CorranSec Posted October 5, 2002 Share Posted October 5, 2002 Ah. Madrix, thanks for the clarification. I really didn't understand what you were saying, primarily based on the fact that in the first post in this thread you specifically specified that the cap ships would be added to CC. I think a SW space-based RTS would be good, sure. But you still could have smaller 'cap ships' (basically cruisers) in SW:GB or SW:GB 2, like the ones I've suggested in the "Ideas for SW:GB 2" thread. So... yeah. This thread seems to be coming to a bit of an end, cos we're discussing a completely different game. And of course there doesn't seem to be much of a debate here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted October 8, 2002 Author Share Posted October 8, 2002 I'm glad you understand now CorranSec! Am i imagining things or did you just contradict yourself in your last two posts? First you say it's the worst idea you've heard and now you also want to include a smaller ver. of the Cap Ships in SWGB! btw, the only Thread that should be coming to an end is that bl@@dy Gunship thread - it just never ends!!! Admiral, I think you are right about the cruisers - they don't really impress me that much - especially when they take out 20 of my ground troops in one blast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckcsaber Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Add them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 ckcsaber- Add what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted October 14, 2002 Author Share Posted October 14, 2002 I am sure he is refering to the Capital Ships as this is the topic of this Thread... plus i noticed another vote on my Poll in favour of Cap Ships... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 No, Madrix, you've entirely misunderstood my idea. Firstly I was saying that using canon cap ship (massive space ships) artwork to replace Air Cruiser (small atmospheric assault craft) artwork is remarkably stupid, and I gave reasons why, which I shall not repeat. Even though I kinda already did. Secondly, I proposed an introduction of some new generic classes, which are not designed to be air cruisers or replace them, but are instead smaller 'capital ships.' To reinforce my point, examples of these kinds of ships are light and heavy freighters (such as the Millenium Falcon or the Wild Kaarde), armed shuttles (such as Lamda-class shuttles), and frigates (such as the Nebulon B, even though that's probably too big), as well as some kinds of fighters which are in the Ideas for SW:GB 2 thread. Plainly, an inclusion of a whole new sheaf of hugely unbalancing and out-of-scale Capital Ships (canon or otherwise) would not work in the current SW:GB and CC, and is best set as an idea for SW:GB 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted October 17, 2002 Author Share Posted October 17, 2002 Okey dokey, whatever tickles your fancy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 yeah I would say add them but then not in this version of SWGB...cause the engine is not designed to have huge units with tiny units in one game... u can consult EE's carrier and infantry... they balance the game if they gonna add huge units like Star destroyers...or other ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted October 21, 2002 Author Share Posted October 21, 2002 Arthur, we have come to that conclusions as well. The Cap Ships won't fit into the current game unless they replace the Air Cruisers - but that is obviously not ideal. The ideal situation would be to have a space-combat RTS with Cap Ships, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 21, 2002 Share Posted October 21, 2002 Originally posted by MadrixTF Arthur, we have come to that conclusions as well. The Cap Ships won't fit into the current game unless they replace the Air Cruisers - but that is obviously not ideal. The ideal situation would be to have a space-combat RTS with Cap Ships, etc. dude this is a game it's not the reality who cares in EE they got carriers we can use the cap ships to do the same like the guy who wrote about 1 ship per 100 population i think it's a good idea...... u can always blend it in...there is a way... u don't have to go for all the details in SW, else u'll get tired of this game ---- too complicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 21, 2002 Share Posted October 21, 2002 Yeah but how would you balance that out? A Star Destroyer would wipe out a whole base within seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 make it less powerful then... as simple as that... there are other ships besides star destroyer u can always choose something smaller quoted from another thread "game play reasons" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 Yeah I always pictured something like the corellian corvette. It could be some kind of even slower and less powerful battlecruiser like in starcraft but of course without the yamato gun thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 i guess wut u mean by less powerful is "it cannot destroy a base with ease like it did in the movies" it's gonna suck if the capital ships can be killed by 8 troopers, like in Starcraft, it doesn't make sense >< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Arthur- "don't let them be killed by 8 troopers, it doesn't make sense." To quote you: dude this is a game it's not the reality who cares That actually makes a damned lot more sense than GB's "er.... let's not let laser troopers shoot at air units, even though they should be able to, but for the sake of gameplay (even though we COULD balance it out, but we're too lazy to) we're going to introduce some crazy non-canon 'AA' unit which is pretty useless anyway." Needless to say, I'm not very happy about that issue. But that's not the point. Trying to base GB on EE is a bad idea. EE wasn't a very good game, and even if it was, it's not GB, it's not Star Wars, and it just doesn't fit in. Why use a certain set of canon artwork (eg. Star Destroyers) to fulfill a role they wouldn't be able to, have them terribly out of scale and all-around whacked-out, when you can take another set of canon/EU artwork (eg. Millenium Falcon, Lambda-class shuttle and the rest I proposed earlier) and fit them into the role that they are supposed to fit? I'm assuming that by "less powerful" people are meaning "actually sane and fitting within the game, and thus being totally the opposite of what it was in the movies." Thanks everyone, you've proved my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Originally posted by CorranSec Arthur- "don't let them be killed by 8 troopers, it doesn't make sense." To quote you: dude this is a game it's not the reality who cares That actually makes a damned lot more sense than GB's "er.... let's not let laser troopers shoot at air units, even though they should be able to, but for the sake of gameplay (even though we COULD balance it out, but we're too lazy to) we're going to introduce some crazy non-canon 'AA' unit which is pretty useless anyway." Needless to say, I'm not very happy about that issue. But that's not the point. Trying to base GB on EE is a bad idea. EE wasn't a very good game, and even if it was, it's not GB, it's not Star Wars, and it just doesn't fit in. Why use a certain set of canon artwork (eg. Star Destroyers) to fulfill a role they wouldn't be able to, have them terribly out of scale and all-around whacked-out, when you can take another set of canon/EU artwork (eg. Millenium Falcon, Lambda-class shuttle and the rest I proposed earlier) and fit them into the role that they are supposed to fit? I'm assuming that by "less powerful" people are meaning "actually sane and fitting within the game, and thus being totally the opposite of what it was in the movies." Thanks everyone, you've proved my point. hmmm maybe u should comment on EE after u play the game, perheps? i am not saying that SWGB 2 should be based on EE, but there are definitely some good ideas from EE that can be used for SWGB development. absurd, when's the last time u see a laser trooper attacking a X-wing? when i say "not reality" i am talking about big units the big units like ATAT are definitely not as strong as they use to be in the movies... i am talking about balancing the game that's different from SC SC is not balanced, it's crap balance and they don't really have big units... (battle cruiser? not big enough...the attack is still too weak and no bonuses to any other units) what i mean by "less powerful" , ah...take a look at ATAT it's not as strong as it is in the movies (jedi master can kill one ATAT in 3~5 swings) that's what i am talking about letting troopers shoot down capital ships is one of the worst ideas ever, cauz ppl can now mass trooper and not worry about air.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 I have played EE, that's why I said it wasn't too good. Others will agree with me on this one. StarCraft was balanced remarkably well for a game with three totally unique civs. The fact that marines and the like could take down air units was balanced out by the fact that those air units were actually very good and worthwhile to use individually. There was also the fact that the Marines themselves were worthwhile individually, which is a step away from massing tactics of any sort. If you've watched the movies, you'll see all kinds of ground units attacking all kinds of air units, and vice versa. For example: Stormtroopers firing at the Millenium Falcon as it took off from Mos Eisley. I believe Leia, Chewie and Lando took a few potshots at the Slave I as it flew off from Bespin. Droidekas fired on Anakin's Naboo N-1 in the Theed Hangar. And so on, and so forth. It's clear that troopers should be able to fire on air units, and it should be easy to balance out. About AT-AT's: If an AT-AT is supported by other mechs and carring troopers, the Jedi Master would go down quite easily. Of course, there's the other argument that in the movies, it took a half-trained Jedi just one swing and a good throw to take out an AT-AT..... You claim to be supporting balance, but then you take realism above gameplay. That's just not the way it works. Certain canon issues must be sacrificed for the sake of balance and gameplay, and the AT-AT thing is one of them. And also, the Anti-Air upgrade does make AT-ATs remarkably self-reliant and undoubtedly the most powerful of all the Assault Mechs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Originally posted by CorranSec I have played EE, that's why I said it wasn't too good. Others will agree with me on this one. StarCraft was balanced remarkably well for a game with three totally unique civs. The fact that marines and the like could take down air units was balanced out by the fact that those air units were actually very good and worthwhile to use individually. There was also the fact that the Marines themselves were worthwhile individually, which is a step away from massing tactics of any sort. If you've watched the movies, you'll see all kinds of ground units attacking all kinds of air units, and vice versa. For example: Stormtroopers firing at the Millenium Falcon as it took off from Mos Eisley. I believe Leia, Chewie and Lando took a few potshots at the Slave I as it flew off from Bespin. Droidekas fired on Anakin's Naboo N-1 in the Theed Hangar. And so on, and so forth. It's clear that troopers should be able to fire on air units, and it should be easy to balance out. About AT-AT's: If an AT-AT is supported by other mechs and carring troopers, the Jedi Master would go down quite easily. Of course, there's the other argument that in the movies, it took a half-trained Jedi just one swing and a good throw to take out an AT-AT..... You claim to be supporting balance, but then you take realism above gameplay. That's just not the way it works. Certain canon issues must be sacrificed for the sake of balance and gameplay, and the AT-AT thing is one of them. And also, the Anti-Air upgrade does make AT-ATs remarkably self-reliant and undoubtedly the most powerful of all the Assault Mechs. SC? Balance? man u must be joking me dude u gotta know what kinda balance u talking about SC balanced civ to civ, but then i am talking about big units vs. small units balance EE did a much better job on that. u can mass air bombers, but then ppl can always shoot u down with craps like anti-air mobile, air-to-air fighters troopers firing at air, answers is still no way they fired on those aircrafts becoz they are in the hanger?? perheps?? u think u gonna fire at an air fighter while they are on flight? ...uh...yeah if u are back in the WW1 period, u can...LOL it just doesn't make any sense. i am not taking realism above game play dude, u are supporting Starcraft and u know what? Starcraft is a way too simplisticated game comparing to AoX, EE or SWGB starcraft has crap balance, big units are way too weak, that's why starcraft sux , it doesn't have enuff strategy involved... in SWGB, u can't play the way u play in starcraft, juts mass units cause i can take u out with counter-units ATAT is powerful, but against, gernade troopers??? plus, if u can mass, that means other ppl can mass, right? programmers aren't as dumb as u think they are... this is how game companies manipulate their supporters blizzard knows that its strategy games are crap, but then ppl like the style, so they make it Microsoft knows that AoX cannot beat Starcraft, becoz AoX is much more complicated in terms of a strategy game. SWGB is definitely a good strategy, enhanced verison of AoX... there is no way that SWGB can beat Starcraft besides turning SWGB into some ghetto crap like Starcraft....the market is different so dun try to mess up SWGB with ideas from blizzard games we want a profound strategy game, not a shallow one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 LOL i find it amusing i come to this board becoz i like SWGB and it's good , just like AoX series i am trying to give ideas to enhance the game but u, come to this board to tell us that SWGB is crap and u want to change it to blizzard style u shouldn't even be here if u prefer blizzard games over SWGB we should keep the good stuff, and make it better not change the essence of this game to some ghetto blizzard design, u'll ruin this game completely do u want it to be a good strategy game? or a popular game? i'd choose good strategy game, becoz popular games are often shallow....Counter-Strike is a very very good example (comparing to Jedi Knight 2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 U're joking right?! CS is second only to BF1942! System Shock 2 is not a very popular game, yet I believe is one of the most chilling games there is, so u could be right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3 U're joking right?! CS is second only to BF1942! System Shock 2 is not a very popular game, yet I believe is one of the most chilling games there is, so u could be right there. read the reply again what i meant is that CS is very popular, but it's a shallow game u don't get lightsabres and u cannot counterattack if the bullet has been shot, at u. the game structure is much simpler that's what i mean just like War3 vs. AOK War3 is much simpler.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Ah, I get it now. But why would u have lightsabre's in a reality-based game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Arthur, I'm getting really sick of you basing everything you say on EE. It seems to be becoming abundantly clear that you prefer EE to SWGB, so- "but u, come to this board to tell us that SWGB is crap and u want to change it to EE style" EE had some good points. They were limited. StarCraft had some bad points. They were limited. SWGB has good and bad. Neither are limited- the good outweigh the bad, but we can always make things better. What is this "ghetto" business? Unless it's some kind of slang, I have no idea what you're talking about. Thankyou. You've admitted that SC was balanced civ-to-civ. That's what the main point is, not some weird idea that "small units are not as good as big units." It's an established fact-in gaming and real warfare- that big things kill small things, but lots of small things can kill big things. Medium things kill lots of things, but we won't go into that yet. In SC, there are no hangars, there is no WW1 period. Period. Please, stay away from EE when you're actually discussing SC. In SC, they fire on the aircraft because it's realistic and balanced in gameplay terms. Everyone loves realism, and it's even better when it actually works. The best games are generally the most popular games. If there was a game- let's call it Popular Game A- and it was put on the market, and everyone bought it cos they thought it looked really cool, instead of buying Deep Arthurish Game A, then it turned out to be not as good as Deep Arthurish Game A, a lot of people would subsequently buy Deep Arthurish Game A and play it instead of playing Popular Game A. This did not happen with StarCraft. Or WarCraft III. SC's sales figures are huge and are still growing. Its online community is still very strong. WC3 is doing great in terms of sales-in the millions- and has a jam-packed online community. GB wasn't very popular when it first came out, and CC helped a little, but not much. There are more people still playing AoK than there are playing CC. Do you see hundreds of "ghetto-ish" game players rushing away from the stores to give their games back to purchase Deep Arthurish Games? No. And even if all these game players merely have a different gaming style to you, that proves my point even more, because the game should be changed to fit the majority. They're generally right, and they are, um, bigger, and we want more people to buy the game. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Originally posted by CorranSec Arthur, I'm getting really sick of you basing everything you say on EE. It seems to be becoming abundantly clear that you prefer EE to SWGB, so- "but u, come to this board to tell us that SWGB is crap and u want to change it to EE style" EE had some good points. They were limited. StarCraft had some bad points. They were limited. SWGB has good and bad. Neither are limited- the good outweigh the bad, but we can always make things better. What is this "ghetto" business? Unless it's some kind of slang, I have no idea what you're talking about. Thankyou. You've admitted that SC was balanced civ-to-civ. That's what the main point is, not some weird idea that "small units are not as good as big units." It's an established fact-in gaming and real warfare- that big things kill small things, but lots of small things can kill big things. Medium things kill lots of things, but we won't go into that yet. In SC, there are no hangars, there is no WW1 period. Period. Please, stay away from EE when you're actually discussing SC. In SC, they fire on the aircraft because it's realistic and balanced in gameplay terms. Everyone loves realism, and it's even better when it actually works. The best games are generally the most popular games. If there was a game- let's call it Popular Game A- and it was put on the market, and everyone bought it cos they thought it looked really cool, instead of buying Deep Arthurish Game A, then it turned out to be not as good as Deep Arthurish Game A, a lot of people would subsequently buy Deep Arthurish Game A and play it instead of playing Popular Game A. This did not happen with StarCraft. Or WarCraft III. SC's sales figures are huge and are still growing. Its online community is still very strong. WC3 is doing great in terms of sales-in the millions- and has a jam-packed online community. GB wasn't very popular when it first came out, and CC helped a little, but not much. There are more people still playing AoK than there are playing CC. Do you see hundreds of "ghetto-ish" game players rushing away from the stores to give their games back to purchase Deep Arthurish Games? No. And even if all these game players merely have a different gaming style to you, that proves my point even more, because the game should be changed to fit the majority. They're generally right, and they are, um, bigger, and we want more people to buy the game. Right? I think the conversation is getting pointless since u don't have a high-enough IQ to understand what I just wrote EE, I am giving examples, ok? and the supports from EE becoz i am trying to give u more-than-one examples against SC SC, the balance between big-small units doesn't make sense at all big units kill small units? and small units kill big units? when's the last time u see marines firing at aircrafts? and actually shoot them down? dude I don't like EE at all, it's way too complex. it's just some details that the EE team did well, and it may or may not help the game playing, it's always good to have OPTIONS like tactical heroes. don't start again on this topic, just shut up about it since u can't read. that's why i am here, NOT on the crappy sierra forum i am the one who is getting sick of it u are trying to get ghetto blizzard crap into the new version of SWGB "the most popular games are the best games" that's the ghetto-est crap i've ever heard DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK that everybody prefer games like SWGB? why? and why not? they don't prefer SWGB becoz a lot of ppl think it's too complicated, so they go and keep playing their ghetto war3 what they see in SWGB, is a game that's pointless, complicated and time-consuming, and furthermore, braincell-killing... is SWGB a good game? definitely...SWGB is a good RTS game but why do ppl play war3? becoz that's what blizzard wants, blizzard make its simpler and simpler so it can get more support from the players. War3 , is a really terrible RTS game, but ppl like it, so blizzard make it anywayz. is war3 a bad game? no, it's a good popular game, it's just a bad RTS game, and i dunno why u want to play a rts game that's a bad rts game fit the majority? argh...go play ur war3 if that's what u want u want SWGB to become the most popular game? no way i'd rather see a good RTS game, than a popular game AOK is a good example, good RST game, but not as popular only ppl who have no idea why they play games care about the popularity of a game gosh go check out other forums, JK2? is it more popular than CS? NO, and in the asia region, only Korea has a solid no. of jk2 players what does that tell u? IT DOESn'T MATTER, ok? none of the lucas games has been rated "number 1", or number 2...ppl play this game becoz they like starwars and they like strategy I pull this EE crap in becoz i want to get ur War3 ideas out it is absurd to sacrifice a good game for popularity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 You should go cruise on the Blizzard forums if you want to be a part of the community-the-most-popular-games i don't care anymore if u guys like strategy, like i do i'd say let's keep the blizzard ideas out of this forum if u guys like popular and shallow RTS games, i'd say make SWGB using some ghetto war3 engine so we can do micromanagement ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!! u guys decide i know i am very radical therefore i don't represent any groups of ppl on this forum i am just giving ideas if the majority want SWGB to drop its RTS essence and become a popular game, then....i guess there is nothing i can do about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.