Jump to content


Photo

Valiant Effort


35 replies to this topic

#21 Loth Don

Loth Don
  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 28 September 2007 - 03:14 PM

Haven't been around in a while (comp kinda went 'splody) but this looks good, so huzzah for you Phoenix.

It's a nice model too; appropriately non-standard for the Rebels. I remember you talking about that one, how the armament was terrible... Makes me think of the z3r0x one. Annoying as all hell. Complete powerhouse of weaponry, but so fragile even fighters could knock it out. Annoying to fight OR use. Had so many weapon hardpoints they overlapped...

Nice to see your version though. Keep up the good work!


That's how many games/mods are. They take the rock-papers-scissors approach to an extreme, and over-simplify the ways to balance units.

Look at how nearly every Star Wars game with an AT-AT makes it almost as easy as slicing pie to lasso them with a speeder. Sorry, but it took Wedge to do that at Hoth. But I guess every pilot can be just like Wedge.

Anyway, I'm glad this mod is taking an approach that is grounded in lore and war logic, not in saturday morning cartoons and game console logic.

#22 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 28 September 2007 - 08:47 PM

Well said, both of you ;).

And not just Wedge, but Wedge and Janson :good:. It's kind of like having an A-wing counter the Executor, except on the ground :lol:. Well, at least you know I won't do that with the T-47s when I get there, at least not without extensive upgrades :good:.

#23 Davis 65

Davis 65
  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 29 September 2007 - 01:09 AM

ya now that would suck you'd be marchin in a couple of AT-ATs and then u see a flight of speeders and ud just be like f**k

#24 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 29 September 2007 - 02:23 AM

The "fortunate" thing about EaW is that the cable ability is bugged and doesn't seem to work half the time :good:.

#25 Pred the Penguin

Pred the Penguin

    title available

  • Members
  • 276 posts

Posted 30 September 2007 - 08:20 AM

Seems to work fine for me, cept when near the map border.
Then again, my speeders kept getting shot down by the AT-ATs. O_o

Posted Image
My Work:[1],[2]


#26 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 30 September 2007 - 09:19 AM

I've had them do their three loops or whatever it is, drop the tow cable, and the AT-AT just walks through it.

#27 RebelScum

RebelScum
  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 30 September 2007 - 01:42 PM

I've had them do their three loops or whatever it is, drop the tow cable, and the AT-AT just walks through it.


That's why u cause a distraction with some tanks, troops, and vehicle turrets. :shiftee:

Then ur speeders have an easy lasso run. ;)

#28 jdk002

jdk002

    Destroyer.. er.. Creator of Worlds

  • Project Team
  • 269 posts

Posted 30 September 2007 - 09:00 PM

personally, i think it was a little of wedge/janson's skill and the fact there were so many speeders, im sorry but it took what, a whole squadron just to down 1 AT-AT? also how many did they lose to the AT-ATs? a hell of a lot. the cable attack is all well and good but it shouldnt be the best counter imo, and it should take a hell of a lot of speeders to slip through the AT-ATs anti-air capability.

#29 Decay

Decay
  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 30 September 2007 - 10:53 PM

personally, i think it was a little of wedge/janson's skill and the fact there were so many speeders, im sorry but it took what, a whole squadron just to down 1 AT-AT? also how many did they lose to the AT-ATs? a hell of a lot. the cable attack is all well and good but it shouldnt be the best counter imo, and it should take a hell of a lot of speeders to slip through the AT-ATs anti-air capability.



good points!

#30 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 01 October 2007 - 02:26 AM

Wedge and Janson got one with tow cables, Luke got another with a concussion grenade, and Hobbie rammed another. So three by the hands of the Rebels, but I think more were lost due to reckless maneuvering over unstable terrain near the drop site.

But as far as I'm concerned, there isn't a heavier ground assault vehicle available (the SPHA is certainly larger, but it doesn't really fill that heavy armor role), so they shouldn't just have some cheap counter. I understand the desire to do things like that to make the game feel more like the movies, but at the same time, if you have huge walkers tripping all over the place, it really doesn't do them or the pilots who dropped them justice.

#31 jdk002

jdk002

    Destroyer.. er.. Creator of Worlds

  • Project Team
  • 269 posts

Posted 01 October 2007 - 01:43 PM

good points

if you do decide to add it id suggest trying to tweak the AT-ATs so they can pretty much one shot K.O. the speeders, also that would certainly help with another balancing issue, the imperials apparent lack of AA without turrets.

Edited by jdk002, 01 October 2007 - 01:43 PM.


#32 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    Sith Lord of Campaigns

  • Project Team
  • 2,035 posts
  •  Phoenix Rising QA Lead; Manual Editor

Posted 01 October 2007 - 02:56 PM

Stick around; not every new unit has been announced yet...



Hey, WOW look at all the new units. Fighters, freighters - WOOOWWWW!

(I didnt notice cos you didn't tell us..)


Can you tell us a bit about each of the new ones. I don't recognise some of them (or their affiliation) - such as the A9, R41 & HWK-290
What is slung under the nose of the A9?
I guess you would task the A9 as an interceptor, the ARC 170 a heavy fighter, R41 as an advanced heavy fighter - is this right?


PS. Love the gunship model. The old one didn't have it.

This looks mean and fast. Love it.

Can you do the same to the Carrack class. The model looks old and tired by comparison now.


and finally... what's the difference between using the Barloz and the YT1300, because you have allowed $100 per population point for transports. Both have class 2 hyperdrives and the same armament but the YT1300 is faster sublight while the Barloz can carry more.
Is it feasible to adjust the amount of money each class generates based on speed, cargo capacity and protection. I mean you average Action IV is going to be carrying 'fertilizer' or other cheap ... 'organic material', while the better protection and speed offered by a YT1300 or Barloz will command more expensive cargoes.

I love the idea of having all these different ships, but at the moment why not just buy the cheapest?
In a fight against even weak fighters they are all going to die...

Could you therefore amend the revenue streams based on cargo capacity, SPEED and the level of protection offered. Luxury goods are often perishable and historically, the first ship home made the most money. Speed is where the money is.

Edited by Ghostrider, 01 October 2007 - 04:05 PM.


#33 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 02 October 2007 - 12:24 AM

Yeah, I uploaded those the other day, then ran out of time to post about them. I should do that now.

The Carrack-class is one of my least favorite of new models too, but I have yet to find a better alternative. Plus a few of the vanilla models still remain which are in slightly more dire need of replacement (Victory, Liberty, etc.).

The difference between using one light freighter opposed to the other is marginal at this point because, like you said, they generate the same amount of income. I'm considering making cargo capacity into a quantitative measurement with a revamp some time in the future, depending how it goes, but for now, it's fixed. The only difference is the amount of defense you get tactically. Keep in mind, freighters are still "supposed" to have a salvage ability that lets them produce income through salvaging combat kills, but the ability is bugged, so that's kind of indefinitely on hold at this point :xd:.

#34 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    Sith Lord of Campaigns

  • Project Team
  • 2,035 posts
  •  Phoenix Rising QA Lead; Manual Editor

Posted 02 October 2007 - 08:55 AM

Ok - understand the wait on cargo capacity - but how about minor variations based on hyperdrive capability. This at least makes sense. As the empire I always only by Action IV cos they are cheap.
I have found that the mediocre defenses of all other transports (barloz, Lambda etc), means they last a bit longer in a lightfight, but they are pretty damn useless against a major invasion force. A decent enemy fighter force nails most freighters and transports so fast it doesnt really matter what defences they have.

And lets face it, if you have freighters in orbit when the baddies turn up, you arn't going to bugout cos you lose the space station - unless you have tons of them, at which point you are probably going to choose to keep the freighters and bugout anyway.

Incidentally - you said in your latest post that they YT-1300 superceded the Barloz because of its modular design features and fast Corellian engines, but it has the same hyperdrive rating as the Barloz class.
In light of the huge popularity of the YT 1300, presumably because of the improved funds it generates, could you consider giving this a small financial incentive, say hyperdrive modifier of 1.75.

How about this for a financial modifier.
Class 2 hyperdrive: $100
Class 3 hyperdrive: $90
Class 4 hyperdrive: $75
Anythig faster than class 2 +$10 per 0.25 increased modifier.

Just a thought, but linking financial incentive to freighter speed really happens. If you don't believe me, look at the spice trade in 1700's. The first ship in port made an absolute killing. The glut of luxury goods caused a sharp drop in prices, and while subsequent ships still made money, they didn't make nearly the same as the first one.

Speed really counts for a lot more than cargo capacity.

As a result, captains used all sorts of nasty tricks to be first. Hence the growth in piracy and privateering. Sir Frances Drake made millions plundering spanish ships and running home (until Lizzie chopped his head off!)

The only time cargo capacity really counted was the whaling fleet, when the constant demand for whale oil to light lamps meant relatively fixed prices throughout the year. As a result, whalers realised bulk was more important than speed and ships would spend 2-3 years at sea until their holds bulged. However, this scenario is not relevant to SW, where the money is made in luxury and perishable goods.

#35 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 02 October 2007 - 02:10 PM

Well, I guess the direction I'm looking to go with it is to have it be rigidly balanced first, and then tweak it from there; I don't want to have a C&C3 situation where the economy is messed up from the beginning. Since the only build restriction to freighters at this point is population, income is directly proportional to the population cost. I'm just trying to avoid having one freighter class that everyone spams because it has the best income rate per population cost. I don't really care about the cost as much since that's a one-time fee and is really more descriptive of the kind of ship you get out of it.

Certainly something like the Action IV is going to be conductive to a rushing economy, since it's decisively no-frills, but you don't get the ruggedness of the GR-75 out of it (I think the cost for both in the mini-mod was 400, but it's since been changed to 300 and 500 respectively). The idea with the salvage ability (if it worked) is to allow you to form "salvage fleets" to perform raids on vulnerable enemy infrastructure in order to produce income, so their tactical stats would have much more importance. Each freighter would allow you to recover 5% of the build price of each kill or something like that, so if you had 20 of them, you could get the full price back. But having that many freighters in combat at once is definitely a risk, since you only get 48 tactical population units to use and if you run into an enemy combat fleet, there are going to be problems. At any rate, that's the idea behind it, whether or not I'm able to implement it is another question.

As far as relating the income abilities to something like cargo capacity and/or hyperdrive rating, yeah, there's no reason why I can't do that at some point, but I have a short list of what I want to accomplish before the release and I'm trying to avoid amending that now if at all possible (but that doesn't mean it will be another six-month wait before the next patch is out). Ideally, freighters would have to run between two planets in order to generate income galactically and the rate would be regulated by the distance traveled, but I don't think that's even possible to do with EaW, so I have to use the planetary income ability.

#36 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    Sith Lord of Campaigns

  • Project Team
  • 2,035 posts
  •  Phoenix Rising QA Lead; Manual Editor

Posted 02 October 2007 - 02:24 PM

Fair enough. Incidentally, it makes sense to lock freighters to a planet (home port) becuase they only generate money FOR THE PLANET in docking fees and cargo taxes anyway! A strong economy is always going to support lots of freighters in-system coming and going.
You could almost say that the construction cost of freighter types reflects the planetary infrastructure to support and attract trading fleets rather than the cost of the vessels themselves. A greater spend by the planetary authorities attracts better quality freighters.

I look forward to the next episode...

Edited by Ghostrider, 02 October 2007 - 02:35 PM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users