Orbital Bombardment

[TheMonsterOfTheIsland]

Sorry, your posts are kinda dense lol

 

Nuking the battlefield would be fun once or twice.

 

But yeah, gotta love Petro for giving people the right to do what they want to with a game.

[ZagFel]

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.

 

I saw the screenshots and the video. Either way, arguments about the video still apply because they're both promotional media. Also, your confusion about the content of the screenshots proves that the final product will never meet expectations. For example, another user could have counted the number of Mon Calamari cruisers in the shot and used that to generate a (false) approximation of the Executor's power.

 

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.

 

It's not redundant. It would have been if I had written "tactical component of the ground component." Either way, that's irrelevant to the larger question of whether or not bombardment is a large enough part of the game that it would convince people to purchase it.

 

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.

 

This contradicts your previous argument that exaggerated promo media misleads consumers into purchasing less sensational games. It also hurts your position because it means that developer dishonesty is ultimately self-correcting: gamers won't purchase a game with sensationalized promo media because of perceptions of imbalance. I also don't understand why it warrants your earlier criticism of Torpid because, if anything, you should be pleased that a potentially unbalancing feature was corrected.

[Rust_Lord]

I saw the screenshots and the video. Either way, arguments about the video still apply because they're both promotional media. Also, your confusion about the content of the screenshots proves that the final product will never meet expectations. For example, another user could have counted the number of Mon Calamari cruisers in the shot and used that to generate a (false) approximation of the Executor's power.

 

I never saw the video and as I indicated in above posts I wouldnt have a problem with it if I saw/heard the disclaimers they gave. I am sure that they will advertise their product accurately if they are already clarrifying what they show. I wasn't confused about the screenshots, I only interpreted it from what I saw and read from others posts that the Executor was already damaged since it would take a while to destroy if at full 'health'. Whose expectations will not be met? Mine? Im going to receive the game with a fairly open mind, but there will undoubtedly be things I would change, its not going to be able to please everyone, I just didnt want any hideous imbalances. Your right about the Mon Cals and the executor but it depends on the person and what conclusions they want to draw...Those mon cals could in fact be the 10th wave of ships to have a go at the executor and if that was the case people would know it was alot tougher than what was shown. Since we dont have access to the values of ships from promos we only go on what we see, thats why the devastating barrage is hard to misinterpret.

 

It's not redundant. It would have been if I had written "tactical component of the ground component." Either way, that's irrelevant to the larger question of whether or not bombardment is a large enough part of the game that it would convince people to purchase it.

 

...Tactical component as compared to what...strategic component? Bombing runs are available in galactic conquest as well, if you consider that the strategic component but the whole tactical V strategic thing this been discussed ad nauseam in other threads and I dare not revive it for sanity's sake. We'll just have to agree to disagree me thinks. Which reminds me, not at all trying to ridicule you, im curious as to what you deem a primary support ability? ...reinforcements? The bombardment may be but one feature/ability amongst many of the game but any one feature can be imbalancing to the game overall. Likewise for the sake of one feature or unit, it can be enough to influence people to buy it or not buy it. Its hard to say which way it would go because while gamers would love a devastating weapon they also want balance and dont necessarily want to be on the receiving end of it. This raises another point which I probably should have mentioned and that was whether or not if the exaggerated barrage was race specific or not. Since it wont be in the game its academic but hypothetically if each race had such an ability then its not as bad, they can both blast each other into the stone age but its still only going to come down to who can purchase a run first. If its only available to one race/faction then its more of a concern.

 

This contradicts your previous argument that exaggerated promo media misleads consumers into purchasing less sensational games. It also hurts your position because it means that developer dishonesty is ultimately self-correcting: gamers won't purchase a game with sensationalized promo media because of perceptions of imbalance. I also don't understand why it warrants your earlier criticism of Torpid because, if anything, you should be pleased that a potentially unbalancing feature was corrected.

 

I do not see any contradiction....my gripe has always been about advertising exaggerated features to sell games and game imbalances, be it the bombardment or whatever. Just because the engine is a major part of the car its the one feature of it that *I* look at when buying a car; somone else might look for safety equipment etc. I only used the example of the car to show the *effect* on one consumers decision when there was a change between the prototype and the production product (a deflation of a feature you could say), not comparing a game to a car in any other literal sense that I believe was taken by some. I understand now that it wasnt deliberate on PGs part to create a 'wow' factor about it, since I said a number of times I didnt see the video or hear the promoters discalimers but of course I am happy to know that the end version will not be like I feared, even if it could be fixed with a patch. Last line, first paragraph of my last post= since it was not deliberate it could also be interpreted as nothing more than a plea to PG not to do what some other game companies do. I doubt they will. Seeing as PG werent guilty of product sensationalism im sure Torpid couldnt care less about what I said. The poor guy has copped alot more flak of others for various things, im sure he has pretty thick skin otherwise he wouldnt be on the forums. PG know they have a great product that doesnt need to resort to such shinanigans to sell it. I do believe that "exaggerated promo media misleads consumers into purchasing less sensational games" as you say. It just depends on how exaggerated it is. This happens with any products; as we all know its called advertising. It comes in different forms. Sometimes its not accurate and it leads people to buy stuff and be disappointed. Your a smart enough guy to realise that if you bought that convertible your not going to have three bikini clad babes hanging out of it as you cruise the beach, when you live in, say texas, and neither will 99% of guys but some will believe that by buying that car they will have more fun/get more attention/etc and that is what the advertiser wants you to think. Thats how they succeed. Unfortunately dishonesty is not always self correcting due to consumer demand because some people arent as careful as others, some just don't care and some are down-right gullible. Some dodgy people only need to burn a consumer once to get the desired return.

 

Anyway, I have crapped on long enough. At least it might provide some with entertainment...

[Boba Fett 1991]

Seriously guys, this was the stupidest discussion ever. Also I can't belive you would spend that much typing about this. Cool the engines people.

[Rust_Lord]

I agree. While I enjoy a healthy debate from time to time, I have too much time on my hands at the moment...im taking the key out of the ignition.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Seriously guys, this was the stupidest discussion ever. Also I can't belive you would spend that much typing about this. Cool the engines people.

 

So ignore the thread?

 

People debate if they want to debate. As long as there's no hostility or flaming, there is no reason to step in and stop it. If the parties decide to end the debate, then they end it.

 

Carry on.

[HerbieZ]

I support orbital bombardment!

[Darth Anarch]

Me too.

 

By the way, orbital bombardment is going to be in addition to bombing runs, right? Not instead of?

[ImpElite]

Maybe they replace bombing runs when you have a cap ship in orbit?

[Crezzer Fett]

For Orbital Bombardments...what actually happens?? is it just a blisster of missles from the capital ship above?

[Marsman2020]

What I want to know is if they are more or less powerful than bombing runs?

[wedge2211]

The only one we've seen so far is the Zann Consortium bombardment; it consists of a two-blast attack with an electronics-scrambling EMP blast arriving just ahead of a destructive cannon blast.

 

From Petroglyph comments, I assume that the Rebel attack will be something like an ion barrage or a dispersed cannon barrage. The Empire, as pretty much everyone suspects, will probably be a hard-hitting, ground-pounding turbolaser assault.

 

Marsman, towards the beginning of this thread, Darth Torpid mentioned:

it is still much more powerful than bombing runs

[Cavkov]

What I want to know is if they are more or less powerful than bombing runs?

 

As PG said it depends on the civ you are. so Empire's Bombardment will probably be more powerful than the rebels etc

[lukeiamyourdad]

Indeed, PG said that Orbital Bombardment will be stronger then regular bombing runs.

 

As for Anarch's question, I think that bombing runs will be an early game thing, replaced by orbital bombardment if you have the capability. If you have an ISD and Tie Bombers (yeah, they go together, but anyway), you'll only be able to use the ISD's bombardment abilities.

If both were available, it would be an overpowered ability.

 

It's my take on it

[Darth Anarch]

That's a good point. So I'm assuming that you'll have bombing runs up until you get ISDs/Mon Calamari cruisers, which should be at Tech level 4. Or maybe you'll get it at Tech 3 (Victorys and Assault Frigates).

[Darth Ablett]

That's a good point. So I'm assuming that you'll have bombing runs up until you get ISDs/Mon Calamari cruisers, which should be at Tech level 4. Or maybe you'll get it at Tech 3 (Victorys and Assault Frigates).

 

I was thinking you could have both, why not? If you remove bombing runs, that means the rebels lose the destructive power of the y-wings, not replaced by anything similar.

 

I reckon you'll have both - you know you want it too.

[ImpElite]

I was thinking you could have both, why not? If you remove bombing runs, that means the rebels lose the destructive power of the y-wings, not replaced by anything similar.

 

I reckon you'll have both - you know you want it too.

 

Lol, we'll just have to wait and see

[Darth Anarch]

I was thinking you could have both, why not? If you remove bombing runs, that means the rebels lose the destructive power of the y-wings, not replaced by anything similar.

 

I reckon you'll have both - you know you want it too.

Very true; I hadn't thought of that. Let's hope for both, then. If that's the case, I imagine orbital bombardments will have a much slower recharge rate than bombing runs.

 

That made me think of something else: Does anyone think there should be different recharge times (on orbital bombardments) for the different factions, seeing as how the bombardments work in different ways? I'd say that the Rebel OB, doing no actual damage, should become available again more quickly than the other two kinds.

[ImpElite]

Very true; I hadn't thought of that. Let's hope for both, then. If that's the case, I imagine orbital bombardments will have a much slower recharge rate than bombing runs.

 

That made me think of something else: Does anyone think there should be different recharge times (on orbital bombardments) for the different factions, seeing as how the bombardments work in different ways? I'd say that the Rebel OB, doing no actual damage, should become available again more quickly than the other two kinds.

 

True but we might end up getting another overpowered ion weapon for the rebels. (though since I play rebels most of the time I don't really mind lol)

[Darth Ablett]

Very true; I hadn't thought of that. Let's hope for both, then. If that's the case, I imagine orbital bombardments will have a much slower recharge rate than bombing runs.

 

That made me think of something else: Does anyone think there should be different recharge times (on orbital bombardments) for the different factions, seeing as how the bombardments work in different ways? I'd say that the Rebel OB, doing no actual damage, should become available again more quickly than the other two kinds.

 

That would be good - slower times for a powerful effect. I can imagine that the orbital bombadments will be close to a one-off in any land tactical battle, like in a semi-long GC land battle you might use 2-3 bombing runs but just get 1 OB.

 

The different recharge times is also a good point: I don't think the Imperials should be able to devastate bases with the same regularity as an Ion Blast. Although, if they have a massive fleet the time will probably decrease a la bombing runs.

 

This also brings up another question (slightly Off-Topic): what will the bombers for the Consortium be? Skiprays?

[Darth Anarch]

Yes, I think it'll be Skiprays. Wasn't there a screenshot somewhere recently of Skiprays flying over a ground battle?

[Darth Ablett]

Yes, I think it'll be Skiprays. Wasn't there a screenshot somewhere recently of Skiprays flying over a ground battle?

 

I think there was one in Cain's set over at Petro Fan Forums. I'm pretty sure that's the case then, cool.

 

I think this Orbital Bombardment thing has just about been fleshed out as much as it can without seeing anything new - which I doubt we will since FoC comes out so soon.

 

All this talk has got me excited that things haven't been rushed in to appease the fans without adding anything to the gameplay; that every addition will add depth - especially necessary for ground combat as that is the most procedural aspect of EaW IMO.

[Boba Fett 1991]

Maybe the recharge time doesn't just differ from OB and BR but each faction's OB has a separate recharge time.

[Darth Anarch]

Yes, that's what I said in post #43, above. Since each faction gets a different effect, they ought to have different recharge times.

[Boba Fett 1991]

Ah, I hadn't noticed. YOu truly must be a skilled tactian Anarch, especcially seeing some of your other posts.