-448 and a 2500K OC to 4.5GHz Win10 Pro Everything on default on control panel I can go back and forth with 359.06 and reproduce the issue every time.
Installed NVIDIA Releases 361.43 and now Ashes is unplayable at ~5 fps; all jerking (DX11, Win10, single player, standard quality)
3-7-8
me and friend in 2v2 vs AI. Every game would pause at 5:32 - four games in a row He was running DX12 while I was on DX11. We both switched to 11 and the bug pause stopped. Note we could not unpause the game.
as long as slow down affects all units in battle group (rather than just those being attacked), it really puts a big disadvantage on battle group usage versus leaving ungrouped.
I like the new heath bars but the progress bar is too small and hard to see (1920x1200 27" anyway)