lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: 1.06 - What is needed? A community speaks
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 07-20-2006, 05:13 AM   #1
DarthMaulUK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
1.06 - What is needed? A community speaks

IF there will be a 1.6 patch for Empire at War, what should it include? Some players have voiced their disappointment at 1.5 addressing so little whilst others have welcomed the changes to the game - especially when playing online.

What should be added to 1.6? Do you think that the game still needs improving in certain areas? Or are you more than happy to wait to see the changes the expansion brings in October?

Personally, I've always been happy with the game - apart from the Galactic Conquest. It really needs a random start generator as it's too easy for experienced players to win. No strategy at all, its just a simple task of gathering one big fleet then slapping the Rebels back planet by planet.

I would also like to see dramatic changes to the hyperspace retreat. It would be great to have ships stagger their retreat in battle by actually heading towards their start point and once then reach it, hyper space out - rather than the current 'turn around, sit and wait to be destroyed in under 10 seconds'.

DMUK
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2006, 06:18 AM   #2
shadowsfm
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
boba fett, mel falcon, and the corvettes still have to much health
mines dont have enough health
fighters should take out bombers faster then corvettes do
sync errors in multiplayer
fix for what ever is cousing people not to conect
in multyplayer, the team gets a share of the money from the guy who leaves automatacly
a new easer to understand multiplayer "connecting users" window
shadowsfm is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2006, 08:30 AM   #3
slornie
Rookie
 
slornie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: York, England
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthMaulUK
IF there will be a 1.6 patch for Empire at War, what should it include? Some players have voiced their disappointment at 1.5 addressing so little whilst others have welcomed the changes to the game - especially when playing online.
I think that they could have put more into it... but anything that improves the game is good...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthMaulUK
What should be added to 1.6? Do you think that the game still needs improving in certain areas? Or are you more than happy to wait to see the changes the expansion brings in October?
I am quite happy with the game... i think that they should release more patches if they are needed... otherwise just add everything into FoC (including whatever the latest patch is)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthMaulUK
Personally, I've always been happy with the game - apart from the Galactic Conquest. It really needs a random start generator as it's too easy for experienced players to win. No strategy at all, its just a simple task of gathering one big fleet then slapping the Rebels back planet by planet.
I agree that a random map generator would be good... it would provide more options, i think that there needs to be a lot more GC maps to choose... also... if there were a map generator... it would need to have a range of variables to make them different... no of planets... starting planets... starting units... etc...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthMaulUK
I would also like to see dramatic changes to the hyperspace retreat. It would be great to have ships stagger their retreat in battle by actually heading towards their start point and once then reach it, hyper space out - rather than the current 'turn around, sit and wait to be destroyed in under 10 seconds'.
i think that is a good idea... i also think that we should be able to jump out specific ships rather than have to completely lose the battle... this would mean that you could alter your fleet makeup without having to sacrifice ships... a similar thing in ground battles would be good as well... allowing us to take ships back out of the battlefield (obviously only from reinforcement points)...



slornie is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2006, 09:21 AM   #4
Mike.nl
Rookie
 
Mike.nl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 52
What they could also fix is this insignificant little UI bug:

When you are in the Skirmish dialog, select a 4-player space map, select 4 players, then select a 2 player space map.
The superfluous 2 player slots are grayed out, but when you hit Start, the game still spawns all 4 players. Meaning you've got 4 players on a 2 player map

They should probably check if a slot is grayed out as well, and not just if it's set to "Open" before spawning a player.

Like I said... hardly significant, but it's always slightly bothered me when I found out about it
Mike.nl is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2006, 09:34 AM   #5
Darth Anarch
Junior Member
 
Darth Anarch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 366
They need more Galactic Conquest maps. Or a randomizer function so you won't always start with the same planets.


"We think in language; therefore, the quality of our thoughts can only be as good as the quality of our language."

-- George Carlin
Darth Anarch is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2006, 11:33 AM   #6
saalkin
Rookie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15
Tech level the heros in GC MP. I hate how you can be attacked by home one or pett at tech level 1.

I'd also like to see more maps. Like the winner of the map contest should have there map put into the patch also.
saalkin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2006, 11:42 AM   #7
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
Wink

I agree with all of the above, except the thing about Boba's and Falcon's health change.
Also if one person quits in an online skirmish and if there's say like 2 players on that side left, the remaining two players could share the person who quit's population cap and money. that would give the 2v3 team a better chance to win.
ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2006, 11:46 AM   #8
(OSF)Spriggen
Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2
put corvettes bak 2 tech 1!!
(OSF)Spriggen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2006, 04:14 PM   #9
gswift
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lenexa, Kansas (suburb of Kansas City)
Posts: 264
As with DMUK, I've always been happy with EaW. They aimed for creating a Star Wars experience, and succeeded. There are things I wish for, but they are expansion-type things (like more ships, or mines that just become less productive with damage rather than blow up entirely). In the context of another patch (ie: things that need fixed because they make people not want to play) the only aspect of the game I would spend time and money to fix would be the online interface. They have improved it a little, with the ignore button for example. It would be nice to have a more informative lobby screen and a buddy chat window that doesn't interfere with everything else you're trying to do. For example, the name of the host and the players currently in a game should be displayed in the lobby (not just the host name when you mouse over, which doesn't even always work). Also the list of players in the lobby should include the players in games, but show them as 'in a game', and perhaps even show what game they are in?


Gary Swift (aka gswift)
Lenexa, Kansas USA

You can try to monkey-proof your program, but you'll never monkey-proof the monkey.
gswift is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2006, 07:24 PM   #10
popcorn2008
Little Green Friend
 
popcorn2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ypsilanti, MI
Posts: 1,239
Im still awaiting replays. Hopefully that will be added before the expansion.

Im pretty satisfied so far though, I would really like to have more galactic conquests that are randomized as well too.


> Lucas Forums Moderator
> Petroglyph Forums Moderator
> Unofficial Petroglyph Fan Forums Global Moderator
popcorn2008 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-21-2006, 04:19 AM   #11
Giolon
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 14
I agree that space retreats need fixed. The way it works now is completely useless. Give us movement control over our ships during the retreat at least.
Giolon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-21-2006, 09:59 AM   #12
Darth Anarch
Junior Member
 
Darth Anarch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 366
Here's an idea: What if ships, when first emerging from hyperspace, have their shields down for the first couple of seconds? It's in keeping with the fluff, and it would also force players to make a choice between putting reinforcements right into the thick of it at a risk of having them damaged quickly, or drop them out a little further back and have them move up to the action.


"We think in language; therefore, the quality of our thoughts can only be as good as the quality of our language."

-- George Carlin
Darth Anarch is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-22-2006, 11:59 PM   #13
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Anarch
Here's an idea: What if ships, when first emerging from hyperspace, have their shields down for the first couple of seconds? It's in keeping with the fluff, and it would also force players to make a choice between putting reinforcements right into the thick of it at a risk of having them damaged quickly, or drop them out a little further back and have them move up to the action.
I think it would be cool to have ship's shields down when coming from Hyperspace. It would add realism and a tad bit more strategy to this already good game.
ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-23-2006, 12:34 AM   #14
DS_Vespidbat
Rookie
 
DS_Vespidbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Anarch
Here's an idea: What if ships, when first emerging from hyperspace, have their shields down for the first couple of seconds? It's in keeping with the fluff, and it would also force players to make a choice between putting reinforcements right into the thick of it at a risk of having them damaged quickly, or drop them out a little further back and have them move up to the action.
that is vert unneeded, the shields are weak when the ships are being hyper spaced in. And dont try to make it more realitic, gameplay>realism


DS_Vespidbat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-23-2006, 01:28 AM   #15
mrsparkle
 
mrsparkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 69
Do whatever it takes to solve the "synchronization error detected" issue in the next patch. It's way too common now. This should be the #1 top priority.

I wouldn't mind seeing the empire's tech 3 ship list altered in skirmish games. The interdictor cruiser is useless in a skirmish game, which means when the empire gets tech 3 the only new useful ship is Vader. You might argue that interdictors are useful when the rebels use a lot of missile ships, but they never do. I don't have a suggestion on how to fix this though. Perhaps give interdictor cruisers a reason to be used in skirmish games besides scrambling missiles.

Why does Home One have a shield generator when regular mon calamaris don't have one? That makes Home One a lot less powerful than it's generic counterpart, and it should be the opposite. Get rid of Home One's shield generator. It has 2 extra ion cannons (not a useful upgrade) at the expense of adding a shield generator. That's a really bad tradeoff. If it were 6 lasers and 2 cannons instead of 4 lasers and 4 cannons vs a normal mon cal's 4 and 2 then it would be different (hint hint!)

Give ISDs the "power to weapons" ability. Tractor beams are barely useful. Never once have I thought "man, if only I had a tractor beam..." or been thankful that I did have one. It's fun to use vs the millenium falcon but that's it. Can ships have more than two abilities? Don't get rid of the tractor beam, just add the "power to weapons" ability if possible.

The rebel's assault frigate is not worth it's cost compared to the nebulon B. It needs better and/or more weapons, or a reduced cost.
mrsparkle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-23-2006, 06:50 AM   #16
Apocalypse|TFL
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 130
Revert the game back to 1.3 (and watch the players come back to this game in droves - i'll put money on it)

Change the lobby system including the dire buddy list system

Change the way the game connects and see if anything can be done about sync's


Apocalypse|TFL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-24-2006, 10:53 AM   #17
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
Smile

Adding a Chat Filter to the lobby would be nice.
ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-24-2006, 02:41 PM   #18
wswordsmen
Rookie
 
wswordsmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 70
Vetts sheilds are too strong, they can destroy all your bombers well before they are within reach of the station giving the empire a huge advantage, both in the fact they get fighters free and they don't need to waist pop cap for fighters.

Lower them and the hull streangth or increase massivly the accuracy of everything vs. vetts
wswordsmen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-24-2006, 04:51 PM   #19
DS_Vespidbat
Rookie
 
DS_Vespidbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by wswordsmen
Vetts sheilds are too strong, they can destroy all your bombers well before they are within reach of the station giving the empire a huge advantage, both in the fact they get fighters free and they don't need to waist pop cap for fighters.

Lower them and the hull streangth or increase massivly the accuracy of everything vs. vetts
Tartans/Vettes are anti-fighter vehilces of course they can destroy ur bombers quickly. If u cant kill a simple vette/tart then find anothe game, im trying to insult u but c'mon who would send bombers when theres vettes/tartans out there. Do vettes/tarts Vs vettes/tarts, or use nebs/acc to kill them fast.

If u didnt know they alrdy lowered their accuracy and strength in the 4th patch.And it doesnt need to be lowered again.


DS_Vespidbat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-24-2006, 10:46 PM   #20
wswordsmen
Rookie
 
wswordsmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 70
I am talking about when one hyperspaces in. Can't destroy those before they get your bombers, and Vetts also make it through a small fleet and get your bombers anyway. Tartans still laugh off the combined firepower of 2 nebs and 3 corvetts.

And I do kill them they just take half of my bombers with them.
wswordsmen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-26-2006, 09:20 AM   #21
deriko
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 10
I think that it would be great if we could retreat only certain units away. But then there would have to be persistant damage, because then you could have your weaker units retreat, and then the next battle they're in, they will be as good as new.
deriko is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-26-2006, 09:50 AM   #22
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by deriko
I think that it would be great if we could retreat only certain units away. But then there would have to be persistant damage, because then you could have your weaker units retreat, and then the next battle they're in, they will be as good as new.
not quite sure about that..... I imagine it would be pretty annoying for the enemy if you retreat, say, Home One is extremely damaged but not it's engines so it can still hyperspace away, and it comes back next battle good as new. You know?
ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-26-2006, 11:44 AM   #23
Darth Anarch
Junior Member
 
Darth Anarch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpElite
not quite sure about that..... I imagine it would be pretty annoying for the enemy if you retreat, say, Home One is extremely damaged but not it's engines so it can still hyperspace away, and it comes back next battle good as new. You know?
Yes, and that is precisely why the game would have to include persistent damage. But as long as it doesn't, it would be extremely unfair to allow individual ships to withdraw.


"We think in language; therefore, the quality of our thoughts can only be as good as the quality of our language."

-- George Carlin
Darth Anarch is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-26-2006, 01:39 PM   #24
jedi3112
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 500
For GC, there have to be several planets you can start on, but not all of them should be given to you straight away, so you never know ehere you'll end up. The planets you can start on must off crouse all be equal. It would be unfair if you start on a small planet and your opponent starts on a big planet, wouldn't it?

Also for GC, the battlemaps also need to be generated, it's not fun to fight on Tatooine everytime there's a battle going on there, and it's always the bloody same map.

Though thik that these first 2 fixes are more something to be included with FOC.

Apart from that, the biggest issue is that with the X-Wings on tech 1 in skirmish. They simply get to the mines too fast. Either repacing them with the Z-95 or removing their special ability would solve the problem in one easy fix. And I must say that I would prefer the first option.
jedi3112 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-27-2006, 12:22 AM   #25
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedi3112
For GC, there have to be several planets you can start on, but not all of them should be given to you straight away, so you never know ehere you'll end up. The planets you can start on must off crouse all be equal. It would be unfair if you start on a small planet and your opponent starts on a big planet, wouldn't it?

Also for GC, the battlemaps also need to be generated, it's not fun to fight on Tatooine everytime there's a battle going on there, and it's always the bloody same map.

Though thik that these first 2 fixes are more something to be included with FOC.

Apart from that, the biggest issue is that with the X-Wings on tech 1 in skirmish. They simply get to the mines too fast. Either repacing them with the Z-95 or removing their special ability would solve the problem in one easy fix. And I must say that I would prefer the first option.
Yes THAT would be nice indeed! I wish they did that in patch 1.5 though.

(Yay my fiftieth post!)
ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-27-2006, 12:33 AM   #26
wswordsmen
Rookie
 
wswordsmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 70
If rebels couldn't build X-wings tech 1 they would get killed because tie fighters fry Z-95s in a few seconds so you would get the exact opposite happening, the rebels couldn't contest anything. Maybe if they start with Z-95s and have to build X-wings but thats the only fair way you can swap out X-wings.
wswordsmen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-27-2006, 10:09 AM   #27
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by wswordsmen
If rebels couldn't build X-wings tech 1 they would get killed because tie fighters fry Z-95s in a few seconds so you would get the exact opposite happening, the rebels couldn't contest anything. Maybe if they start with Z-95s and have to build X-wings but thats the only fair way you can swap out X-wings.
then they should just have X-wings for starter units and take away their lock S-foil ability.
ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-27-2006, 02:19 PM   #28
jedi3112
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 500
The downside of removing the X-Wing special ability is that it also has effect later on (not sure if that would actually matter for anybody), Z-95's as starting units and still being able to build X-Wings doesn't work properly either, since you can disable the free starting units. Indeed the Z-95 loses to fast to the TIE, but at least both parties arrive at the mine at the same time, or actually the turret near the mine. X-Wings with special ability are too fast when racing to the mines. If the rebels have to get a tech first and then they can build X-Wings that would be better. This way they have to build a few Z-95s, just to get to the mines, or face the possibility that the Empire already has them, well defended with a turret.
jedi3112 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 01:16 AM   #29
The Source
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,304
Contest winner - Modding 
What would be nice to see:
1. The ability to build your turrents and buildings anywhere on your side of the map. Instead of preset locations, I think it would be nice to have the player do this thinking. Strategy comes from placing your buildings, sheilds, and turrents, and it would improve both space and land battles.

2. The ability to zoom in on a planet that is not beeing attacked, so you can setup your bases to a personal specification.

3. The ability to zoom in on a sector that is not being attacked, so you can build your space stations, turrents, and minning facilities.

I think these will make the player feel more in control. This will bring a more stretegy aspect to EAW. Instead of having presets for everything, I think this game should shake it loose. There is so much potential in EAW. All they have to do is tap into the possibilities.



R.I.P. to 'The Source' and 'MacCorp'
2004-2008
The Source is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 12:45 PM   #30
Darth Anarch
Junior Member
 
Darth Anarch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeodGR
What would be nice to see:
1. The ability to build your turrents and buildings anywhere on your side of the map. Instead of preset locations, I think it would be nice to have the player do this thinking. Strategy comes from placing your buildings, sheilds, and turrents, and it would improve both space and land battles.
I don't think that would work so well. I can just picture people building 50 turrets immediately inside their base shield and then turtling there forever. Or surround their space station with 20 laser cannons and 20 missile turrets. I'm happy to let the game decide where the "tactically important" locations in a map is and put a build pad there to indicate it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeodGR
2. The ability to zoom in on a planet that is not beeing attacked, so you can setup your bases to a personal specification.
This feature will be in the expansion.


"We think in language; therefore, the quality of our thoughts can only be as good as the quality of our language."

-- George Carlin
Darth Anarch is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 04:12 PM   #31
The Source
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,304
Contest winner - Modding 
^^^
Who said there wouldn't be a limitation of how many turrents, buildings, etc...

What they would have to do:
1. Create a limitation as to how many turrents you are allowed.
2. Create a limitation as to how many buildings are allowed.

However:
1. You get to choose where these items are placed on the map.

With the respect of the limitation given to each map, I rather have control over where I want to place my buildings, turrents, and sheild generators. I found that the preset locations are too distant to keep control over everything at once.

They could scatter miscelanious bonus stuff through out the map, so you can gain a foothold futher away from main base. However, you will still have a limited number of buildings, turrents, and anything else to place. The player will have to think of a conservative way to balance resources and technologies.



R.I.P. to 'The Source' and 'MacCorp'
2004-2008
The Source is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2006, 01:36 AM   #32
Solid Snake
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: MD,USA
Posts: 27
the AT-ATs should be impervious to EVERYTHING!!!! a few rebel soldier squads can wipe 1 out as if they had the BFG. only the snowspeeder can kill an AT-AT
Solid Snake is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2006, 08:33 AM   #33
YertyL
Junior Member
 
YertyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 390
-> AT-AT + AT-AA = GG ?
YertyL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2006, 01:24 PM   #34
Sithman1138
Junior Member
 
Sithman1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 288
I'd like to have the Custom GC mode enabled along with a GC editor. It's gets tiresome playing the same GC maps again and again.

A chat filter for the lobby becasue I hate the people that cuss just for the sake of it.

In skrmish modes, make the units appear from the building they were built at. Example. When I build a squad of stormtroopers at a base, for some mystreious reason, they have to be brought in from space. Make it like Galactic Battlegrounds where they come from the base you build them at.


-Adthrawn of SWGBH
-Sithman1138 of TF.N

^^Sig by Sabretooth^^
ADTHRAWN DESIGN TEAM
Sithman1138 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2006, 07:57 PM   #35
Ali1392
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by wswordsmen
I am talking about when one hyperspaces in. Can't destroy those before they get your bombers, and Vetts also make it through a small fleet and get your bombers anyway. Tartans still laugh off the combined firepower of 2 nebs and 3 corvetts.

And I do kill them they just take half of my bombers with them.
ffs you carnt play when they space in there incredibly weak 1 cov can take down half the sheild so 2 nebs and 3 covs = a big bang
Ali1392 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Empire At War > EaW General Discussion > Galactic Discussion > 1.06 - What is needed? A community speaks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:36 PM.

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