[quote who="ASADDF" reply="30" id="3619948"] Quoting quadrium, reply 28 "Thank you for not letting us control our units by imposing these arbitrary* and confusing* limitations! That was such a pain in every other RTS!" Have you ever played Company of Heroes? if not go and try it, its an awesome game. [/quote]</p
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="19" id="3619745"]Re Army centric. That's our goal. [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] Good to hear, and I know it was the plan, that's why I'm here, trying to support the game by providing ideas (and arguing with you). Would you say that the game, as it currently stands, is army-centric? It is not even close to being army-centric, currently . As I understand the term, it would mean to have th
[Preamble: I've been away for a while, sorry if I've missed some (many) discussions; but I have to say I am quite surprised by the tone in this (Founders') thread -- what happened?!] Anyway, about the original post. Please read the following as the words of a concerned, but hopeful, supporter. I don't mean to criticize, and I certainly don't claim to know anything about producing or releasing games... Let me try and formulate my response like this: "THE RTS
[quote who="cosmiccensor" reply="30" id="3612608"] To reduce the "mop up" problem, I'd like to see a "power balance" game ending condition. For a two player game, for example, one player wins as soon as they have superior economy and military, where "superior" would be configurable (factors 1.5, 2, 4, ...). Of course, the "imbalance" factor would need to be visualized (always, or only when close to the configured threshold). Isn't this w
[quote who="eviator" reply="5" id="3605839"][...] Case in point, the founders have had access to the game for many months, but the most substantial changes to pre-existing mechanics have been: 1. Removal of the power system 2. Moving logistics to research-based from of building-based 3. Removing research as a barrier to building advanced units. [...] So while you should be proud of the effort you put into your great idea, unfortunate
[quote who="eviator" reply="2" id="3605739"]I read the whole thing. Many good points and ideas here. [/quote] Thanks. What would be interesting to hear however, is where, in your opinion, the proposals made are suboptimal/improvable. Where would they be unintuitive, or show undesired behaviour? [quote who="eviator" reply="2" id="3605739"]I am fearful that the devs are running out of time, that the army mechanics are close to as good as they are going to get by release, th
Please excuse the "programmer art"! :) The "crescents" could be more aesthetically pleasing (or be replaced by a different visualization method), but the following is only meant to briefly illustrate some of the points I made in the OP. Image 1/5 No units or armies selected, but the army boundaries are visible. This should probably only be displayed when "Shift" is clicked, and when the mouse is hovering over indi
The current Ashes user interface and game mechanics appear to still be quite traditional-RTS unit-centric, when they could be more army-centric instead. This post lists army-related issues, and presents solutions to those issues. I invite everyone to provide feedback and ideas for possible improvements! (Can you find a case where it breaks down?) @Frogboy : Please consider the proposals made, and let the responsible developer
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="48" id="3605712"] Quoting Mered4, reply 46 FrogBoy: One of the things that I absolutely LOVE about Planetary Annihilation is the Area Command function. I play FaF alot these days and it really annoys me that I can't do the one-two clicks that I can pull in PA to reclai
[quote who="Mered4" reply="45" id="3605667"] Quoting quadrium, reply 44 Separate non-repeated, prependable "priority queue" (PA)! What do yo
Late Reply; This is what I would take from SC[2]/FA[F]/PA; and what I would extend it with: General ETA, everywhere for everything. Proper flow economy (always allow ordering buildings and units, even while stalling) More sophisticated "features" for zoom, like auto-grouping with handles (SC2) Unit Queue Management Moving o
Another thing that could be part of a DLC: Colorization/theming of units, and especially drawing/importing a logo/flag, that then is displayed on every unit, but prominently on buildings and dreadnoughts! Of course, my theme/logo/flag would be shown to other players in MP (on my units)! :D EDIT: The themes and logos would naturally make different players' armies look like belonging to different PHC/Substrate/XYZ "factions", and would make more plausible why they
[quote quoting="post"] Fixed artillery piece. Built by engineers. Expensive. Good for securing an area. [/quote] More tactical buildings are always welcome. Combining ranged attacks with elevation should be an important part: Using mountain "ranges" as barriers (delay an enemy raid against the artillery), and slopes as mechanisms to favor high altitudes over lower ones. [quote quoting="post"] Tech that allows Frigates (T1s) to ignore the engagement speed
3-8-1 [quote quoting="post"] Cruiser Factory You won’t be able to instantly start building Cruisers like before. The Cruiser factory will require radioactives and a lot of metal to build. This makes early build order decisions matter a lot more and paves the way for us to add more units later on without the factory becoming ridiculous. [/quote] Having separate factories for each tier sounds nice. But why would the factory
Disclaimer: MP and selling DLCs aren't my forte, so use my input at your own risk! :) What would cripple the MP experience? I can come up with: Split of the community, by not allowing certain players to join certain games ("thinning the graph") MP gameplay advantages for DLC-owners ...others? Stuff that doesn't violate the above: Purely cosmetic changes (as mentioned above: theming, music, sounds; probably limit
Simple idea: The UI shall indicate not only current idleness, but also "imminent idleness"! Many games highlight idle builders. Telling me that my factories or engineers are running out of orders should happen before they actually run out of orders, because a lot of them can become idle simultaneously and/or I can't react right away because I'm putting out a fire somewhere else, leaving builders idle for quite some time. As a so
[quote who="molokoww" reply="24" id="3605267"][...] I want to be able to tell units to follow each other. [/quote] I think Ashes won't support that. And it doesn't need to, since "units following each other" is done by combining them into an army.
[quote who="molokoww" reply="24" id="3605267"]Brutes are great in packs of 4. I see no problems other than I want to be able to tell units to follow each other. [/quote] No problems? What about all the problems mentioned so far in this thread? (Not just by me.) Since armies should definitely report the number of units that are part of them (the actual number, not the subgroups), but this number isn't the one that's used in factories, you have a complica
[quote who="tatsujb" reply="23" id="3605218"]Quoting quadrium, reply 21 but Spacebar is the map, currently. yeah but who uses THAT?[/quote] I think it comes in handy for quickly seeing what's happening (hot spots) on the entire battlefield. I wouldn't be sad if this stayed, even with full strategic zoom.
[quote who="ThatLad" reply="22" id="3605213"]Quadrim in stardrive you don't micro manage a every single ship in a fleet just as in atos,your fleet can be tailoered to do exactly what you want when you want,so I'll use aots unit examples,if you have attached to a meta unit and an opposing meta unit has anti air instead of the bombers attack the meta unit as a whole you could have bombers attack anti air before any other unit in that meta unit,so you makeup a template for whatever
[quote who="tatsujb" reply="19" id="3605186"]I can at least relate to not liking the middle mouse button click. it is indeed awkward but it never bothered me in supcom since you never needed pan over zoom-based pan. I suggest spacebar + mouse movement. [/quote] I actually hate middle mouse panning as well (because pressing the scrollwheel is awkward), that's why I've mapped the middle mouse button to other buttons on my mouse. I thought about Spac
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="17" id="3605104"] Re Brutes/Archers This is a bit of a trade off. Those brutes actually are 4 different units in every sense of the term. So why did we do this? Balance. We don't want the factory cranking out a unit every 4 seconds. It's overwhelming to new players. But we also wanted to balance the game around rate of fire. So that some units could do a lot of damage but have a slow rate o
[quote who="ThatLad" reply="15" id="3605068"]When I first heard of aots,I heard we could create and tailor our armies/meta groups how ever we want I thought it would be a little bit more then just click to build what units we wanted to add to a certain meta unit,I imagined it would of been something similar a stardrive(space RTS)type interface, it that interface you could for example set default behaviours for each unit type,so low health torpedo ships would attack only from a certain d
[quote who="tatsujb" reply="12" id="3605014"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 5 what is chrono cam? [...] it's pretty mind-blowing actually. [...] Uber had plans to use this feature to unlock "Pick-up-anywhere-as-anyone-in-the-game" in replays. Which honestly I'm
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="5" id="3604877"] [...] but what is chrono cam? [/quote] Oh. You really have to try PA if you haven't already! Chrono Cam is basically a review tool, or "interactive movie player" to explore the past of a game. It is normally and extensively used for reviews, but it is available, with the same functionality, in-game! That is, for example, when I see one of my outposts obliterated, and I missed it, I can very quickly open Chrono Cam and go back