Jump to content


Darth Ablett

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Web Browser
  • Resolution
    Higher than 1024x768

Darth Ablett's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. The idea of the Imperial-II seems to be a pretty good solution IMO if they leave the ISD in its emasculated state. I think quite a few people want to play this game and at some stage arrive with a few Star Destroyers that give a serious "Oh crap" moment to everyone else playing. EaW nails this 'Star Wars' feel quite often IMO, but I think either ISDs should pack more of a punch, or ISD-IIs should be implemented. @TearsofIsha, that design point is fine, and I'm 100% cool with that. It's a good point. Give the Mon Cals stronger shields, and maybe speed. That's their speciality, and works for good balance. However, I reckon the ISD should be the most powerful ship in the game in terms of weapons and hull strength, it is the flagship craft of a hugely powerful regime and a damn powerful one at that. This beast has serious flaws, but it should tear a pretty big hole in most things. Also, being a dedicated warship I would imagine it would be pretty well armoured, more so than a civilian ship (converted or not, well designed or not)
  2. If there is a wide variety of small bugs in any area of the game I would say that's a lack of polish. Whether or not it can be fixed by the user is irrelevant. I said that the campaign is polished by all reports, however this is something that would be tested first, and can be tested far more quickly. It is easier to control than a fully open scenario (GC) after all. It's the multiplayer, and more 'minor' modes - skirmish - that have been the subject of gripes by large sections of the community. The fact that small, easily fixed bugs make it through to retail is a lack of testing, almost always due to time constraints. I honestly don't think petro are sloppy; rather they were rushed. You don't see these sort of things en masse in a Blizzard game, because they always delay release until they are certain of quality. Maybe petro don't have this luxury yet, I don't know. All up, Petro are very good in working with the community, and they'll fix up these things fairly soon. I'll just hold off buying FoC until this is done, so I can play a finalised product. EDIT: The above is kinda OT, sorry guys. In other news, one of the devs over at the Petroglyph Forums (Delphi) has said the patch notes will be coming "in the next week or so".
  3. The fact that many sound files are incorrect, the Consortium can build capital ships anywhere in certain modes, Rebel tech glitch, etc. These are symptoms of a larger problem: rushed game design. Also, not having many bugs in a short campaign mode - the most linear of all the modes - further demonstrates that this is a lack of polish. I have no doubt PG could fix these, but if they were rushed to a quick deadline these sloppy mistakes get made. (KOTOR II, anyone?) The idea that that this complaining is because people think the Consortium shouldn't be a powerful faction is a pretty shallow one IMO.
  4. I was really psyched to go out and buy this game on the weekend, but posts like that made me hold off. I think it's good this community tells it like it is, a great deal of this feedback seems sincere rather than normal forum whining. I guess it's just disappointing that, at the end of the day, this expansion was seriously rushed. I may not end up buying FoC for a long time, if it lacks so much polish.
  5. I don't even think it's MP in general, but skirmish. I completely agree with your point about single player though.
  6. I think this is a great idea, but something for them to do down the track. Bugs first IMO. But yeah, little scenario pitched battles would rock out, although I'm not sure how the Consortium would fit in to some of them.
  7. The day they make a Vong expansion to any SW game is the day that game series dies, IMO. On topic, I don't think this is the patch to make any big changes (IG-88 aka Captain Broken), just to fix the bugs in the game. The adding can come after they have cleaned up the game. Oh, and a tiny bit of balancing the Consortium fighters. Tone down the StarVipers, and increase the cost of the Skiprays.
  8. I reckon it is too. What I was saying though, is it isn't viewed as one by the larger gaming community IMO. I'm saying that the hugely popular flagships of the RTS genre have more depth and replay value in a skirmish area. I honestly don't think skirmish is the strength of EaW/FoC, that's why it's not as popular. GC matches are something different, and where I believe the true power of the game lies. I just can't see a dedicated skirmish community being established on a very large scale in multiple areas of the world, like a Starcraft (still going) or an AoE/C&C.
  9. This game isn't seen as a proper strategy game, so it doesn't get the big numbers. I like it, I'm a pretty huge SW fan, but I'm not going to pretend it's on the same level as Warcraft III or Age of Empires. Those games keep a healthy online community.
  10. Exactly. If this happened, it's highly unlikely that the Empire player would be able to recover from that loss. There should be an added degree of difficulty, as well as some interactivity IMO.
  11. Woah, hold on. I'm going to buy FoC this weekend, so I haven't played it yet. But IG-88 doesn't have to be involved in a battle to blow up the Death Star? That's madness! That means there is nothing to stop the consortium from removing the most expensive unit in the game. I know he is permanently removed from play, but is that really balanced when you're talking about a huge financial hit for the Empire player? Also, is this still the case when losing the DS is a losing condition? If it is, that's pretty dumb. Oh, and on-topic for a patch: fix the sound bugs I've been hearing about, with units like the TIE Phantom having the voice of a Scout.
  12. Can you leave the bug in that has "Ysalamiri cage constructing" spoken instead of "Enemy fleet approaching"? That's the funniest glitch ever!
  13. The campaign thing is ok, I thought the vanilla EaW campaigns weren't great, to be honest. Not playing them isn't a huge loss. What I do find worrying though (I don't have the game yet) is that people are complaining about the GC matches. Can anyone tell me how many FoC GC scenarios there are? If there aren't quite a few, that would be kinda frustrating.
  14. Thanks for that, good to see the gameplay improvements add the depth sorely lacking in the original.
  • Create New...