darthfergie Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Er. Did you see them doing quite well against the AT-ATs at the Battle of Hoth? In fact, that's the only battle we've ever seen them in1. . So that's what we're working off. Where did you get the idea that they're good against light mechs? I'd like to see a speeder try to wrap a cable around a speeder bike... lol. I was taking it from Rebel Assault games and SOTE, etc. You have to knock out AT-STs with cannons and use the tow cable on AT-ATs. And BTW, they were slaughtered agianst the AT-ATs. Only 5 AT-ATs out there...3 went down, while the three squadrons of snowspeeders were massacred. And the only reason one of the AT-ATs went down is because of Luke's sabotage. And like I said before...the blasters did NOTHING against those AT-ATs and that is what they use in GB...blasters...when they really have no effect! 2. It adds an element of fun micromanagement and realism. It's a real unit, and we've seen it as good against mechs, and it would be a good addition in terms of GAMEPLAY to the Rebel forces, so I'm putting it in. We've only seen it good against mechs in GB. GB was a failure in many many ways. Realism was one of them. The speeder has horrible underpowered cannons in comparison to the starfighters in SW cannon, yet GB shows it as the ultimate anti-mech weapon!?! Stupid. 3. They all have unique statistics. Some might feel the same, and have the same purpose, but they will be used in different ways- eg. the Empire uses its TIEs to hit-and-run in swarms, while the Rebel fighters would meet the opponents head-on. Also, the Empire will crush enemy bases with their heavy mechs, while the Rebels might only have access to lighter forms of mechs, relying instead on air. why argue here...when it would be pretty pointless. Although with the advent of the TIE Defender the Empire had acess to a wider range of tactics. Same with the rebels and the A-wing. The A-wing is basically unshielded...one good hit and the shields are stripped and it's hull is also weak, but it uses evasion and speed to even up the odds. In GB these tactics were not evident at all...all we saw were the broadsides of yore. Fighter hovers and fires repeatedly while being blasted to bits by AA units (WITH MISSLES I MIGHT ADD!) I just don't see how you can make 15 civs without most of them feeling the exact same. Plus the graphical toll is too much, but I wouldn't mind critisizing your experimentation with 15 civs DarthFergie, do you even like SWGB at all? What are you doing on these forums? I understand you want to make SWGB2 even better but criticising every aspect of the original game is not the best way to do it. Not really. I'm on these forums because I like to talk about games. I was one of the first here because I thought GB would be a good game. Very unfotunatly for all of us...it was just a clone. It lived up to none of my expectations. I have since retired to the off-topic discussion since many friends also go there to discuss all things star wars and beyond. But now GB 2 is coming out and I'm not about to let you nuts to be the only fan feedback. If I want a decent game I'm going to have to offer up my ideas to and hope to God that Gaber sees and understands them. I mean sure alot of my ideas are pretty crazy, but so are some of yours...I just like to debate things and will go to great lengths to get a good debate started:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Geez fergie! What are you doing here? And what do you have against corran?! Come on! It seems you only came back to this part of the forum to argue! To much arguing is like not enough...It's nice when everybody agrees... And the airspeeder is good as it is... You must not know a lot about the A-Wing, it's pretty muchn great how it is. Nice recon craft...If we stick to the movies, the gungans and the naboo would be always slaughtered (if AU_Andy was here, he could tell you something about it). The Empire would almost always win. And the wookiees would also be crushed...Who cares about realism if the game is fun to play with? You don't like it then don't dome over and try to bash every ideas or opinion that comes from people who like the game. It's like being an AoM fan and going to a WarCraft3 forum and trying to insult WarCraft3! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Geez fergie! What are you doing here? And what do you have against corran?! Come on! It seems you only came back to this part of the forum to argue! To much arguing is like not enough...It's nice when everybody agrees... And the airspeeder is good as it is... You must not know a lot about the A-Wing, it's pretty muchn great how it is. Nice recon craft...If we stick to the movies, the gungans and the naboo would be always slaughtered (if AU_Andy was here, he could tell you something about it). The Empire would almost always win. And the wookiees would also be crushed...Who cares about realism if the game is fun to play with? You don't like it then don't dome over and try to bash every ideas or opinion that comes from people who like the game. It's like being an AoM fan and going to a WarCraft3 forum and trying to insult WarCraft3! It's nice when all the dillusional little boys and girls agree. What I'm doing is throwing out more ideas and more concepts and trying to help shape the user feedback for GB 2. Is that not what you have been doing? So what my ideas are a little radical in some areas. But mine are just as important as yours and to me and others they make more since. And if I don't disect the problems with your theories then what will we have? We'll have so many holes you can see right through the game. I like to be the OpFor. It's fun. Shooting holes through flaky ideas is something that needs to be done. If we just present Gaber with 500 million ideas that no one has debated then Gaber has not developed a public opinion effectivly. It will take him hours and hours to disect the information given to him and many extra hours to get a feel for the public opinion. If we present several agreed upon ideas then Gaber has a much better feel for the fan base. We can also point him to the threads where we disected some of the arguements and he can come and comment if he wants. In the end debate is a good thing that improves ideas, not destroys them. Look over at the sniper thread. You see what was originally proposed? A God unit practically with stealth, one shot kill, and the ability to snipe the people inside mechs. With the progression and debate we find the current agreed upon unit includes a much more detailed plan. It now has no stealth, one hit kill only on infantry, long reload, etc. It has gotten rid of the extra fat of the aguement and the details I just showed may be debated more...who knows. But the more we debate the better informed we become. If we just live in our own little world, not compromising and not listening to other people's arguements you will not delever a decent fan feedback, just a large group of biased ideas that will be quickly shot down as implausable by the time Gaber came around. Just go and look in the dev forum at the Greetings to Gaber thread. Many ideas we had been debating as a forum...and then there were ideas that many newbs who never debated, presented to Gaber and many of them were dismissed and some of them confirmed as a "duh" addition. That is not to say that some did not offer decent questions, that is just saying the majority of new joiners did not. I really do want this game to suceed that is why I'm devoting alot of my online time to defend my opinions. I do know that some of my opinions come somewhat harshly...but that's just because I was incredulous that it was sugested with so many obvious flaws staring it in the face. I really am a nice guy...just go look in off-topic. But when you start getting into SW I go into my technical mode. I love SW alot, many of you have no clue, that's why I kind of get defensive. And do not think that I am here alone. Quite a few people support my opinions, but do not see the need to express them since I am doing so very vocaly and wordily. Hopefully sometime they will post tho...*nudge nudge* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 i understand what you mean... only one problem. no everyone ever agrees about the same thing... The game had many holes I agree. But however you just come in here and almost beat the crap out of the game... You almost make it sound like it's the worst game ever made... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Well I kind of have to if I want to turn heads. I really don't think it was the worst game ever made...I just don't think it lived up to its potential at all. It was a major letdown for many of us...just another goof up. And after FoCom we were all hoping they had finally gotten their act together, but we were proven wrong. I just hope that they've finally had enough experiance in the RTS market to finally make a good game. Also I disect GB to show what they can do to make it better in my opinion. I offer it up as an example of wasted potential. I have to use it that way in my arguements or you won't see that and the game will stick to its AoK roots and just be another clone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 GB and CC were goofs and are fun to critisize because it is so easy. It was a fumble of great proportions. The online community didn't even survive a month. Oh sure some of you still get together online, but the vast majority had switched games within a month of picking it up. It was a repeat of AoK...very repeatative thanks to the excessive basebuilding and researching. I felt that I had played the game a few years before and I hope to God that they don't pull the same cloning act this time and do something original. I'm an AoK vet and, if you havn't seen already, a fan of ES's games. But SWGB was a ton better than AoK on a balance/gameplay level. That is the only level that you really should be concerned about, and SWGB was not only better, but unique. And comments (like your A-Wing ones and the whole AoM has 3 civs thing) makes you seem like you only have skimmed these games. I've been playing SWGB online for almost a year now (though I have been in hiatus after AoM came out), and I am a fairly good player. I get annoyed to at people who would rather trade in gameplay for realism, but you are just as bad. And concerning the tow cables and lasers, gameplay>realism. And Wings rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 GB was a repeat of AoK. The engine, scenario editor, everything. Unit classes were the same...even formations were the same! Oh sure there were new features, but it just felt the same. While playing it I just couldn't get over the constant deja vou. I played AoK until I was bored to tears with it...then I played GB and I was quickly bored to tears again...the same gameplay with a new skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 This is where we disagree. I picked up SWGB as something to hold me to AoM because I was sick of AoC. I was amazed (after a while of playing) at the balance (among units and among civs) and at the variety of viable strats (i've yet to see an overpowered strat). I thought the game wouldn't last me to February, but I'm still enjoying it to this day. Kudos to LA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Originally posted by Sithmaster_821 This is where we disagree. I picked up SWGB as something to hold me to AoM because I was sick of AoC. I was amazed (after a while of playing) at the balance (among units and among civs) and at the variety of viable strats (i've yet to see an overpowered strat). I thought the game wouldn't last me to February, but I'm still enjoying it to this day. Kudos to LA One man's trash is another man's treasure. Just differing tastes I guess. It just got old to quickly for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 AoM > GBCC mainly because of convenience features like queueing techs with units, infininte farms, less houses; and three cultures that are actually unique. And the graphics; it has the best graphics IMO of any RTS currently on the market, and that probably won't change until RoN is released. GBCC > AoC because of balance and gameplay. I don't see how anyone who has actually played GBCC (except the unadaptable AoK "experts") can think that AoC was good. GB takes ES's engine and then puts ES to shame, providing better balance and much more possible strategies. If I wanted a game where out of 18 civs, only 3-4 were viable for competetive play (with the rest being underpowered n00b civs), and with every patch ES overdid their "fixes" completely nerfed a civ (ever seen Koreans played in competetive RM after the patch?), and where the last age was ruled by Paladins (which when massed are completely uncounterable), and where the entire game depended on getting to feudal first and having the same old skirm+m@a FLUSH wars, and where the only options were 1 map 1 strat and 3 civs, I would play AoC. In AoC you could literally tell if someone was a n00b by what civ they picked. For a game to have that kind of balance... I must say I find it rather sad that LA has put AoC to shame on AoK's own engine! AoM and GBCC are actually playable and entertaining in competetive MP. The same cannot be truthfully said about AoC. If a game is good, as one gets better at it, it becomes more fun. If a game is not-so-good, as one gains a greater understanding of the game and reaches higher levels of play, the game becomes one-dimensional and repetetive. AoC is the latter, as at high levels of play only ONE strategy is viable and about 1/6 of the civs are even considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Originally posted by darthfergie GB was a repeat of AoK. The engine, scenario editor, everything. Unit classes were the same...even formations were the same! Oh sure there were new features, but it just felt the same. While playing it I just couldn't get over the constant deja vou. I played AoK until I was bored to tears with it...then I played GB and I was quickly bored to tears again...the same gameplay with a new skin. That's not the point though is it?! The point is either: This is the best SW RTS to date. or Who cares if it's the same gameplay?! The point is FUN!!!!!!!! Both for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 GB>AoK Although the tech tree is almost the same between GB and AoK, I almost never get the feeling that I am playing AoK when I am playing GB. You must look at the stuff beyond the graphics and the engine. The strats are completely different! The type of gaming is totally different. In AoK you could win with only champions(tried tested and true). In GB try to win with repeaters only! You would soooo lose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 Ookay. What precisely are we talking about now? Which game is better? I think it's everyone vs. fergie, so we might as well ditch that line of argument. Soo..... anyone want to go back to the whole snowspeeders thing? Well, I don't care, I am. Fergie- If you'd like to remove an otherwise viable and fun air unit for the Rebels in GB2 just because it doesn't fit your particular standards of canon..... er... I'm not sure what to say. That would be a bad idea! The entire Battle of Hoth thing could not be completely accurately represented in a game. But we did learn a few things. Number one: AT-ATs are good against buildings. Number two: Snowspeeders can be good against AT-ATs. Number three: AT-ATs can attack air units. Thus, in GB2, we have AT-ATs that are good against buildings, snowspeeders with decent blaster attack against mechs as well as immobilising tow cables, and AT-ATs having the ability to fire at air units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 I think fergie doesn't want the snowspeeder to be in the game at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 heh...I'm considering it...it's just annoying to develop it's characteristics since so many people think it was made to be anti-mech thanks to the tow cable. If it was anti-mech it would have been equiped with more powerful lasers or some missles, but no. It has relitivly weak lasers, much weaker then most regular starfighters. It's really an anti-infantry/anti-light mech weapon. I'd be willing to see it have light lasers, and a paralysing tow cable ability tho. (activated much like spells are used in WC3). Not much armor tho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE_Vader_536 Posted December 29, 2002 Author Share Posted December 29, 2002 the forum destroyers strike again! Couldnt you PLEEZ TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 The airspeeder and the other UUs were made to fill up a hole in their civ. Like this: Royal crusader-Because naboo have med mech and lousy heavies Droidekas-Because Trade fed has lousy troopers Dark Trooper-Because imps have only med troopers Fambaa shield generators-still thinking Airspeeder-Because rebs have weak mechs. Beserker-same as RC but weak mech instead of med. Jedi Starfighter-still thinking Geonosian Warrior-still thinking That's why airspeeders are good vs mechs. To give the rebs an advantage... SE_Vader_536-You got your account back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE_Vader_536 Posted December 29, 2002 Author Share Posted December 29, 2002 The ban probably lasted only a day i think but i wasnt near any comps since Friday so i never knew cause i just got back from Florida. Lol snowed while i was gone. so yes im back and man am i stupid for thinkin i was banned for good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 It's good to have you back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE_Vader_536 Posted December 30, 2002 Author Share Posted December 30, 2002 i didnt know i was that important... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Fergie- if the snowspeeder was included in the game as good vs. infantry and light mechs (where did you get that from?) it would be fairly useless, as plenty of other units already fulfill those characteristics. Thus, for the interests of gameplay, and also to include a bit of realism, we make them good against a variety of mechs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Originally posted by SE_Vader_536 The ban probably lasted only a day i think but i wasnt near any comps since Friday so i never knew cause i just got back from Florida. Lol snowed while i was gone. so yes im back and man am i stupid for thinkin i was banned for good... Actually I felt sorry for you and had you unbanned. I could have kept you banned and banned that other account you made too. Fergie- if the snowspeeder was included in the game as good vs. infantry and light mechs (where did you get that from?) it would be fairly useless, as plenty of other units already fulfill those characteristics. Thus, for the interests of gameplay, and also to include a bit of realism, we make them good against a variety of mechs. Well that was my arguement...units already fit that. The snowspeeder has no real use and a a terrible UU. The rebels should have got a better UU then that. Maybe it could take the place of the speeder unit and just use it a realistic skin...but putting it in as a Rebel UU that is good against mechs (with it's blasters) is pretty insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Okay, perhaps the snowspeeder was a bad choice for a Rebel UU in GB. But do you still oppose it as a Rebel unit in GB2? Because I do believe that's what we were talking about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE_Vader_536 Posted December 30, 2002 Author Share Posted December 30, 2002 darthfergie? you what?! holy... wow omg People like me here.... i thought i was kinda annoyin myself... well thanx anyway fergie i dont know how to repay you... i could have been gone foreva... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Just so you know, the snowspeeder is one of the most valuable units to the rebels. Its their only real counter to mechs, the best scouting air unit after the JS, and a decent unit against heavies (including aams) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.