Cavkov Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Hi i want to ask PG if there is going to be any improvement with the multiplayer section? what i mean is new design for rooms and everyting! right now its dull! and if you can choose wich civ you gona play in quick match and beter all around in the custom match games and so on. I dont know if anyone played Age Of Mythology? it was similar to EAW in the online section but that game had much better feel in the rooms and you could choose what civ you gona play in the Rated games and better chat channel and so on. what do you guys think? (sorry bad english) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delphi-PG Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Hi i want to ask PG if there is going to be any improvement with the multiplayer section? what i mean is new design for rooms and everyting! right now its dull! and if you can choose wich civ you gona play in quick match and beter all around in the custom match games and so on. I dont know if anyone played Age Of Mythology? it was similar to EAW in the online section but that game had much better feel in the rooms and you could choose what civ you gona play in the Rated games and better chat channel and so on. what do you guys think? (sorry bad english) I'll just name off the new features: 1. Mirrored games (Empire vs Empire, etc) 2. REPLAYS 3. Choose Base starting location for custom games 4. Intergrated Clan Matching 5. Faction Selection for Quick Match 6. Updated Online System Graphics 7. New Ladders 8. Secondary Structures that can be captured and controlled in space games 9. New outpost pads in land tactical that allows players to choose between three types of structures (Mine, Hutt Palace, or a new faction specific special) 10. Rebalanced MP maps from the original, plus new maps from the new worlds in the game. Total of 40+ MP maps. There is more, but that should hold you over for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoiuyWired Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Sounds nice to me so far. The Mirror game is greatly welcomed. :3 Also I would like to know if structures in Land Tactical is fixed, and if Orbital is available in it. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavkov Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 Wow DarthMaulUK put this Thread on the EAW.net If you remember me DMuk? we used to play on Galactic Battlegrounds! i was ol Bounty_HunterXL and MecH_Hunter and so on, you remember? Btw, thank you for the quick reply! it sounds really good! I just think that the multiplayer is whats keeping games alive after you finnish the Single player. PS. im looking forward to kicking your ass DMuk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delphi-PG Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 How could I forget! Yes, orbital bombardment will be a super each player on a team can build and use. All three factions have there own unique bombardment. In space, the comm array hard point is now linked with the Ion cannon and HVG. If this HP goes, so does the players access to these powers. The Underworlds super weapon is mounted on the top of their space station and is a HP that can be destroyed. Oh, space station hard points can now be repaired at any time during game-play. The only thing is you can't rebuild a destroyed hard point unless you upgrade your station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wedge2211 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Oho...space stations just got a whole lot more interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavkov Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 Hey Delphi one question. Will you change so you can play 2v2 3v3 4v4 in quick match?? so you can search for 2v2 game and when 3 other players hook up than you play. i miss that from age of myhology and i think BFME ll has it to! so why cant we play 2v2-3v3-4v4 rated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gswift Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 WOW, I've been following the news about FoC fairly closely because I'm almost a daily online player. However, MANY of the things stated above are news to me, and I therefore assume that a major 'freedom of information' threshhold has been reached with FoC. The extra content and major changes in the game mechanics seem more like what I would expect from EaW2, as opposed to an expansion. Based on the amount of work going into this expansion, I'd bet any amount of money that we're not seeing the end of the EaW series, but rather the BEGINNING of the EaW FRANCHISE. Look at the longevity of the Comand and Conquer franchise for example (same key people working on it, for the most part). How many Star Wars fans would be happy to see the EaW (Petro/LA) partnership last as long and produce so much great gaming as did the CnC series (based on Star Wars though)? There's NEVER been a great Star Wars RTS/Strategy franchise. It's about time for one to exist. I'll keep buying EaW games for as long as they continue to appear, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavkov Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 WOW, I've been following the news about FoC fairly closely because I'm almost a daily online player. However, MANY of the things stated above are news to me, and I therefore assume that a major 'freedom of information' threshhold has been reached with FoC. The extra content and major changes in the game mechanics seem more like what I would expect from EaW2, as opposed to an expansion. Based on the amount of work going into this expansion, I'd bet any amount of money that we're not seeing the end of the EaW series, but rather the BEGINNING of the EaW FRANCHISE. Look at the longevity of the Comand and Conquer franchise for example (same key people working on it, for the most part). How many Star Wars fans would be happy to see the EaW (Petro/LA) partnership last as long and produce so much great gaming as did the CnC series (based on Star Wars though)? There's NEVER been a great Star Wars RTS/Strategy franchise. It's about time for one to exist. I'll keep buying EaW games for as long as they continue to appear, that's for sure. Yeah you are right! im like you playing online alot and i bought a new computer now that gets my eaw to the maximum experience! Its about time there is a serious starwars RTS game! from my point of view the its great that they add a new civ couse sometimes it gets abit of repitevly with emps vs Rebs. (dont get me wrong theres always mix of Space and Ground combat to) I can imagine alot more people are going to play FoC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiralach Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 yay mirrored match (emp vs. emp, all my moneys on emp to win) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Ablett Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 In space, the comm array hard point is now linked with the Ion cannon and HVG. If this HP goes, so does the players access to these powers. Hold on, so that means the attacking side can neutralise the ground-based weapon from space? That's actually a really good idea, as it forces combat to be based around the space-station. This will make the "mad dash to take out the hangar, and then basically forget about the station for a while" tactic that little bit harder to pull off. (Silly tactic anyway) It seems to me like you guys at Petro haven't just wanted to give the game a new side and units, but take a look at every aspect of gameplay to give it more depth. Good Job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 I really dont like this idea. Why? Well, having a Hyper velocity gun on a planet (HVG) for example, really made great use of the rebel raid tactic here. You could send in a few squads of Airspeeders, take out the guns and then send your fleet over to attack the planet. I feel that this 'after thought' was brought in because Imperial fans were struggling against the Rebels and their ION cannon because they cant raid. But the Empire is more about using brute force - so the small advantage the rebels have, has been wiped out in terms of ground to space defence. If it was creating problems, then limit each side to just 1 cannon/gun because a fleet of Star Destroyers will make toast of a HP. DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Ablett Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 I really dont like this idea. Why? Well, having a Hyper velocity gun on a planet (HVG) for example, really made great use of the rebel raid tactic here. You could send in a few squads of Airspeeders, take out the guns and then send your fleet over to attack the planet. I feel that this 'after thought' was brought in because Imperial fans were struggling against the Rebels and their ION cannon because they cant raid. DMUK You know, that's just what I thought when I first read it. However, if you couple this with the repairable hard-points, I reckon it gives space combat a bit more tension during a battle. I'm assuming that this means Hangars and Comm arrays will become very hard to destroy if the defenders have the cash. Also, doesn't the Ion Cannon have a secondary effect? Something about losing the penalty of retreating from a land tactical battle? I can't quite remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Anarch Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 You know, that's just what I thought when I first read it. However, if you couple this with the repairable hard-points, I reckon it gives space combat a bit more tension during a battle. I'm assuming that this means Hangars and Comm arrays will become very hard to destroy if the defenders have the cash. But won't that only be the case when playing Skirmish games? It won't apply to Galactic Conquest games, since you have to upgrade your station in order to repair. In GC you can only upgrade your station from the galactic map, which means all damage is repaired anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Ablett Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 But won't that only be the case when playing Skirmish games? It won't apply to Galactic Conquest games, since you have to upgrade your station in order to repair. In GC you can only upgrade your station from the galactic map, which means all damage is repaired anyway. I took it that this means repairing during any tactical battle, so during a battle in a GC match. That may have been wishful thinking, or poor comprehension. I was basing this off the C&C-style repairing - click repair, money goes down, health goes up. Admittedly I very rarely play skirmish, and thought of GC when I read this. If stations can't be repaired in a GC match battle, then I'll have to agree with DMUK and say this will take out the planetary weapons a little too quickly...which doesn't bode well for the Rebels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpElite Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Oh well, I guess I'll still be able to kick the Empire's and Zann's butt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavkov Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 One thing i like to be changed in the online rooms are that all players play on the same server! why have you split up all the players? it would be nice to see how many players there really are online instead of having them split up on different servers. can you do something about that? PG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.