45 replies to this topic

[bobthebobthe]

To the poster 2 before me...the version 1.1.1 does not have the new version of GFFA

To the poster 1 before me...I'm not sure...I don't know if Phoenix has it in the map editor, though I've never really used map editor...but your picture is kindof..large

why do you care???????????????????

I've seen bigger

Edited by bobthebobthe, 01 January 2009 - 06:57 PM.

[coinich]

Because it causes a bit of inconvenience to other users. Some boards limit sigs to being smaller than 5 or 6 normal text lines for that very reason. Why don't you put your starfactory question in another thread?

[Phoenix Rising]

Will you be coding the carriers for the CSA to have their fighters spawn in the beginning or will they be vulnerable tot he same weakness as other carriers in that begin able to be destroyed before they have all their fighters out

Er, first of all, the CSA aren't in GC. I don't see why fighter launching should behave differently for a given faction though.

Cool, but will you also later downgrade the core, inner and outer rim campigns like GFFA also. Since some of us with older computers can't even play those anymore....

On the subject of trimming down the sub-campaigns, you could make a Lite version of each, for those with weaker computers.

They'll be trimmed until they reasonably work. Really we shouldn't need separate "Lite" versions of these.

Instead of placing all those pirate units on the map, wouldn't it be better to transform them into the asteroid's garrison

I also have an idea that will likely remove the lag but allow for strong pirate fleets.
Rather than having to program in individual ships to make pirate fleets, why not just make several versions of the the pirate asteroid base all of which have different garrisons.

We couldn't get the pirate space colonies to work simultaneous to the asteroid bases - not on the same planet, but on the same campaign. Apparently your ability to do variants for DUMMY_STAR_BASE types is rather limited.

And the idea of the rebel alliance killing the defense fleets in addition to conquering them doesn't seem like them...

You figure out a more authentic concept to work within EaW's engine and we'll consider using it.

Aw, I was kinda looking forward to the epicness of GFFA!

It should still be plenty epic.

I hope that you're keeping a copy of your full v1.1 GFFA handy somewhere for download? The thing is a work of art. I enjoy the feeling of attacking a populated spaceport with shipping traffic that isn't warships in the area.

I'll keep it included in the release, just disconnected - you'll have to add in a single line of code if you want to play it. Doing it this way means we don't have to support it officially, so we don't have to deal with a barrage of lag complains. It'll be "use at your own risk".

I have a a new high end computer (Plays Crysis smoothely on high) but get massive amounts of lag even on the smaller campaigns
however with pirates Edited back to 1.0 levels all the campaigns run smoothly (Except GFFA)

Unfortunately the pirate levels in v1.0 are not acceptable (1 space base, 1 land base). If only PG would release the source, I'm sure I could fix the performance issues . Not that that'll ever happen.

Another thing you might want to try is what UEAW did with the XML's Instead of haveing the big bulky Spaceunits<Class>.xml files they broke the XML's down to individual folders.

Shouldn't make any difference whatsoever in terms of performance. In fact, keeping them in one big file should actually be faster.

hey! anyone know how to get the Skirmish starfighter base (x7 factory??) in the map editor????

It's Team_xx_Fighter_Factory (see Multiplayer_Structure_Markers.xml).

why do you care???????????????????

It is pretty big. Like unnecessarily big.

[Kitkun]

We couldn't get the pirate space colonies to work simultaneous to the asteroid bases - not on the same planet, but on the same campaign. Apparently your ability to do variants for DUMMY_STAR_BASE types is rather limited.

I would think that you could have multiple versions of the 'Pirate' factory bases. Mix and match with different complements to keep the number of different versions down, and still have some unique units for the galactic intel.

I also have an idea that will likely remove the lag but allow for strong pirate fleets.

I was thinking of this too. I can see a few problems with it.
1: It's a large amount of work.
2: Raids would destroy all defenses, land and space-based, in a single easy shot.
3: Hit and run attacks that destroyed the space colony, would also eliminate all fleet defenses.
4: Recon and intel would become useless

1. True enough.
2. Don't know about others, but I'm keeping raids as infantry only.
3. Make the space colonies even harder to destroy. In particular, point defense to hamper bombing runs.
4. Keep a selection of units in the galactic mode to keep intel from being useless. Tactical recon actually becomes more useful as you can determine what kinds of/just how many ships are actually there.

It could also facilitate bluffing of weaker or stronger defenses than expected. In addition, it would make 'space raiding' more risky, as some of the stuff you destroy might be garrisoned units that will reappear the next time you visit.

Edited by Kitkun, 01 January 2009 - 09:37 PM.

[calthal]

Phoenix any idea when you might be done with the adjustments to GFFA. I have to say one of the best things about this mod is the scale. While i have played both GFFA & GFFA (lite) with some lag if you can get it to run alittle smoother it would make this mod outstanding. Besides the pirate forces don't have to bee that tough, just enough that you have to think before you attack.
With the starting planets by the time you build your own forces up the Empire does become your main threat, so the pirates become a minor issue.
Do you have a time table for the reworked GFFA?

Great Mod.

[bobthebobthe]

hey! anyone know how to get the Skirmish starfighter base (x7 factory??) in the map editor????

It's Team_xx_Fighter_Factory (see Multiplayer_Structure_Markers.xml).

But where do you put it? (I do not have it in the map editor. I want to put it in the map editor)

Edited by bobthebobthe, 01 January 2009 - 11:16 PM.

[bob345]

Has GFFA Lite been trimmed down like the full GFFA


Thanks

[Phoenix Rising]

Do you have a time table for the reworked GFFA?

No. I think the timetable hurt us a bit with this release, even though I knew it had to be out over the holidays one way or another given our window of opportunity in terms of free time. Perhaps it's best left at "when it works"... although it shouldn't be another year.

But where do you put it? (I do not have it in the map editor. I want to put it in the map editor)

You'll have to copy all of our XMLs into Forces of Corruption\Data\XML because the official map editor wasn't designed to be used with mods. However, doing this effectively alters vanilla FoC, so you might want to delete them when you're done (or just rename the XML folder to something else so it can't find it).

[keraunos]

I already wrote in the land thread that land buildings (hopefully we'll get them to work) and space buildings spawning large amounts of units are necessary. It would cut lag significantly (only few buildings), make raiding much more difficult (limited amout of troops vs large local garrisons - no more battle of attrition [sic!] by raiders), and - finally - provide a realistic way of resupplying defensive forces. After all, those planets are making income as well, so they should be able to field new units in place of destroyed ones. Yes, even some capital ships...

It shouldn't be too difficult to make couple of other variants of pirate starbases and simply change their fighter complement

[Nicky]

Phoenix: an idea

I read earlier that it's not like the rebellion to invade planets and i totally agree. Here's how i would see the rebellion handling things: corruption.

To be able to move its fleet around, the rebellion would have to spread corruption (maybe renamed as "Simpaty for the rebellion" or something) on the independent worlds. It can keep only a small number of planets under its direct control, maybe 2-3 agricultural planets and 2-3 shipyards. This to me sounds more like the rebellion....

[coinich]

Wasnt' there a problem with the scripts and the Zann?

[Kaleb Graff]

I'm not sure. Still, Phoenix has tried some stuff of that, and it didn't work too well. I'd like it, but I don't think so.

[Phoenix Rising]

I read earlier that it's not like the rebellion to invade planets and i totally agree. Here's how i would see the rebellion handling things: corruption.

I think it would be totally unbalancing a la FoC, unfortunately.

[coinich]

No way to "dumb" it down? I'm guessing some of the corruption stuff was quite broken. (never played as Zann).

[Kitkun]

One of the corruption things was to cause the civilian units to fight for you. Not very useful, I know, but if the planet owner ever removed it, the planet would immediately go neutral and they would lose all structures on land and in space.

[keraunos]

Nah, I'd rather see it for Rebellion only. While the mission that Kitkun mentioned was dumb indeed, there were couple of other, useful ideas. Think about buildings not giving garrisons ('sabotage'), raiding parties aquiring space ships plans ('piracy') etc.

The problem is, AI was very bad at countering corruption. Even worse, it gave massive financial bonuses, which I don't think can be altered. It was more beneficial to corrupt planet then conquer it (assuming you corrupted a lot of planets)

[Nicky]

The way i imagined corruption was with only 2 type of missions available: "Allow ship passage" and "Rebellion affiliation". The difference is that the latter gives you some credits while the former doesnt, but nowhere near what you get in vanilla FoC.

[anakinskysolo]

I don't know if the game engine and the AI would be addecuate for what you are suggesting. And remember that its not only the Rebellion, but also the New Republic, so you would have to add something similar for the Empire in the later campaigns, like Thrawn's. I believe its not worth the effort.