Jump to content

Home

Orbital Bombardment


Darth Ablett
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, I'm new here. I've been following FoC for a while and haven't seen any real talk about this.

 

I was watching the E3 Playthrough on this site, the one where orbital bombardment is shown from the POV of the Zann Consortium, and I was wondering: Is this what people thought it would be?

 

It seems to be like a big, unavoidable bombing run, rather than a large-scale ravaging of the planet. Maybe this is just for the Consortium, but I was imagining a fleet of ISDs would do something like what happened to Taris in KOTOR - Assuming there was no planetary shield.

 

Just asking for your thoughts. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, welcome to the forums!

 

And about the Orbital Bombardment, I thought they did it like it should/would be, if you could annihilate the ground forces on the map you would just need capital ships to capture a planet, you wouldn't need ground forces because you could just bombard the crapola out of the planet you know? :vsd:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I would assume that anyone taking the effort to assault a planet would want to capture it for its income, special abilities etc. Destroying it completely (like with the Death Star) should, the way I play the game at least, be reserved for those times when the enemy is just too well dug in for you to be able to crush them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, welcome to the forums!

 

And about the Orbital Bombardment, I thought they did it like it should/would be, if you could annihilate the ground forces on the map you would just need capital ships to capture a planet, you wouldn't need ground forces because you could just bombard the crapola out of the planet you know? :vsd:

 

Ok, thanks! I know it makes far more sense game-wise, and it looks cool, but on the galactic map I was thinking it could be another option if you had a 'big' fleet, i.e. 2 + ISDs, or the Executor.

 

I suppose I was basing my hopes on the Thrawn story about Camaas (sp?), and thinking the planet-wide option would only happen late in a GC game, so as to curb the Empire's 'move fleet, decimate, repeat' scenario when playing against the computer.

 

I doubt the Rebels would do this, but it fits with the Empire's brute-force scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the orbital bombardment really amounts to a large-scale ravaging. In that E3 video, the Zann consortium launches a bombardment that takes out basically the entire Imperial base, including a large numbre of garrison units. That's pretty much all you need--imagine landing some ground scouts just to act as spotters and then firing a projectile that destroys six enemy buildings at once! Any more ground forces you land will only have to contend with token resistance. When a single ground map represents a whole planet, I think orbital barrages work pretty much as I'd expect them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the orbital bombardment really amounts to a large-scale ravaging. In that E3 video, the Zann consortium launches a bombardment that takes out basically the entire Imperial base, including a large numbre of garrison units. That's pretty much all you need--imagine landing some ground scouts just to act as spotters and then firing a projectile that destroys six enemy buildings at once! Any more ground forces you land will only have to contend with token resistance. When a single ground map represents a whole planet, I think orbital barrages work pretty much as I'd expect them to.

 

 

Well you are forgetting that the Bombardment probably will have some type of timer until you can use it you know ;)

so the defending planet can mobilies a counteratack before you bombard their base

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galactic conquest scenario bombardments will require the proper ships in orbit to bombard, so tech level will also play a role in how soon you can pull it off (well, for the Empire and Rebellion anyway). Keep in mind that each side has a unique style to their bombardment - the Consortium is accurate but with a smaller radius; the Empire is less accurate but does more damage over a wider area, and the Rebellion is more of an interference/non-lethal bombard. Also keep in mind that the bombardment shown in the videos for E3 was much more powerful than it will be in the final product (though it is still much more powerful than bombing runs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galactic conquest scenario bombardments will require the proper ships in orbit to bombard, so tech level will also play a role in how soon you can pull it off (well, for the Empire and Rebellion anyway). Keep in mind that each side has a unique style to their bombardment - the Consortium is accurate but with a smaller radius; the Empire is less accurate but does more damage over a wider area, and the Rebellion is more of an interference/non-lethal bombard. Also keep in mind that the bombardment shown in the videos for E3 was much more powerful than it will be in the final product (though it is still much more powerful than bombing runs).

 

 

Oh, that's great news. Thanks alot for answering!

I'm glad the rebellion one isn't a large-scale destruction, you seem like you've nailed it for each of the factions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also keep in mind that the bombardment shown in the videos for E3 was much more powerful than it will be in the final product (though it is still much more powerful than bombing runs).

 

Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'. It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. PG is only lining itself up to receive complaints from people who don't see the information on sites like this, who see promo clips, buy the game and wonder why things are different. But what does PG care, as long as they bought the game, which will end up needing patch after patch to get it right.... no false advertising please PG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'. It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. PG is only lining itself up to receive complaints from people who don't see the information on sites like this, who see promo clips, buy the game and wonder why things are different. But what does PG care, as long as they bought the game, which will end up needing patch after patch to get it right.... no false advertising please PG.

 

That video was nothing more than a promo and the game was in "development". The video presentation was just a small demo to show off the new faction and some of the new units. Only a fool would think that was the final product. (As a matter of fact it was mentioned several times in the video that the units and options needed tweaking)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'.

My comment referred to the way they've made each faction's bombardment represent the faction in question.

It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine.

If you only saw a "prototype" car with a V8 when the design was still under development and then the version of the car that hit the market was a V6, you probably wouldn't complain too much. After all, your first look was only when it was a prototype, before the team had finished working on it, before the car company had shifted its goals to meet the market, etc.

 

Two things:

 

1) Forces of Corruption is still in development. There's no reason why the bombardment shown couldn't have been an early version of the code. They programmed in the bombardment but hadn't optimized or balanced it yet--they were just showing it off in its early stages.

 

2) They were trying to show off what a bombardment looks like. Just like they tweaked the Executor to show off what the Executor blowing up looks like. They weren't necessarily even trying to show you exactly what you are going to get. That wasn't the point!

 

E3 is for showing off what's in development, not what final products look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'. It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. PG is only lining itself up to receive complaints from people who don't see the information on sites like this, who see promo clips, buy the game and wonder why things are different. But what does PG care, as long as they bought the game, which will end up needing patch after patch to get it right.... no false advertising please PG.

Pretty much all software companies I've ever heard of do it this way. A demonstration video is there to show the fans what the feature in question looks like, not decimal-specific representation of exactly how it will look in the finished game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not see the video to know that it was a demo video, I only read what Torpid wrote; but this only reduces my ire, it does not extinguish it. I don't like exaggerated demo vids period. Thats just my opinion. If a company has to resort to such sensationalism to get attention then its a real turn off for me. Anarch is right, a number of companies use them but I made my point above. Wedge I never saw the vid with the executor either but I saw the screen shots; and it is feasible to put such a ship in with little health to show what happens when it is destroyed....but if they made the executor so powerful that it took out mon cals with the blast of a solitary turbo-laser or something as exaggerated then that would annoy me.

 

As for Valter it seems you missed my point. Unless it is implicitately stated it is not actual game play then one may expect to play something akin to what is shown when they buy the game. If they clearly state in the promo vid it is not real and exaggerated then fine, they can do what they like. A demo for me is a pre-full version release that can be played and plays exactly like the full game but with limited units/levels etc. Such 'promotional vids' shouldn't be called or referred to as demos in the strictest sense but it is a common term that is too easily attached to such a vid. If the only place PG showed this vid was at E3 and they were clear that it was only under development then that is fair enough. But its not uncommon for game companies to blur what is in demos and what is in full games over time, even if they release a demo, in which they can restrict access to the best stuff.

 

As for the game being in development; it is always in development; other wise we wouldnt need patches.

 

Wedge, the example i was thinking of related to the Alfa Romeo Brera that was a concept car and developed with a V8. I was hell bent on buying one but when it was released the biggest engine you could get was a 6. I was annoyed and I wont buy one now. Sure they will still sell but unless they put that V8 in will well never know how they could have sold. From the mags I read most enthusiasts wanted the V8. Fair enough the company wanted to change the car, that is entirely up to them, but i will spend my cash on something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Valter it seems you missed my point.

 

Really? How did I miss your point? I was under the implication that your point was that you were annoyed that companies present their products in a way that undermines honesty. In other words you are annoyed when companies show their products to be better than they truly are. If I was mistaken then I apologize. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of how people were pissed when Fable was released and it wasn't the best RPG of all time even though Peter Molineux said it.

 

What do you think he was supposed to say? "My game is a pretty good RPG, not the best, just pretty good, which is why you should buy it."

 

They're just good salesmen. It's up to the consumer to distinguish what should be taken into account in his speech. Otherwise...don't buy anything ever again...because it turns out everyone's product is the "best"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not see the video to know that it was a demo video, I only read what Torpid wrote; but this only reduces my ire, it does not extinguish it. I don't like exaggerated demo vids period. Thats just my opinion. If a company has to resort to such sensationalism to get attention then its a real turn off for me. Anarch is right, a number of companies use them but I made my point above. Wedge I never saw the vid with the executor either but I saw the screen shots; and it is feasible to put such a ship in with little health to show what happens when it is destroyed....but if they made the executor so powerful that it took out mon cals with the blast of a solitary turbo-laser or something as exaggerated then that would annoy me.

 

I think your getting too worked up about semantics. (ie. whether a video is a promo/demo/whatever) It is not unreasonable for developers to assume that viewers will understand that anything shown at E3 is just a demonstration of the capabilities of the engine rather than a reflection of the details of the final product. Even if you are right that Petroglyph could have altered the content solely for the purpose of increasing the goshwow factor of the game, the fact that they could have altered it or other parts of the game for balance issues means that your expectation is unreasonable. Indeed, at many times during the various videos the developers mention that "we're still working on this," which more than meets your standard of "implicitately (sic) stating" that "it isn't actual gameplay." The distinction that you make between the Executor and the explosion is wholly arbitrary. Decreasing the health of the Executor so that it can be easily destroyed by Rebel cruisers is no different than "exaggerating" the power of the cruisers that they can easily destroy the Executor. They are graphically indistinct.

 

A demo for me is a pre-full version release that can be played and plays exactly like the full game but with limited units/levels etc. Such 'promotional vids' shouldn't be called or referred to as demos in the strictest sense but it is a common term that is too easily attached to such a vid. If the only place PG showed this vid was at E3 and they were clear that it was only under development then that is fair enough. But its not uncommon for game companies to blur what is in demos and what is in full games over time, even if they release a demo, in which they can restrict access to the best stuff.

 

This is really the crux of your contention. You have an additional expectation of what constitutes a "promotional" or "demo" video. Terms, which I have never seen Petroglyph use to describe the E3 video. The response on this forum demostrates that this is not a prevailing expectation or even an expectation that extends beyond yourself.

 

As for the game being in development; it is always in development; other wise we wouldnt need patches.

 

This is a bad argument, and I think you know it. There is a definite, quantifiable difference between pre-release development and post-release patching: a difference of $29.99 US.

 

Wedge, the example i was thinking of related to the Alfa Romeo Brera that was a concept car and developed with a V8. I was hell bent on buying one but when it was released the biggest engine you could get was a 6. I was annoyed and I wont buy one now. Sure they will still sell but unless they put that V8 in will well never know how they could have sold. From the mags I read most enthusiasts wanted the V8. Fair enough the company wanted to change the car, that is entirely up to them, but i will spend my cash on something else.

 

The reason why your analogy doesn't apply is because the V8 on the Alfa Romeo was a major selling point in the car's design; a reason, in and of itself that one would buy the car. The blast radius on a secondary support ability of the ground component of the tactical component of one of three factions is not. Plus, consumer reviews mean that you have no argument. If the product is altered in some fundamental way during development, then potential buyers have the opportunity to make an informed decision.

 

For those of you employing the Harvard study method or too lazy to read all that: what Wedge said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such 'promotional vids' shouldn't be called or referred to as demos in the strictest sense but it is a common term that is too easily attached to such a vid.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that "demo" is short for "demonstration." That's really all you should expect from a demo or a demo video: a demonstration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that yall are missing a very important point here.

Three wonderful, simple letters:

 

X. M. L.

 

Using this wonderful code will allow the Rust Lords of the world to simply mod their Consortium bombardments to their E3 levels. Or request said mod on the modding forums.

 

If you want your grossly overpowered bombardments, you can still get them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, E3 Bombardment shows us what they will be in concept.

 

Obviously the demos are for show and does not have to be playable, hence the tweak in HP of units and what not.

 

It is happy to see that Petro is working hard to balance different aspacts and fractions of the game, while keeping it close to their own theme.

 

Its not like they are posting grossly inaccurate screenshots and pictures on their product boxart, like throwing in a jedimaster in kimono lashing it out with some force sucking sithlord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valter you were dead right about my point as generally applied to games, and in this instance of what was shown on the promo, provided that a person viewing it or screenshots didnt know that it was implicitely stated as being very far from what you will receive after you shell out your cash; as I for one had not seen those disclaimers and I wasnt there but I have seen it with other games and yes I disagree with that marketing strategy. Since I hadnt seen it is was more of a gripe to Torpid for PG not to go down this path now, or ever.

 

Zagfel your right about semantics, my bad, people interpret and classify things differently but your off the mark about my comment regarding the executor; im not sure if you saw the vid but I only saw the screenies and I was under the impression the executor was already damaged, as can be seen in those screenies, not that it had 'reduced' health. If they used a half clapped out executor that was accurate to what it will be in game, then there is no exaggeration there.

 

Sure I have expectations and im pretty black and white about my views, the game being under development for example. I know that some of you take everything said as literal and for you to post that confirms this, and obviously the game has been completed but in my own opinion, and I dont care how many people agree or disagree with me, if you need alot of patches to fix game balances issues (not just bug fixes or improvements) then the developers havent really finished with the game. So this is the way most games are these days, i still dont care for it, there was a time, before everyone and everything was on the net, when you didnt need to get patches. EaW for example has been out for many months and we are still looking at 1.6.

 

Pretty impressive sentences Zagfel but I think your inclusion of "the tactical component" was superfluous....seriously what you say about the car differs from what Wedge said as he believed I would still buy the car with a 6 cyl because of the other refinements. True the bombardment ability is a small part of the game as compared to the engine but if an ability of a unit in a game was so totally imbalanced then I would not buy the game. Sure it might be fun to play it once or twice but playing against it would never be fun, hence why all gamers, EaW gamers no less, are very sensitive to game balance issues. If that imbalance ruined the land side of the game play then that is pretty major.

 

Monster has stated the best argument and the saving grace of anyone who doesnt like something about the game and that is to mod it. And I am very grateful that PG has used a system that is very easy to mod, and mod well as we can see by the quality of the mods being produced. But monster, i was actually in favour of toning down the bombardments not having them have the same effect as nuking the battlefield! :p Super-mega-death-holocaust weapons are so boring!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...