LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Galactic Discussion (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=586)
-   -   Recommended Changes in Patch 1.06 (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=168137)

SAGEKING-PG 07-27-2006 02:30 PM

Recommended Changes in Future EAW Updates
 
There has been much discussion over the changes in Patch 1.05, and there are many opinions on how its changed the game. Lets see if we can turn these into constructive proposals to help move the game forward in possible future patches/changes.

Please write your recommendations in this format:
example:

Proposal:
Decrease Power to Weapons from 10 seconds to 7 seconds for Tartans.

Reasoning (What will this fix?):

This will stop the strategy of sending a rush with a single tartan to take out a mine, crippling the opponents economy from the start.

Current Perceived Imbalance (What is the current scenario of imbalance):

Currently, a lone tartan can by hyperspaced into a mine and take it out dispite fire by a starbase and 2 corvettes. This essentially is undefendable from the beginning if you build a mine.

We will look into these recommendations and have our QA test applicable proposals.

This thread is for constructive feedback only.


_______________________________________________


Quote:

If you want to post more than one proposal please do as Apocalypse and ImpElite did and add it to your original post. Just use the edit this link at the lower right part of your message.

Thanks!
- popcorn2008

Please do as popcorn asked. I will outright delete double posts.
~StarWarsPhreak

ImpElite 07-27-2006 04:53 PM

1. Proposal, Replace X-wings special ability "Lock S-foils" with "Proton Torpedo shot" which allows the X-wing to fire a Proton Torpedo that does 1/3 the damage that a Y-wing missile would do. Reason, This will balance the space skirmish battles more. Perceived Imbalance, Right now with patch 1.05 the Rebel faction can take all the mines in the map before the Imperials can.

2. Proposal, (online) if a player quits a game and there is one or more player left, then the remaining player(s) could have or share the person who quit's population cap and money. Reason, This will give the remaining player(s) a better chance to continue the game without losing. Perceived Imbalance, Right now if someone quits on a team, the other team has a better chance of winning.

Those are my ideas right now.

saalkin 07-27-2006 06:44 PM

Proposal: Tech level the heros in GC MP.

Reason: It will stop heros like pett and home one from being used right off the bat.

Current Perceived Imbalance:
As of now you start with all your heros and at tech level 1 you can completly take over any planet owned by another player unless they have their hero(s) there.

Another one, going to make this short. Change the ground shields so that bombing runs can't be used to destory stuff in the shield when its up by targeting outside of it.

Darth Anarch 07-27-2006 07:22 PM

Proposal:
Make Tartans and Corvettes/Gunships easier to hit.

Reasoning:
It's not that these vessels can take so much damage, it's that most of the shots targetting them seem to miss.

Percieved Imbalance:
In a game yesterday I had two Acclamators and one Victory Star Destroyer target a single Gunship, and it took them an inordinate amount of time to bring it down. Not because it could take a lot of damage, but because nearly all the shots sailed neatly past. In the meantime said Gunship was hammering my fighters and seriously damaged a Broadside cruiser.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal:
Give us a Pause key on the keyboard as well.

Reasoning:
It's a pain to have to take your eyes and the mouse off the action to pause the game when there's a lot going on. It would be good to have a key on the keyboard you could just keep your finger on.

popcorn2008 07-28-2006 12:22 AM

Proposal:
Replace the X-Wing in tech level 1 with the Z-95 Headhunter.

Reasoning:
This will eliminate the rebels advantage in reaching mines sooner than imperials in earlier tech levels of a space skirmish game.

Percieved Imbalance:
Many players feel that the rebels have a huge advantage in tech level 1 because the x-wings lock s-foils ability allows them to reach mines faster. Replacing the x-wing with the z-95 for tech level 1 not only levels this out but gives each side a fighting chance.

Rust_Lord 07-28-2006 02:14 AM

Proposal:
I concur with ImpElite; Allow continuing player in multiplayer to inherit leaving players money, ships and population cap.

Reasoning:
As per current setup, when a player leaves a team it puts the remaining player at a fatal disadvantage.

Perceived Imbalance:
2 on 1 is simply not equal.

----------------------------------------

Proposal:
Give Empire back third TIE squadron on startup.

Reasoning:
2 X-wing Squadrons are more than a match for two TIE Squadrons, considering an X-wing squadron can outrun a fight with TIEs it cant win using their special ability.

Perceived Imbalance:
Nothing perceived about it.
Cost of 2 Xwing squadrons: 1000
Cost of 2 TIE squadrons: 600 (difference =400)
Cost of 3 TIE squadrons: 900 (difference =100)

-----------------------------------------

Proposal:
Start with smaller population cap and increase cap by increasing tech level. This *could* be applied to galactic campaign but is aimed more at fixing imbalance with skirmish play.

Reasoning:
This will limit the size and therefore composition of forces until a player has been able to upgrade at least two tech levels, preventing ‘rushes’ of low tech units. The larger the station the larger the force it can service/support.

Perceived Imbalance:
Due to Rebel Alliances’ superiority in ship performance this will restrict the size of force that they can deploy at lower tech levels and allow the game to generally reach a higher tech level before a conclusion can be achieved.

With the space station population cap upgrade system each side would start with a pop cap of 5. Each side receives an extra 5 pop cap at each tech level after 2 (from 3 on) with the Rebels receiving an additional 5 at Tech lvl 3 to counter the free Tie squadrons the Empire receives from its ships. I considered the Rebels receiving an extra 5 cap at level 2 but everyone upgrades to level 2 immediately so they would pretty much have the extra 5 cap anyway.

So at tech 3 pop cap is E10/15R, with the Rebs receiving the extra 5 cap at this level. At level 4 the cap is E15/20R, at level 5, E20/25R. This would ensure no one gets too far ahead. It could make for a more balanced game and places even more emphasis on upgrading. It would hinder people from spawning an armada of nothing but corvettes at lower levels for eg. You would be forced to use the lower end ships for a bit longer, and with your decision to reduce the tech for VSDs and AF's you would have access to some heavier firepower just as your cap gets bigger.

-------------------------------------------

Proposal:
Reduce hit point and shield strength of Corvette class.

Reasoning:
The Corvette class is a small, weak class of ship used for scouting or anti starfighter duty not going toe to toe with frigates.

Perceived Imbalance:
Currently they are half as tough as an Acclamator and are overly effective against the frigate class. Due to accuracy issues and the level of their health they can take an extra-ordinary amount of fire to hit and kill. The Corellian corvette is particularly deadly given its 8 laser cannons and ability to run from any fight when under threat.

To keep them to the true anti-starfighter role they were meant for I suggest that their health and shields be halved and their cost reduced to 2/3. This will also allow fighters and bombers to hurt them a bit more.

Veray 07-28-2006 07:28 AM

Proposal: (Space Skirmish)
Leave it as it's now (1.05), or go back as it was before 1.04

Reasoning:
Don't listen to all those noobs again, we've no need for a disaster like 1.04

Balancing...
...is O.K. right now because X-Wings are faster and stronger than TIEs but far more expensive and slower to build. Tech2 is fair enough as well.

PLEASE let some skilled player test the next patch before launching it, most of them already stopped playing after 1.04. Half of the users out there don't even recognize that mines are the key to success.

P5yNerGy|TFL 07-28-2006 07:42 AM

Proposal : Leave corvs/tartan tier1. Bring Nebulons down to tier 1 . reduce hardpoints to 2 . decrease neb size , and give it meauvrability AI similar to corvs , including speed. Set mine killing ability similar to corvs. Do the same for acclams. Bring down assualt and remodify its usage. make it purely ion weapons, so cant damange hulls. Bring down gunboat and make it cheaper . Bring down victory to tier 1 ,give assorted weapons ,make quite expensive. make it smaller too.

Reasoning : This is supposed to be a game of fast slick play. Lets not have ****ty uncontrollable fighter spam, nor have boring techupgrade to slow lumbering units that remain static at locations. Have all units with a good relative speed , so that they can travel from mine to mine in the same way experts use to do in 1.03 with corvs and tartans. If noobs complain about eaw being a single unit game, then bring down tier 1 options like nebs and gunboats but make them function properly

Balance : balance will sort itself out , give people ability to mix and match units that are controllable and people will adapt.

YertyL 07-28-2006 09:24 AM

Proposal:
Reduce the cost of the bounty hunter to 500, but increase the cost of an assasination
Reasoning:
By this you could eliminate a smuggler who costs 500 credits for approximately the same amount of credits; the elimination of other heroes can be balanced by rising the current assasination costs by 500 credits.
Current Perceived Imbalance:
Right now, you can spam all valuable enemy planets continually with smugglers without worrying, since the elimination of the smuggler will cost the enemy more than his production costs you.

---------------------------------------

Proposal:
Weaken certain indigenous units, especially Polusians, Ewoks and Wookies
Reasoning:
While it is a good idea that some planets should be easier to conquer for a certain faction, ATM some planets give the rebels a too heavy advantage
Current Perceived Imbalance:
Especially on lower tech levels, some planets can be conquered by Rebels with minimal losses, sometimes using only the indigenous units. For example I managed to easily capture a pretty heavily defended Endor with only a raid fleet of infantry units (no heroes), while on the other side I lost both Darth Vader and General Veers to a small Rebel Force and hordes of respawning Ewoks.

-----------------------------------

Proposal:
Enhance the damage of scout troopers against artillery and (slightly) infantry;
Scout troopers should not be "driven over" by tanks and artillery;
Slightly increase scout trooper HP
Reasoning:
This will strengthen a relatively weak unit (scout trooper) while weakening a relatively strong one (rebel artillery)
Current perceived imbalance:
While the scout trooper is meant to be a counter for artillery and infantry, he is right now easily defeated by both of them, especially artillery, and has little use in combat. Even as a scout he is relatively impractical since almost every unit can kill him in 1-2 shots, thus creating the need of him being watched over continuusly.

-----------------------------

Proposal: Make AA towers (and possibly AT-AAs) unable to target ground units
Reasoning: This will ensure that the AA tower is used as such
Current perceived imbalance:
With their far longer range and their area damage, AA towers are ATM better against infantry than anti infantry towers are!!

----------------------------
Proposal: Somehow limit the heroes you can send with a raid fleet.(Perhaps either make heroes count to the 3 units you can send or limit the number of heroes you can send with a raid fleet to 1-2)
Reasoning: This will weaken the "hero raids" a little while not affecting the ones with regular units.
Current perceived imbalance: ATM a rebel player can have 3 ground units, Obi-Wan, Han Solo&Chewbacca and a ground commander/C3PO in a single raid fleet, which is often more than enough to conquer even a relatively heavily defended planet - I often use hero raids only to conquer planets in GC.
In my opinion raid fleets should hurt an enemy (e.g. blowing up a HV gun with infiltrators) or punish him for leaving the ground undefended, but not be a or the primary means of conquest.

----------------------------
Proposal: Increase the pop cap a planet gives in GC by 5-10 (to 10-15); perhaps decrease the pop cap low level space stations give (to e.g. 7,10,13 for level 1,2,3)
Reasoning: ATM the pop cap a planet gives (5) does not allows you to build enough units to fully defend him, let alone to build an invasion or space force.
Current perceived imbalance: ATM a player is forced to build a space station above every planet simply to have enough pop cap to build up a reasonably large army.I would welcome it if building a space station was more an option than a mandatory action.

----------------------------
Bug fix: ATM General Veers takes no population point when landed as the first unit.(You are still e.g. at 0\5)
Bug fix: ATM a 3 speeder raid is incredibly strong when using autoresolve
Bug fix: When landing Veers or an AT-AT on Hoth as the first unit, the "spawning point" (first landing point) is not captured. (you can land no troops)

Apocalypse|TFL 07-28-2006 10:18 AM

Proposal:

Revert back to 1.03 with minor changes listed below.

Reasoning: Apart from the mine rush tactics (which you will ALWAYS have in this game) 1.03 was by far the most balanced of the patches.

Balance: Only the changes that never happened held this patch back.

-------

Proposal: Fix Interdictor Cruiser

Reasoning: It's useless in all aspects of it's roles. Can't go toe to toe with any ships, does minimal damage and it's abilities don't work. The grav effect isn't big enough to be of use.

Balance: Would bring new tactics and strategies into maintaining and protecting Fleets (Should you have one)

---------

There are more but I have to go, will finish later

popcorn2008 07-28-2006 11:21 AM

PLEASE USE THE EDIT BUTTON
 
If you want to post more than one proposal please do as Apocalypse and ImpElite did and add it to your original post. Just use the edit this link at the lower right part of your message.

Thanks!
- popcorn2008

Solid Snake 07-28-2006 04:44 PM

1.6 proposal
 
i think there should be a population cap increase for space battles cuz i think that would make it *more* like the space battles in episode III. this increase could be for multiplay & single play games (including campaigns)

& yes i think that gunships should have less hitpoints cuz they r small & weak. and the big guys should not struggle while taking them out.

i think arty ships should have some kind of laser defense against ships cuz i hate babysitting them almost every second if an enemy closes in on them

also, the interdictor anti-missile field range should be extended a little bit cuz when i got all star destroyers in my fleet, its a bit hard to make sure they stay protected from rebel arty ships cuz they r so big

oh ya: MAKE THE DAMN AT-ATS IMPERVIOUS TO ENEMY FIRE!!!! i hate losing those guys to a few damn rebel soldiers. unfair & totally unbalanced:(

SaintVezner 07-29-2006 10:56 AM

Proposal:
Fix the AI in GC mode to tech up to level 5.

Reasoning (What will this fix?):
GC games are currently not enjoyable to play as the enemy AI will only use lower level ships. I have never seen the enemy AI create a Mon Cal, ISD, or Death Star in a GC game unless I start the game with tech at level 5. This is a common issue with all players of EaW.

Current Perceived Imbalance (What is the current scenario of imbalance):
GC AI is inneffective which causes the GC games to not be challenging in the slightest. If it techs up to level 5, this problem will be greatly reduced.

---------------------------------------------

Proposal:
The online "synchronization error" that occurs in quite a few MP matches needs to be fixed. This error is very annoying and it makes it difficult to enjoy the MP aspect of the game. :(

------------------------------------------------

Proposal:
Add a replay feature to MP games. It's something that I think the community would have a great deal of fun with. :)

------------------------------------------------

EDIT: I was able to fix the rebel campaign/hero bug by completely uninstalling, reinstalling, and patching to 1.05. The campaign didn't give me any problems this time. I wonder if somehow patching to 1.05 from 1.04 screwed up the campaign. Wierd.

--------------------------------------------------

I second the proposals to make the Interdictor more useful. I can honestly say that I have never seen a player even build the Interdictor in an online skirmish game due to the fact that it's almost completely useless unless you are playing a GC or campaign game.

--------------------------------------------------

I also second the proposal to increase the pop-cap in both space and land battles. If nothing else, I think it should at least be increased a little bit. It would be cool if a player could have as many as 6 ISDs in play at a time, for example. :) I know mods have done it but I would like to see the official game go in that direction as I'm not a big fan of using mods in RTS games (though I may make an exception for Legacy of War). :)

-----------------------------------------------

Proposal:
Increase the hit points on all fighters so that they will last longer against tartans and corvettes. To balance this with "bombers vs capital ships/stations", make it so the torpedoes can't penetrate shields but rather impact on the shields (if for no other reason than to make EaW canon with previous SW games like X-Wing). Shield strength on capital ships should also be increased slightly to compensate. Once the shields are down on a cap ship, make the torpodoes be a little more effective against hard points. IMO the shields should be the main defense against fighters and once they are done, the cap ship better watch out!

Reasoning (What will this fix?):
Right now fighters just plain get killed too easily and you typically end up with nothing more than capital ships slugging it out after only a few seconds during any given space battle. IMO Star Wars is about having space battles with capital ships AND fighters. I think fighters should be tweaked so that they will last longer in battle but not at the expense of capital ships (ie increasing the shield strength of cap ships will balance against stronger fighters).

Current Perceived Imbalance (What is the current scenario of imbalance):
The fact that fighters get killed so easily on both sides is an imbalance, IMO. This is particularly more so with the rebels as their fighters don't come free like the empire's do with cap ships.

-------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, I think the most important thing that we need from the 1.06 is bug fixes. Some people are barely able to play online due to the synch error, the AI in GC games won't tech up, sometimes the cinematics cause the game to crash, and there are other small bugs that just hinder truly enjoyable gameplay.

Petro, my recommendation is to make the next patch a huge bug squasher along with some of the balance changes being submitted in this thread. Doing that will GREATLY improve the replay value of EaW. Any more balancing, however, should really be secondary to bug squashing.

-----------------------------------------------------

There are reports that since patching to 1.05, using the deathstar to destroy a planet crashes the game. I'd like to request a fix for this bug in the 1.06 patch.

Here are some threads in which this bug is reported:
http://forums.lucasarts.com/thread.j...12632&tstart=0
http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=168491

Thanks! :)

tekarijee 07-31-2006 02:42 AM

Proposal:
QUOTING jedi3112:
Quote:

...well I would let the price of the units vary, but the buildings can all have the same price as you can build very little on a planet anyway. I may decide to let some units go up in price rapidly and others more slowly. Say that the price of the next ISD is 125% (maybe even more) while the price of the next X-Wing squad is 110%. That also makes it much cheaper to replace a small fleet as compared to a large fleet. This mean that the 5th ISD will cost 2,44140625 times the normal price (and the formula for the price of an ISD will be [real price]=[start price]*1.25^[ISDs you have]
Reasoning (What will this fix?):
QUOTING jedi3112:
Quote:

EAW result:
1 Varied and balanced fleets and ground troops, no more building the biggest baddest ships.

2 Small raids while still building up your forces. Really good for the Rebels (as well as making the Rebels feel like the Rebels). It may actually be well worth it to build a few (cheap to replace) Y-Wings only to do a quick strike against an (irreplaceable) ISD and hope some of them get out alive. For the Empire to do a raid, they still have to get a more expensive Acclamator in and risk losing it.

3 as explained by 2, the faction will feel more like they should feel.

4 The strong won't be getting stronger fast, but if you're fleet has just been wiped out, you quickly get a few ships back. You may even be able to get 2 high end ships for the price they would have to pay for a middle class or even a low end ship.
Current Perceived Imbalance (What is the current scenario of imbalance):
Prevents situations like huge Mon Calamari/Corvette rushes, and forces the fleets to be more versatile.

At least for Galactic Conquest, why not for skirmish too.

gswift 07-31-2006 02:47 PM

Proposal:
Fog of war should prevent new units coming out of hyperspace from showing up on enemy mini-map until they are actually in the enemy line of sight. (In skirmish at least)

Reasoning (What will this fix?):
This will fix two things. First, for example when I bring in a Capitol ship on my side of the map to set up an ambush, the enemy will not see it enter the map and will therefore be surprised. Secondly (and more importantly) there is an exploit for the Empirial hypervelocity gun caused in part by this 'omnicient mini-map'. When MonCals and Ackbar are entering the map, they can be killed by one shot of the hyper gun if they are targeted while they are still entering the map. If the minimap thing was fixed, there MAY still be time to kill those units, but without that crucial advanced warning it would be much harder to pull it off. Currently, I know there are some players that completely focus on this exploit (especially on custom maps that start out at tech 5).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal:
Change the font in the online screens so that the small L and big i don't look the same. (and any other characters that look alike if there are any)

Reasoning (what this will fix):
This will prevent people from spoofing other people's names and then spamming the lobby so that everyone is mad at the real person.

wswordsmen 08-01-2006 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saalkin
Proposal: Tech level the heros in GC MP.

Reason: It will stop heros like pett and home one from being used right off the bat.

Current Perceived Imbalance:
As of now you start with all your heros and at tech level 1 you can completly take over any planet owned by another player unless they have their hero(s) there.

I second this. If there is a time not to have tech leveled heroes I think it should be single player (not that I am suggesting that).

Hunter44 08-01-2006 10:40 PM

Proposal: Fix Interdictor Cruiser

Reason: It is usless. mabey mabe the "scramble missles" ability work on proton torpedoes and conc. missles, IE if a Y-Wing fires a proton, instead of it following it, the shot will either be sliggish and will miss, or just go straight. Make the Lasers on it more powerful & accurate against X-Wings and Y-Wings, or add TurboLasers. Also make it spawn a Tie fighter and a Tie bomber Squadron.

Sithman1138 08-07-2006 06:39 PM

Proposal-Enable Custom Galactic Campaigns/Galactic Campaign Editor/Map Editor V2.0

Reason-
+Enable Custom GC maps-It would breath new live into the gameplay. It gets tiresome playing the same GC maps again and agin. Which also leads to the GC map editor

+Map Editor V 2.0-Many of the buttons are greyed out and disabled in the current version. It has alot of capabiltes but it has alot more potential. If it had a better user interface, people would be more inclined to use it.

XxEthanxX 08-08-2006 12:32 AM

Proposal: Put some kinds of laser cannons on mines.

Reason: Half the time i play online im raided very fast by the enemies, and i spent most my money on other stuff and they destroy my mines in minutes, they don't half to fire fast, just something to kill some fighter until you get reinforements

Sithman1138 08-08-2006 11:52 AM

I think thats just bad startegy on your part. Try rushing them? I tyhink thats just your stategys flaw.

RebellYell 08-14-2006 02:14 AM

Definetly the Death Star "crash" bug, it locks up the game & pc (but default mouse is still moveable) that you have to restart the computer.

Elryc 08-14-2006 03:26 AM

Bug Fix - Fix the Fresia Mission (Rebel Campagin) Bug (Dropping Threepio first eleminates him from the game).

Proposal - Alter the order that ships drop from hyperspace

Percieved Imbalance - Too often your initial fleet includes several weaker ships dropping out of hyperspace in front of your stronger vessels and instantly getting hammered before you have a chance to move them.

DmitryKo 08-27-2006 08:09 AM

Proposal:
Increase cost of TIE Figher squadrons to 400 or 450 in meelee mode

Reasoning
This will prevent TIE Fighter rushes which allow Imperial side to capture all the resources early when the opposition is weak


Perceived Imbalance

An Imperial player can easily outnumber Rebel player with TIE Fighter squadrons if he starts throwing them at critical locations. With 4250 credits left after building a mine, Imperials can build up to 14 squadrons while Rebel player can only build 8 squadrons at best, so the Rebel fighters are defeated at some point and the player is left with little to no resources to continue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintVezner
Proposal:
Increase the hit points on all fighters so that they will last longer against tartans and corvettes.

Reasoning (What will this fix?):
Right now fighters just plain get killed too easily and you typically end up with nothing more than capital ships slugging it out after only a few seconds during any given space battle.

I second the opinion that fighters get killed too easily by corvettes and escort carriers (that's why I try to avoid having them in my large fleets). I'd like them to inflict bigger blaster damage right from the start to compensate for this.

But making energy shields impenetrable by impact weapons is a wrong compensation IMHO. In real life, tokamaks can hold dangerous high temperature plasma with enormous magnetic field, but the same field still won't protect it form a single explosive charge.

P5yNerGy|TFL 09-05-2006 06:48 AM

Proposal : go back to 1.03 and add replays..and if you want to add other stuff , consult Skilled players ..anyone with TFL cze RsH infront of their names , NOT noobs.

Reasoning : Most successful patch. Peak of the community. what possessed you to release 1.04 and 1.05 god only knows..but when a lobby has 40 people in it..6 months after its release. (total annihilation has 40 people in it..after 9 years)..you know something is wrong.

]V[Zaknaril 09-10-2006 08:50 PM

I already posted my ideas on another forum (hope this doesn't get me into trouble) to be found here: http://pff.swrebellion.com/index.php...66475#msg66475

This actually addresses concerns stated here as well...

Thrawn3.14 09-21-2006 03:39 PM

Proposal:Increase turbolaser damage against fighters.

Reason:Capital ships currently have no way of defending themselves from fighters. Considering they rarely hit fighters anyway, it would make sense for them to be able to destroy fighters with only one shot.

YertyL 09-22-2006 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thrawn3.14
Proposal:Increase turbolaser damage against fighters.

Reason:Capital ships currently have no way of defending themselves from fighters. Considering they rarely hit fighters anyway, it would make sense for them to be able to destroy fighters with only one shot.

Well, Imperial caps spawn fighters themselves and Rebel ones have the recharge shield ability and thus can't be really hurt by fighters either - and cap ships are not supposed to be good against fighters. IMHO this is a gameplay > realism decision.

FunSolo 10-07-2006 04:38 AM

@#23:
thats no imbalance thats just bad strategy. i win every time with the rebels in space skirmish, cause of the fact of speed n power in 1ôn1 combat with xwings against ties to get to the mines earlier then the enemy. they are just quite more effectve.
so they dont get a chance to build up that much sqadrons and i never get raided by tie squads that fast. no matter from easy to hard AI. as long as they dont throw tartans in at those critical points.

- but i second the fix for the interdictor class. its pretty useless as it gets destroyed that fast by nearly every bigger vessel than a fighter ingame and the low range of the abilities. so nobodys using it for a good reason.
- plus, that deathstar bug. its annoying. had it 2-3 times in a later game.

- plus,
make the shots of the units more randomly, it just looks plain dumb to see everyone of a squad shooting at the exact same time.
i know there are mods out there to "correct" that, and its just like "make-up" but thats how the official game had to look like in my opinion.

- plus,
decrease the damage and hp of anti fighter cruisers.
right now if u mix a couple of anti fighter cruisers with 2-3 capitol ships ur able to kick the **** out of everything.
cause capitol ships in return cant kill those cruisers fast enough, cause the shots missing the target most of the time and all fighters and bombers are like cannon fodder since they dont have the firepower to take them out.

Shadue 11-08-2006 06:31 PM

Proposal:
Add Unit Combat Veterancy to the game.

What is this Unit Combat Veterancy you speak of? In a nutshell, any given unit gains xp when they enter combat and defeat another unit. After "x" amount of xp has been gained, they gain a rank and with this promotion have a slight increase to their base stats.

i.e. 1 X-Wing squad is created (Rank Private, Level 1, what ever you wish to call it). They then engage in a space battle. Within this match the squad kills 1 Tie squad. Upon defeating the Tie squad they are promoted to (Sergent, Level 2, what have you) and get slight increase to speed, dmg and accuracy.

Veterancy promotion is structured on an increasing xp scale. So even though your promotion from rank 1 to rank 2 may only take 1 unit kill, promotion from rank 2 to rank 3 may require 2-3 unit kills.

Reasoning:
This will add a very stratigic aspect to the game, where players will want to manage their units alot more carefully. Sending in a rank 3 unit into combat and loosing it has much more impact than sending in a standard unit which is simply replaced by creation. It also gives players another dimension when creating fleets or ground force platoons and enables tailoring these fleets/platoons to have more veteran forces thus having slightly better fighting power for given battles.

P5yNerGy|TFL 11-16-2006 05:43 PM

Proposal :
Heres a neat idea. Bring the Nebs and Acclams and corvs down to level 1 to really give tier 1 some substance.

Reasoning: In any rts there are three stages of play.

- the expansion stage

- Mid game battle

- Late game victory/defeat


At the moment the expansion stage consists only of fighters and makes this stage very weak . Once at tier2 things get more fun because of the nebs acclams and corvs but at this stage the expansion stage has already finished and the we are on to the mid game.

My proposal is to make the expansion stage more interesting by allowing players to use acclams and nebulons as part of their Expansion Strategy rather then just the fighters and bombers.

This is my opinion is good because That will make Victory cruisers and mk assault frigates useful for the mid game battle and heroes , with late game being the isds and moncals if it reaches that stage.

ps- because acclams and nebs are brought in with corvs you have to make corvs about 1600 creds and tarts only 1300 to justify the neb easy counter to tartans.

Darth_Dennis 11-20-2006 02:56 PM

Proposal: Do something about Ewoks! They're throwing rocks not bombs.

Reason/Perceived Imbalance: Sling-launched stones wouldn't penetrate the armor of an AT-AT yet a swarm of these little freaks can topple one in about 15-20 seconds. I lost Endor to a raid fleet and retaking it was hell. I can understand they breed like rabbits so there's bound to be allot of them, but rocks taking down hardened vehicles isn't realistic, maybe swinging/flying logs but not rocks.

P5yNerGy|TFL 11-23-2006 05:22 AM

Proposal , : forget about all my other proposals , heres some proper ones for space , since ive now played the patch a bit.

- The laser turrets , decrease accuracy vs fighters by 10% ,. Shield regen rate should be decreased 50%.

Reasoning , During Tier 1 game , reward for capturing a Turret influences the game too much but little skill is used to actually capture one.

-

aoe4evr 01-28-2007 05:28 PM

Proposal: Increase the pop cap for space battles.

Reasoning: It will make the space battles a little more realistic and add a lot more strategy to it.

Imbalance: Rebels fighting the Empire, the Empire essentially has a limitless supply of fighters and bombers from their capital ships. Increasing the population cap will allow the rebels to bring more fighters into the battle to defend against the Empire's fighters.


Proposal: Fix the AI not leveling up correctly in single player Galactic Conquest games.

Reasoning: The AI does not level up and build tech level 5 units and structures when the game is started out at tech level 1.

Imbalance: The beginning of the game is hard, but once you level up, it is downright easy.

aoe4evr 01-28-2007 05:31 PM

Oh, I forgot about this one too

Proposal: Make torpedoes and missles have to bring down shields before they start damaging the hulls of ships.

Reasoning: Every other Star Wars game ever made was this way, and it makes more sense.

Imbalance: N/A

Thor the Bassis 02-19-2007 12:31 PM

proposal: create a max 7 plugin

reasoning: its needed

imbalance: not fair

__________________________________________________

proposal: dont remove the topedoe ability to go through shields.

reasoning: it makes a really good tactical tweak to the game which a lot of strategy games miss out on.

imbalance: otherwise you'll just get a slogging match between two sides not a tactical battle where what you do matters. I admit its a bit annoying when you cant get rid of a bomber squadron which is pummelling your capitals but at the same time you can do the same to your opponent. It can really be a good tactical move that can save a battle if suddenly you remove the shield gens from a massive fleets capital ships and you only have a small fleet. This really is a matter of brains over braun. Do you want a strategy game or a "who's da bigga" game.

me99 02-25-2007 07:02 PM

proposal: add launch button for imperial carrier ships
why?: right after they enter battle they spawn fighters on its own which get destroyed almost on sight by corvetes, I'd like to command "fighters launch" personally, when i see it appropriate. and its great suprise for opposing force
imba: is there any??

proposal: lower corvets antifighter accuracy (dmg is ok) and lower fighters damage against big ships
why?: one tartan and most of fighters go bye bye (with really careful micro, u can save x wing squadron with locked s-voils)
imba: danger of abusing fighter spam

proposal: in single player GC game add ability to withdraw single ship, single fighter squadron, single inf team, single mechanised team from battle (by single team i mean whole team not squad or one vechicle). To balance this a bit make reinforce/repair cost some credz, and maybe restrict number of teams in one army. In skirmish add possibility of restoring destroyed ships/imp space station hardpoints, add possibility of replenishing lost fighter squadrons at carrier ships, add possibility of replenishing/reinforcing decimated fighter squadrons.
why?: makes game less "cannon fodderish" and gives player more control of his force
imba: its single player, what imba??

and for pete's sake, TONE DOWN CONSORTIUM!!!! THATS AN IMBA!!!!

Dactillion33 03-14-2007 08:03 PM

teams

so you could be empire, have a rebel ally

and fight against another IMP Rebel or ZC and vice verse

would make me mui happy :king1:


having more skrimish maps

like one for each planet well one land for each atleast

higher pop caps...for land especially

have ability to set time of day, weather, and alliance of natives
for skrimish

jedi jim 1989 03-29-2007 07:19 PM

make the interdictors more useful, nothing to fancy, just extend the range of the anti missile field, and make it able to use its lasers when its got the field engaged.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

teams for skirmish (you could put them in GC to but i think they should only be in skirmish)

reason: because its stupid not being able to ally with the 'enemy' opposite sides have done it numerous times in SW. the truce at bakura is the best example i think, and in the game the ZC and rebs team up in the last fight.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

give space stations the ability to boost their shields like mon cals.

reason: if it were real id make sure i have that ability. to stop it being to powerful, you could make it so that laser weapons cant fire, say it drawing the power from the lasers. thatway it helps but only in the right tactical situation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ability to decide when you want your fighters and bombers to exit their carrier (emp only of course)

reason: this is a strratergy game, and chuking everything out as n when every isnt very strategic. for instance you may want to keep you bombers in the hanger untill you need them, instead of releasing them as you go to get mopped up by the enemy. i think you should put an extra 2 buttons on the ship speciasl for the carriers, 1 for fighters and 1 for bombers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

giving mines a shield

reason: because its anoying when your upgrading you spacestation and you get rushed by a pair of tie's, x wings or star vipers and they take out a mine. doesnt have to be a strong shield, but enough to hold of a few fighters. once again tacticly it is a bad idea to have you most valuble asset sitting there with no defence what so ever

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

make nebs more effective against fighters and corvettes less effective

reason: nebs were originaly designed for anti pirate and rebels attacks, at the moment you lucky if you take down 1 fighter in a squad before they bring in bombers. they dont need to be overly powerful but to be atleast competent enough to handle a few fighters

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

change the tartans firing ability

reason: the tartans have a greta ability but they loose their shields, the problem is with out the ability they are kack. i think that their rate of fire normaly should be stepped up and the special ability fire rate or time decreased. the tartans also have incredibly weak hulls.

ill give you an example, i was attacking an isd with 4 bwings a tartan jumped in and started firing, but i took it out with the b wings, and i only lost half a squad, now that to me is 1 weak anti fighter unit. they didnt use their special ability but even if they hade, the lasers on my b wings would have torn through it before the missiles hit home

DCMan 04-25-2007 03:46 PM

Proposal:
Leave Level 1 Fighter/Bomber. Merge Level 2 and 3.

Reasoning (What will this fix?):
Only having fighters and bombers in level 1 adds a lot of thinking to be done very quickly. Many people complain that the Rebels get to places faster, then do the speed upgrade that the Empire has! once that's done you'll be evenly matched, and you can build more units faster. Level 1 is all about micro management of forces and credits, it discerns good players from great players. I find i never go past level 2 in EAW unless I am messing with someone. Level 3 takes a while to get too and all you get in a small hero, and a HVG or IG which doesn't really matter since Nebs or Acc's do they job just as well. Meaning if you have the money and Security to upgrade you have the time to build enough Acc's to win the Battle.

Current Perceived Imbalance (What is the current scenario of imbalance):
There is no fighter imbalance in Level 1, only a bunch of noobs who don't know how to play and want to complain. 2 and 3 need to be combined because transitioning to Level 3 is slow and pointless.

vader815 06-12-2007 07:14 AM

Proposal: Decrease attack of rebel ships

Reasoning: As of now the most, if not all, rebel ships are more than a match, on a one on one face off, for their imperial counterparts and any fighters that the empire throws out are destroyed by corellian cruisers before they are of any use.

Perceived Imbalance: The rebellion is too much of a match for the empire. reducing their ships' attack will force the rebellion to use tactics that fit the description of a rebellion, such as guerrilla hit and run.

Proposal: Im not sure if this is a glitch or not but when I am trying to retreat the enemy units move twice as fast with double the damage. This should be fix.

Reasoning: It makes retreating almost impossible to do since the enemy can quickly disable all the engines of my capital ships with in the 11 seconds it takes to retreat when it normally would take longer.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.