PDA

View Full Version : if you could add only one more thing...


General Nitro
07-28-2004, 10:15 PM
If you could add only one more thing to SWGB, what would it be? By thing, I mean absolutely anything and everything. If I could add one more thing, I would add a "Conquer the Galaxy" feature. I could go on forever about conquering the galaxy and what not, but I'll leave it at that. What would you add? Remeber, just one thing.

saberhagen
07-29-2004, 06:22 AM
Rated multiplayer. Enough said.

DarthMaulUK
07-29-2004, 07:09 AM
command bonuses and experience points for units

DMUK

Kryllith
07-29-2004, 10:49 AM
Multi-player (co-op and against), multi-endings campaigns.

Kryllith

swphreak
08-01-2004, 10:17 AM
a Yuuzhan Vong civ, wether it would be "toybox" or actual.

Admiral Vostok
08-01-2004, 04:53 PM
No Yuuzhan Vong! Keep them in Star Trek where they fit in better. :D

There isn't much I would change about the game itself, I still find it more fun to play than most if not all the games I've played since.

General Nitro
08-01-2004, 06:18 PM
The Yuuzhan Vong are a bit Star Trekkish. Therefore, I purpose a Star Trek civ that serves one sole purpose. To be owned by a Star Wars civ. Lame? Yes. Cool? Yes. (I dislike Star Trek with a passion)

DK_Viceroy
08-02-2004, 05:43 PM
That's good because the Yuuzhan Vong are thourough bred star Wars

Admiral Vostok
08-02-2004, 06:45 PM
Yuuzhan Vong are about as unStarWarsy as you can get. Aren't they immune to the Force or something? Mmm, very StarWarsy. :rolleyes:

swphreak
08-02-2004, 07:36 PM
Actually, they aren't immune to the force. Anakin and Jacen Solo were able to sense them in the force and affect them.

Perhaps if you read the NJO, you'd know. :rolleyes:

General Nitro
08-02-2004, 07:43 PM
"Inexplicably, the Yuuzhan Vong are not part of the Force. Their presences do not register in the ubiquitous energy field, and they are immune to Force attacks. Furthermore, the Yuuzhan Vong refuse to acknowledge its existence, attributing Jedi feats to some perverse mechanism embraced by the Jedi infidels. "

-Starwars.com Database

swphreak
08-02-2004, 07:52 PM
I'll be back with some parts from the books.

General Nitro
08-02-2004, 07:54 PM
My freind just recently bought the books. I need to borrow and read them.

swphreak
08-02-2004, 07:58 PM
Actually scratch that. I have better things to do than to make you and other people happy. I know what I read.

Jacen was able to come to an "understanding" of the Yuuzhan Vong, Anakin was able to sense them because he formed a connection to a Yuuzhan Vong crystal, and Tahiri was almost shaped into a Yuuzhan Vong.

General Nitro
08-02-2004, 08:11 PM
I wasn't really trying to start an arguement, nor do I know what exact point is being argued.

Admiral Vostok
08-02-2004, 10:53 PM
Well we've already got one EU vs Movies thread, we don't need another here.

I'm just thankful that marketability will ensure we never see a game with Yuuzhan Vong in it.

DK_Viceroy
08-03-2004, 11:35 AM
Regardless The Yuuzhan Vong Get The force back in some as of yet undefined peroid after the Unifying force.

Just like marketability got the gungans put in GB?

Admiral Vostok
08-03-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by DK_Viceroy
Just like marketability got the gungans put in GB? That's right. The ability to play as Gungans certainly interested me, and being able to recreate the Battle of Naboo is essential. Despite Gungans being for some reason disliked by some, they're still far more popular than the Vong will ever be, simply because they're in the movies that reach a mass audience while The Vong are for a niche market at best.

DarthMuffin
08-03-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
That's right. The ability to play as Gungans certainly interested me, and being able to recreate the Battle of Naboo is essential. Despite Gungans being for some reason disliked by some, they're still far more popular than the Vong will ever be, simply because they're in the movies that reach a mass audience while The Vong are for a niche market at best.

Mmm... I liked that answer :)

What I would add to the game? Well, since we can mess with "absolutely anything and everything", I'd say unique civs.
Strategy games are no fun if the civs are not unique. And a 5% bonus here, 10% there etc. doesn't make a civ unique.

For those stuck with the AoE technology in mind, I'm talking about 100% unique units on each side.

'nuff said, as people say...

General Nitro
08-03-2004, 12:29 PM
Personally, I don't see any reason not to put the Yuuzhan Vong in there. I'd be in favor of added several more civs like Mon Calimari, Hutt Cartel, and Trandoshans. Whether people would want to bother with these lesser known civs is thier choice.

Admiral Vostok
08-03-2004, 12:35 PM
Well it comes down to whether the developers want to bother with the civs. If there's a chance the civ won't be played that often, I can't seem them allocating a lot of time and effort in to making it.

Again I'm thankful the amount of time and effort it would take to incorporate most of these minor civs means they won't be included.

DarthMuffin
08-03-2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by General Nitro
Personally, I don't see any reason not to put the Yuuzhan Vong in there. I'd be in favor of added several more civs like Mon Calimari, Hutt Cartel, and Trandoshans. Whether people would want to bother with these lesser known civs is thier choice.

The problem is that we don't see enough of these hansome fellows in the movies. What we want is a Star Wars game, not something directly out of the designers' mind. Do you realize that most people don't even read crappy novels such as NJO? LucasFilm gave waaay to much freedom with the SW liscence. Having people write books does extend the life of the SW universe, but most of them completely break what SW is.

That being said, I was against having the wookies in SWGB, and the Gungans are borderline because of all their animal mechs, which we don't see in the movies.

Of course the only civ that should be inlcuded are Empire, Rebels, Confeds are Republic, but everybody knows my opinion anyway and I won't get started again because I do feel like nobody here gives a damn about the "uniqueness" of the civs.

Wake up people : "uniqueness" *is* everything (for RTSs, at least). Ever wondered why StarCraft is popular? I mean, the graphics suck pretty bad (even compared to SWGB), but it's still one of the most popular game out there... so why is it so popular? Because the three bloody sides are different! And they're balanced!

If the designers *could* make more than 4 ***unique*** civs, then it's the way to go. However, keeping things balanced is real hard when going more than 4, and I highly doubt the peeps at LA could do that (perhaps they should start with 2 or 3 unique civ? Just to see if they can do it? Of course that would be a horrible marketing decision, but you have to start somewhere...)

StarCraft is balanced now, and it has 3 sides. WarCraft has 4, and after 2 years they're still releasing patches to balance the sides. LA is just not the kind of company who would examine the things that are overpowered and underpowered to fix them. They would never release more than a single patch to correct the bugs. They kind of remind me of EA for that...

Ok, I may got carried away a little.... but anyway... Forums are made to give your opinion after all :)

Admiral Vostok
08-03-2004, 02:39 PM
I agree with Darth. At the moment, the most unique civs in a successful RTS is four. As such, I seriously doubt LA will break any barriers with this new RTS and have five completely unique civs.

another_trooper
08-03-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Darth54

A.
That being said, I was against having the wookies in SWGB, and the Gungans are borderline because of all their animal mechs, which we don't see in the movies.

Of course the only civ that should be inlcuded are Empire, Rebels, Confeds are Republic, but everybody knows my opinion anyway and I won't get started again because I do feel like nobody here gives a damn about the "uniqueness" of the civs.

------------------------------------
B.
[about Starcraft] I mean, the graphics suck pretty bad (even compared to SWGB)

Part A: Yes thats true, the thing that makes most lucasarts game fun, is being able to control the amazing things u see in the movies, such as jedi powers, lightsabers, space battles, huge imperial walkers and stuff. Lets face it, the marketing strategy used by lucasarts relies mostly on the "StarWars License" to encourage people to buy the game, even though it could be made better with a little more work put into it.

Part B: GAH! u n00b :) theyre not bad

Nairb Notneb
08-08-2004, 08:17 AM
Anyway, what I would add to the game is . . . . .

A custom civ. In this civ you go and pick each unit that you want to use from the ones that are already there. You can also pick from the tech tree as well for any unique research items that you want to have as well. Each item/unit would be allotted a value and you would be allowed a certain amount to keep it fair. Of course that option could be disabled so you could make a super civ if you wanted to. In this civ you could also choose units from the heroes and toy box units as well. That would be a fun civ to play with.

Puzzlebox
08-08-2004, 09:11 AM
That falls flat, if you want the factions to be unique which I think we all do then having a faction creator isn't being very pragmatic, it is not the same as creating an eigth century power in Medieval europe. The developers time could better be spent elsewhere. Implementing a conquer the galaxy mode for instance.

General Nitro
08-08-2004, 09:14 AM
Conquer the Galaxy!!! woot!

Puzzlebox
08-08-2004, 09:22 AM
:)

Such a feature would be wanted no matter what they called it Nitro but I won't be encouraging you not to gloat anytime soon.

Admiral Vostok
08-08-2004, 10:51 AM
I've said it before but I'll say it again: a customisable civ just doesn't work for Star Wars. If you want a fully customisable civ, there are plenty of games out there that offer them. Having a customisable civ just isn't Star Warsy.

Having said that though, I would like something similar to what I have in my RTS design where you can use minor civs. They aren't balanced correctly, so they'd be an option like cheats you can turn on or off. This would allow all sorts of minor civs from the movies and - dare I say it - even allow Yuuzhan Vong in the game, yet the developers don't have to spend as much time designing and balancing them. Most of these units are created for the toybox or for appearances in campaigns anyway, why not allow them to be playable in MP (albeit unbalanced)?

General Nitro
08-08-2004, 10:53 AM
gloat? about what?

Nairb Notneb
08-12-2004, 12:18 PM
Vostok, I agree with that a customizable civ is not "Star Warsy". It's not, but there are a lot of things that must go into these games that have to be made up by the game designers to get it to play and to keep it played. I think that could be one of them. I do love your minor civ idea and think it would work. Ewoks, sand people, Bespin City could be possible minor civs for example that could enhance a scenario, or game, very much. For a real challenge a player could choose to play as a minor civ at a disadvantage against a major civ and not have as many unit types to use in combat against his/her opponent. That would be great. More unique details in each individual civ, that is "Star Warsy".

DarthMuffin
08-17-2004, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Nairb Notneb
For a real challenge a player could choose to play as a minor civ at a disadvantage against a major civ and not have as many unit types to use in combat against his/her opponent. That would be great. More unique details in each individual civ, that is "Star Warsy".

Sorry, but that's never gonna happen. Perhaps it would be nice once or twice for single player, but nobody would want to do this in multiplayer.

More details in each civ makes the game star warsy for sure, but mixing stormtroopers with rebel x-wing and destroyer droids is far from being star warsy. Besides, that would make the game horribly unbalanced, and balance is one of the key to keep people interested a game (mp speaking, at least). Perhaps for sp only, but even there, it's a SW game we want.

Admiral Vostok
08-17-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Darth54
Sorry, but that's never gonna happen. Perhaps it would be nice once or twice for single player, but nobody would want to do this in multiplayer.Not in competitive multiplayer, it's true, but for those of us who like playing for fun just as much as playing to win, minor civs would be an excellent addition. Think of how much better scenario-making would be if the minor civs already worked like a proper civ (they could collect resources, build buildings and train units).

The best example of what I'm thinking is the Naga in WarCraft III - except playable in multiplayer. You could play them in the campaigns as though they were a fully-fledged civ, though of course they were underpowered compared to the other civs.

Of course, it would need to have a restriction on it so it could be turned off like cheats. The host would have to specify that minor civs were allowed, because the minor civs would not be properly balanced and could be exploited.

It would be very little extra work for the developers - they're creating minor civ units for the most part for both the campaigns and the toybox anyway, why not add the small amount of coding that would be needed for them to function properly? Again, they need not be balanced like a proper civ.

DK_Viceroy
08-19-2004, 12:47 PM
The naga in Warcraft would require pehaps a hand full of units and a few tweaks to be a fully playble race but they're still not underpowered. Think what would you rather have Five Naga Myrmidons or Five Undead Ghouls?

Admiral Vostok
08-19-2004, 03:57 PM
Well no, they're not overly underpowered, but at the same time they're not properly balanced either.

I think it would have been cool if the Naga were available in multiplayer as they are, though only allowed in non-competitive games where the host has allowed their use. That's sort of how I envision the inclusion of the minor Star Wars civs.

DK_Viceroy
08-19-2004, 04:55 PM
Are you sure of that you have extensiveley complained on the checking of boxes as a getout clause.

Admiral Vostok
08-19-2004, 05:36 PM
I know, but this is different. The inclusion of an underpowered civ is different from turning off fundamental elements of the game, such as Heroes, weather, water transports, etc. I'm against turning off fundamental game elements like these just because people might not like them.

Turning off the inclusion of minor civs is different though; it's more akin to turning off cheats. The reason you turn them off is not because you don't like them (though it can be), it is more because you're choosing between either competitive or friendly play. Either you have a friendly game with unbalanced civs turned on, or a competitive game with unbalanced civs turned off.

DarthMuffin
08-19-2004, 08:32 PM
All right then, maybe minor civs would be a good idea.

But why would LA bother doing minor civs when they can't even do major civs properly??

They should try to make 2 or 3 unique civs first, and if it works out well, then try 4. If everything is fine (balance being the main problem), then consider adding such minor civs.

Blizzard did balance 4 races, and added the Naga for story purposes. Do you know why Naga are not playable in MP (or custom or whatever)? Because Blizzard knew that it would take a crap load of time to balance it with the 4 existing races (and the more races, the harder the balance is). Furthermore, WC3 is 2 years old now, and what people want is a StarCraft 2. For marketing reasons, it is more profitable for the company (and for the customers too, because after 2 years, newer games tend to be a lot better) to work on a totally new game. Since the people at blizzard actually know what they're doing, their games usually have a really great life expanse (SC still being one of the most played RTS, if it's not the most). In any event, WC3 was a test to see if a game with 4 unique sides could be done. And the game was succesful.

Perhaps they will add more races in the possible SC2. WC2 had 2, SC had 3, WC3 has 4.

Having 5 completely unique sides in a RTS would be extremely hard to make, and I'm sure the peeps at blizzard decided that if they do try this challenge, it would be better with a completely new game. With the Naga in, they would need to seriously tweak the existing races, taking away the spirit of the game.

Just to keep on topic a little, I'll conclude by saying that minor civs should be reserved for a game that already has unique, balanced sides (think of it as a little "bonus" or whatever).

Admiral Vostok
08-19-2004, 11:34 PM
I know that's why the Naga wasn't made playable, Darth. I'm saying they could have included it as a minor civ, unbalanced and only playable in friendly games... though it would have been a bit weird to have just had the Naga like this. They could also have included the Chaos Orks and High Elves and the other minor civs from WarCraft 3.

FroZticles
08-20-2004, 02:39 AM
Blizzard has still not yet balanced all the races, thats why they are still dishing out patches every month to continue the search or the complete balance. I've played online with WC3 for a while and they are still not fully balanced.

DK_Viceroy
08-20-2004, 11:34 AM
Not to mention the perpetual unbalancing of the games with a string of new heroes that don't really fit into any sort of story line.

Firelord what's a firelord. oh it's some sort of demented creature that wants to incinerate every single thing in the land of azeroth itno molten ooze. Heck it's overpowered it has an everlasting elemental it just attacks for long enough and you have 217 of the blasted things it has inceneration that makes dieing units explode and it has what practically every single mod map has put in the spell Volcano.

Goblin Alcehemist what's one of those. some useless thing that people will rarely use oh big woop it can poison a unit for a little bit it can mutate it's ogre and don't forgwet it's only useful skill transmute, yay free gold really doesn't balance out the cost of reviving the thing sinvce it wouldn't last that long.

Blizzard actually intended to have 5 races with RoC the Burning Legion but they dropped them.

They did the sdame with frozen throne, except with the Naga they couldn't delay the release anymore.

Why do you think there are people on blizzards forum on a and i quote a "Glorious Quest Of Naga Fufilment" and a hole slew of mod maps that have the naga as a playable race.

Blizzard never had the game balanced in the first place so what the heck finish up the naga and chuck em in they might actually end up finally balancing the game by accident.

Admiral Vostok
08-20-2004, 02:25 PM
This brings up an interesting point... is it in fact possible to balance more than three races?

Some game companies have trouble with even three - while I do enjoy C&C:Generals, there's no denying it is hideously unbalanced. You're totally screwed on island maps if you're GLA.

But history has shown us the balancing three civs is not a hard task. StarCraft, the first of the games with three unique sides, is still held up as a beacon of balance, through both the original and the expansion pack. I also think Age of Mythology, where their original three civs, was very well balanced.

Yet when it came to adding the Atlanteans into AoM:Titans, I would argue the balance is gone. The Atlanteans are not as well balanced as the original three. To bad Sithmaster no longer posts here as I'm sure he'd refute it, but I just don't see how Atlanteans could possibly be balanced: they are the only civ with multiple-use God powers, and their workers are far better than any other civ.

And certainly from the outset WarCraft 3 has shown poor balance. It will be interesting to see the balance in Dawn of War and Battle for Middle Earth; I'm not holding much hope for BfME after Generals' track record, and as a Beta Tester for Dawn of War I know there have been a lot of balance issues.

So, is it even possible to correctly balance four civs, let alone five or more?

DK_Viceroy
08-20-2004, 03:06 PM
It is indeed possible Generals has some semblance of balance Zero hour enhances this. I don't know of any island maps bu i highly suspect if there were you'd get the sneak attack power for free at the start. it certainly is that way when you play against the General Alexander Generals challenge.

http://aom.heavengames.com/gameinfo/atlanteans/units/villager

that is an article of how balanced their villager is if you look you'll find loads of things

DarthMuffin
08-20-2004, 05:19 PM
If you want minor races to be like the high elves (only playable without using the editor), then I say it's fine. But as we said before, it's not a good marketing reason, because most people play RTSs online to win. Especially with ladders, there's no reason to play an underpowered race. But yeah, it would be cool to play as the high elves.

@ FroZticles : At least they do their best to make it balanced. And Blizzard is about the only company who would "dish out" patches every month to improve their games. Furthermore, the most skilled players don't have huge problems with the remaining balance problems. What's left is mostly number tweaking.

And by the way, the Battle.net forums are a really bad place to go. It's full of stupid people who whine over and over again, and yet they can't play (for the most part) the game properly.

@Vostok : I'm sure it's possible to balance 4 races. It just takes a long time. When SC came out, they balanced a lot. After a couple of years, it's possibly the most balanced RTS now. WC3 is going that way too, except it takes longer because there are more sides.

If you actually play a lot of WC3 on battle.net (like I used to do), you'll see that the balance is not bad. Yes, there was a time the NE were really cheesy, but that's gone. The human nuke is still powerful, but they fixed it.

I've stopped playing WC3 for the last months, but a friend of mine is really high level. I've seen some of his recorded games, and who wins or loses depends on the player's skills. Most of the cheese is gone. Also, a good player knows how to counter cheese.

I too don't have much faith in BfME. It's the kind of game that, IMO, is only worth playing for the heck of it. Not for ladder play.

Haven't heard of Dawn of War though. I'll have to check it out.

Admiral Vostok
08-20-2004, 06:10 PM
Well I guess it is possible to balance 4 civs. It's just we don't have such a great example as StarCraft for the 4-civ games.

DK_Viceroy
08-21-2004, 09:45 AM
WC 3 is becoming balancved slowly buy surely it's like trial and error.

I downloaded the second edition of the new beta patch and it seems to have been made better with a lot of things being fixed and the firelord nerfed but the slight and i mean slight improvement of the alchemist which at one point had the grand total of 2 armour at level 6 now gets 3 armour at level 6 BIG differnce i know but it's trial and error.

now if only lucasarts could do that instead of releasing so many hurried games.

Admiral Vostok
08-21-2004, 09:50 AM
now if only lucasarts could do that instead of releasing so many hurried games.Well you have a point there. Blizzard may be a lot of things, but unsupportive of their releases they are not. Up until the release of WC3, they were still releasing a new StarCraft map every few weeks. Of course, if they'd just built a random map generator into the game they wouldn't have to do this at all... that is certainly one thing the next SWRTS needs, a random map generator. In my opinion that's almost as important as proper balance when it comes to multiplayer longevity.

DarthMuffin
08-21-2004, 06:00 PM
Support for a game is probably the second most important thing a company should do (the first being actually able to make good games). An excellent game without any support is quite bad.

I only know 3 companies who support their games very well :

-Blizzard (patches, more patches, and new stuff too!)

-BioWare (Bio was founded by two doctors... they know it's important to care about customers)

And, to a lesser degree
-Maxis (even though they are with the crappy EA).

LucasArts has the EA philosophy in mind, except that EA can dish out games a lot quicker, which gives them an advantage.

But LucasArts games tend to be very fun for us SW fans though... I can't wait to try Battlefront! Finally a shooter with no Jedi crap! Go stormy!!! :trooper: :trooper: :trooper:

DK_Viceroy
08-22-2004, 06:00 AM
Remeber however Maxis has a nasty habit of putting unpleasent suprises in some of their stuff.

One thing especially is that hell ridden hamster of doom i last an astronaut a polotician and a police cheif that flea ridden furball and al because of some flea risdden hamster that kills sims indiscriminantly.

If lucasarts slowed down or at least had a team dedicated to working on game improvements we might actually get a perfect game from them i'd rather have one perfect game then 6 for the 3 different formats.

Some of the better star wars games arn't even made by LA they're subcontracted out.

The Perfect example of that is us lucky gamecube owners who get the Rogue Squadron series from Factor 5

DarthMuffin
08-22-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by DK_Viceroy
Remeber however Maxis has a nasty habit of putting unpleasent suprises in some of their stuff.

One thing especially is that hell ridden hamster of doom i last an astronaut a polotician and a police cheif that flea ridden furball and al because of some flea risdden hamster that kills sims indiscriminantly.

Just don't buy it :)

And there's a cure involving the hamster picture. I don't remember how to do it, but you'll find it at gamefaqs.

Originally posted by DK_Viceroy

Some of the better star wars games arn't even made by LA they're subcontracted out.

The Perfect example of that is us lucky gamecube owners who get the Rogue Squadron series from Factor 5

Sadly, that's true. Other examples would be KotOR from BioWare and Jedi Knight 2 / Academy from Raven. And those two games are probably the most popular/good SW games on the market.

Btw, was Tie Fighter from LA? I think so. If it is, then it's probably the best SW game by LA.

DK_Viceroy
08-23-2004, 02:31 PM
SWGB for all it's faults isn't that bad a game compared to what i've heard of about force commander

DarthMuffin
08-23-2004, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by DK_Viceroy
SWGB for all it's faults isn't that bad a game compared to what i've heard of about force commander

To say the truth, FC is not *that* bad.

Sure the "command points" system sucks, the graphics are below average and the gameplay is mediocre, but it's still fun to do the campaigns (IMO). The multiplayer is bad though.

I'm really impressed by the scenario (I mean, SP campaigns) community of SWGB. Out of nostalgia, I checked the scenario design forums at heavengames and... wow... just wow. There are some extremely talented people out there, and what they can do with such an old engine is amazing. I even downloaded a couple to check them out. So if there are any new players reading this, check this (www.swgb.heavengames.com) out!

Darth Windu
08-23-2004, 11:57 PM
Well in terms of games, it really isnt unusual for there to be two companies involved. For example, RoN was created by Big Huge Games and published by Microsoft. Star Trek Elite Force, Star Trek Elite Force 2, Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy were all created by Raven and published by Activision.

Actually speaking of that, im kinda annoyed at them. A few months ago i had the chance to buy either JA or KotOR for $50AUD, so i bought JA. Now, KotOR is still around $70 while Activision has included JA in it's $10 game line-up.

FroZticles
08-24-2004, 04:56 AM
I had the opposite to you Windu I bought Kotor for $90 and JA was also around there at the time. Now JA is $10 so I'm gonna buy that now :)

Admiral Vostok
08-24-2004, 11:58 AM
Well, getting back to the original question I'd have to say that the one thing I would add is decent support from LA. Though in all honesty SWGB probably doesn't need any more support, as it's well balanced and has a random map generator and scenario editor...

DK_Viceroy
08-24-2004, 05:06 PM
I could point out a few tweaks that should be done, Like nerfing A-wings and giving the confederacy Adv Power Packs. as well as making the upgrade to elite geonosian warrior actuallt do something because as of the moment it doesn't actually do anything.

Admiral Vostok
08-24-2004, 08:09 PM
Well I don't think A-Wings need nerfing at all, despite being on the receiving end of pbguy's A-Wings every week. SWGB is pretty well balanced, really.

FroZticles
08-25-2004, 03:57 AM
The only balance issue is probably the A-wing could use a nerf. LA like to take the game out first go if that fails they release one or two patches so additional support is not needed.

DK_Viceroy
08-25-2004, 12:35 PM
If it's perfect then what does the upgrade to Elite Geonosian Warrior do?


It seems to do nothing no stat change no sheilds no nothing.

Admiral Vostok
08-25-2004, 05:18 PM
That isn't a balance issue though. Sure, it's a little strange that the Geonosian Warrior doesn't get upgraded all that much, but it hardly disadvantages or unbalances the Confederacy. The Geonosian Warrior is good enough without the upgrade.

DK_Viceroy
08-26-2004, 11:59 AM
Ys but it should at least be adressed since making it a little better would give the confederacy an advantage to offset the fact that it doesn#t get Adv Blaster Packs which is strange for a supposedly trooper strong civ.

Admiral Vostok
08-26-2004, 01:25 PM
The Confederacy doesn't get Advanced Power Packs because Droid Upgrades effectively replaces it.

By the same token, Gungans don't get Integrated Rangefinders because Farseein Binoculars effectively replaces it.

I'll admit the upgrade to Elite Geonosian Warrior does nothing, but the only reason to change that would be so the research isn't a waste of resources, not because the Confederacy is deficient in anti-infantry weaponry.

DK_Viceroy
08-26-2004, 03:37 PM
Maybe it should give the Geo an actual range instead of being a quasi Aerial melee especially since it is what you would say canonocinal with the films for it to have an attack like that maybe a boost against jedi?

Admiral Vostok
08-26-2004, 04:01 PM
Both those suggestions would be decent (+1 range, bonus against Jedi). Are the Geonosian Warriors already good against Jedi (since their attack is yellow, like Bounty Hunters). If not they probably should be, though not as good as bounty hunters, and unable to detect like Bounty Hunters too.

FroZticles
08-26-2004, 11:46 PM
Since there attack is yellow..... Like Bounty hunters.....????

Admiral Vostok
08-27-2004, 09:56 AM
Yeah, most of the attacks in the game are colour coded. Red is good against infantry, blue is good against mechs, green is good all around (except for when it comes from a TIE Fighter or Gunship) and yellow is good against Jedi/Sith (except for the Geonosian Warrior's attack).

FroZticles
08-27-2004, 11:49 PM
Ohhhh I thought you were talking bout the movies....

Jedi Starfighters are not good against mechs with there blue laser.

Admiral Vostok
08-28-2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by FroZticles
Jedi Starfighters are not good against mechs with there blue laser.That's true, but as I indicated there are some exceptions.

Perhaps if the Geonosian Warriors were made decent against Jedi it would be a bit overpowering. As it is, Bounty Hunters are fine because Jedi can run up and chop them. But if you had a swarm of Geonosians, Jedi wouldn't stand a chance. So perhaps it's better that they don't get a bonus against Jedi.

lukeiamyourdad
08-28-2004, 07:05 PM
Hmmm...Geonosian Warriors do get a stat change when upgraded. I think it's +5 to their HP.

Besides, they're good enough to litteraly eat infantry and workers. They're far from useless.