lukeiamyourdad Posted September 7, 2003 Share Posted September 7, 2003 Windu- Hmmm...that's not what you had a few months ago...lol:D Sith- *cough*cough*simwiz*cough*cough* Darth54- Difficult? Of course. The hardest part is balance but that can be done with a few patches:D no seriously AoK had like 10 patches. No doubt about it, using a non modified AoK engine was the biggest mistake. It felt like a very good AoK mod for a lot of people. Personnally, I think 9 civs + one messed up unbalanced secret civ(just to make people play the campaign eh) is doable. However I'm starting to consider removing the Hutts from full civ to messed up civ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 luke - since the last time i emailed out copies of my idea, it has changed very, very extensively Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Well I think eight civs is doable. The biggest task would be graphics - creating eight different sets of graphics would take a while - but since much of the art is already designed (straight from movies, etc) it might not be as tough as you think. In terms of programming and balancing I don't think it would be any harder than it was to do Age of Mythology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 AoM is pretty nice I played it again, and it just pwnz RoN... I guess it wouldn't be a bad idea to base SWGB2 on AoM's engine, but they should work on their lasers; GBs lasers are a pain to look at. I still don't agree with the "9 civs + 1 messed up unbalanced secret civ" stuff. I'd personaly go for 6 - I'd take Windu's list and take out the hutts (big, fat, ugly things? who would want to play as them?) and the something Vong civ. swfreak - it was pretty nice also to make legions of At-Ats walk on rebel troopers Gah! So many interesting topics here! It's getting even more interestinig than the off-topics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 It's a bad idea to base SWGB2 on AoM. Most features wouldn't make sense. By Hutts we meant Hutt Cartel not the Hutts themselves(LOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL). It means that their "army" would be composed of Gammorean guards, weequay, bounties and mercs. If you wanna go for 6 that's fine less civs to balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 I played it again, and it just pwnz RoN... Wow, we actually agree on something (RoN is another game on my hit list) Sith- *cough*cough*simwiz*cough*cough* He vows to return when SWGB2 is announced... Windu, wouldn't making the civ playable online defeat the purpose of the secret civ (that it would be just-for-fun, balanced but not too much to ruin the pleasure). If it were to be online, then it would have to be up to the same standards of the normal civs, taking out many of the avenues for uniqueness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Sith - well, no. A player would only be able to use the Vong online once they had unlocked it, and only if all other players agreed to their use. It would also allow newb's to get some online experience without being beaten in the first 5 minutes (if that) and would also allow gamers to challenge themselves by playing against the Vong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaruGlory89 Posted September 13, 2003 Author Share Posted September 13, 2003 Vuuzhan Vong could be a toybox civ, one that isn't available, but can be used in SP missions and editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_trooper Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 8 or 9 civs can be unique, but let us not forget this (especially for those who are saying how it can be done) Lucasarts is making the game, not you. Looking at the history of their productions, I prefer to keep my hopes low then be surprised than having high hopes and being disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Originally posted by another_trooper Looking at the history of their productions, I prefer to keep my hopes low then be surprised than having high hopes and being disappointed. Well were all doing this for fun we all know we won't be making the game(if we did it would be so good:D ). Nevertheless, if people keep their hopes high, LA will be forced to make something good so we won't be deceived and throw out our copy of SWGB2 cursing at them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Windu, which of the two of us plays online actively? Which of the two of us would understand better what is good for the competitive online atmosphere and what is bad? Believe me when I say that secret just-for-fun civs would not work online. I definitely agree with haruglory on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad It's a bad idea to base SWGB2 on AoM. Most features wouldn't make sense. By Hutts we meant Hutt Cartel not the Hutts themselves(LOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL). It means that their "army" would be composed of Gammorean guards, weequay, bounties and mercs. If you wanna go for 6 that's fine less civs to balance. Star Wars God powers! I want to see this! *Son of Osiris on a Jedi?* about the hutts - damn, I wanted to see a hutt jedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Sith - as i said before, the Vong would be playable online on the condition that all players agreed to allow it. If one player out of 8 said no, then the Vong would be banned for that game. luke - i agree with you there Darth - no-one ever suggested a Hutt Jedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 I'm also against allowing the secret civ to be played on-line. I think I may have been of a different opinion in the past, but I've changed my mind now. The sad fact of the matter is that most people playing on the net are playing to win, not necessarily just to have fun. It could be entirely possible for an unscrupulous net player (not a rarity by any stretch) to deceive other players into allowing the secret civ. I can also foresee a sort of enmity between those players who want to use the secret civ and those who will not allow it. There will be cries of "You just aren't good enough to beat them" or "You just aren't good enough to play a proper civ" between the two factions, and no good can come of a Zone divided against itself. So in conclusion no to on-line secret civs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 I play D2 online a lot and it's one big nightmare but fun. There's tons of a-holes and lil'B!tch out there who can't agree on a single thing. It's thoroughly impossible to have an online only secret civ. If they're overpowered(since it's a secret civ) no one will allow them and if it's underpowered no one will play them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Sadly enough, Vostok, you're correct. The online community is all about winning and very every man for himself. Its quite dissappointing, but its true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Originally posted by Darth Windu Darth - no-one ever suggested a Hutt Jedi But it would be nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZLaZ Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 I just want to make a note of something. If you'll look at most RTS games, none of the races are truly unique. WC3 for example, has little uniqueness to it, there's always a melee unit, always a ranged unit, and always a Barracks. There's only one game that I know that has truly unique Civs, and that is StarCraft, everything is unique in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 That is true, though we're not suggesting mutually-exclusive civs. They will have several things in common, though not as much as they have in common in SWGB1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZLaZ Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 That makes sense, as long as many things have different functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_trooper Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 Originally posted by ZLaZ I just want to make a note of something. If you'll look at most RTS games, none of the races are truly unique. WC3 for example, has little uniqueness to it, there's always a melee unit, always a ranged unit, and always a Barracks. There's only one game that I know that has truly unique Civs, and that is StarCraft, everything is unique in that. Footie/rifle grunt/headhunter archer/huntress ghoul/crypt fiend As for Starcraft Marine/Firebat Zergling/Hydralisk Zealot/Dragoon Its the same, but its the balance which makes it unique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 Originally posted by another_trooper Footie/rifle grunt/headhunter archer/huntress ghoul/crypt fiend As for Starcraft Marine/Firebat Zergling/Hydralisk Zealot/Dragoon Its the same, but its the balance which makes it unique You should listen to him, he knows what he's talking about (and I agree with him too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.