lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Orbital Bombardment
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 09-13-2006, 08:49 AM   #1
Darth Ablett
Rookie
 
Darth Ablett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 96
Orbital Bombardment

Hi everyone, I'm new here. I've been following FoC for a while and haven't seen any real talk about this.

I was watching the E3 Playthrough on this site, the one where orbital bombardment is shown from the POV of the Zann Consortium, and I was wondering: Is this what people thought it would be?

It seems to be like a big, unavoidable bombing run, rather than a large-scale ravaging of the planet. Maybe this is just for the Consortium, but I was imagining a fleet of ISDs would do something like what happened to Taris in KOTOR - Assuming there was no planetary shield.

Just asking for your thoughts. Thanks!
Darth Ablett is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-13-2006, 09:01 AM   #2
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
First of all, welcome to the forums!

And about the Orbital Bombardment, I thought they did it like it should/would be, if you could annihilate the ground forces on the map you would just need capital ships to capture a planet, you wouldn't need ground forces because you could just bombard the crapola out of the planet you know?


ex-UEAW Mod Team Mapper.


ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-13-2006, 09:46 AM   #3
Darth Anarch
Junior Member
 
Darth Anarch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 366
Exactly. I would assume that anyone taking the effort to assault a planet would want to capture it for its income, special abilities etc. Destroying it completely (like with the Death Star) should, the way I play the game at least, be reserved for those times when the enemy is just too well dug in for you to be able to crush them.


"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 09-13-2006, 09:56 AM   #4
Darth Ablett
Rookie
 
Darth Ablett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpElite
First of all, welcome to the forums!

And about the Orbital Bombardment, I thought they did it like it should/would be, if you could annihilate the ground forces on the map you would just need capital ships to capture a planet, you wouldn't need ground forces because you could just bombard the crapola out of the planet you know?
Ok, thanks! I know it makes far more sense game-wise, and it looks cool, but on the galactic map I was thinking it could be another option if you had a 'big' fleet, i.e. 2 + ISDs, or the Executor.

I suppose I was basing my hopes on the Thrawn story about Camaas (sp?), and thinking the planet-wide option would only happen late in a GC game, so as to curb the Empire's 'move fleet, decimate, repeat' scenario when playing against the computer.

I doubt the Rebels would do this, but it fits with the Empire's brute-force scenario.
Darth Ablett is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-13-2006, 01:53 PM   #5
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
I think the orbital bombardment really amounts to a large-scale ravaging. In that E3 video, the Zann consortium launches a bombardment that takes out basically the entire Imperial base, including a large numbre of garrison units. That's pretty much all you need--imagine landing some ground scouts just to act as spotters and then firing a projectile that destroys six enemy buildings at once! Any more ground forces you land will only have to contend with token resistance. When a single ground map represents a whole planet, I think orbital barrages work pretty much as I'd expect them to.


wedge2211 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-13-2006, 01:59 PM   #6
gswift
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lenexa, Kansas (suburb of Kansas City)
Posts: 264
Well, from what they've shown so far, planetary shields will play a more important roll now.


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 09-13-2006, 02:00 PM   #7
Igor_Cavkov
Forumite
 
Igor_Cavkov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge2211
I think the orbital bombardment really amounts to a large-scale ravaging. In that E3 video, the Zann consortium launches a bombardment that takes out basically the entire Imperial base, including a large numbre of garrison units. That's pretty much all you need--imagine landing some ground scouts just to act as spotters and then firing a projectile that destroys six enemy buildings at once! Any more ground forces you land will only have to contend with token resistance. When a single ground map represents a whole planet, I think orbital barrages work pretty much as I'd expect them to.

Well you are forgetting that the Bombardment probably will have some type of timer until you can use it you know
so the defending planet can mobilies a counteratack before you bombard their base


SW Galaxies Online name: Cavkov
Server: Chimaera
Profession: Bounty Hunter
Guild: DOS - Dark Order of the Sith

If you only knew the power of the darkside!
Igor_Cavkov is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-13-2006, 06:23 PM   #8
Darth_Torpid-PG
Rookie
 
Darth_Torpid-PG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 233
Galactic conquest scenario bombardments will require the proper ships in orbit to bombard, so tech level will also play a role in how soon you can pull it off (well, for the Empire and Rebellion anyway). Keep in mind that each side has a unique style to their bombardment - the Consortium is accurate but with a smaller radius; the Empire is less accurate but does more damage over a wider area, and the Rebellion is more of an interference/non-lethal bombard. Also keep in mind that the bombardment shown in the videos for E3 was much more powerful than it will be in the final product (though it is still much more powerful than bombing runs).


-Darth Torpid
-Game Designer
-Petroglyph
Darth_Torpid-PG is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-13-2006, 07:52 PM   #9
Darth Ablett
Rookie
 
Darth Ablett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Torpid-PG
Galactic conquest scenario bombardments will require the proper ships in orbit to bombard, so tech level will also play a role in how soon you can pull it off (well, for the Empire and Rebellion anyway). Keep in mind that each side has a unique style to their bombardment - the Consortium is accurate but with a smaller radius; the Empire is less accurate but does more damage over a wider area, and the Rebellion is more of an interference/non-lethal bombard. Also keep in mind that the bombardment shown in the videos for E3 was much more powerful than it will be in the final product (though it is still much more powerful than bombing runs).

Oh, that's great news. Thanks alot for answering!
I'm glad the rebellion one isn't a large-scale destruction, you seem like you've nailed it for each of the factions.
Darth Ablett is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-13-2006, 11:23 PM   #10
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
Yeah, Petroglyph kinda rocks like that.


wedge2211 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-14-2006, 12:44 AM   #11
Rust_Lord
Rookie
 
Rust_Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Torpid-PG
Also keep in mind that the bombardment shown in the videos for E3 was much more powerful than it will be in the final product (though it is still much more powerful than bombing runs).
Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'. It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. PG is only lining itself up to receive complaints from people who don't see the information on sites like this, who see promo clips, buy the game and wonder why things are different. But what does PG care, as long as they bought the game, which will end up needing patch after patch to get it right.... no false advertising please PG.
Rust_Lord is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-14-2006, 02:17 AM   #12
Valter
Rookie
 
Valter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Standing behind you!
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'. It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. PG is only lining itself up to receive complaints from people who don't see the information on sites like this, who see promo clips, buy the game and wonder why things are different. But what does PG care, as long as they bought the game, which will end up needing patch after patch to get it right.... no false advertising please PG.
That video was nothing more than a promo and the game was in "development". The video presentation was just a small demo to show off the new faction and some of the new units. Only a fool would think that was the final product. (As a matter of fact it was mentioned several times in the video that the units and options needed tweaking)


"You will pay the price for your lack of vision!" - Palpatine
Valter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-14-2006, 10:49 AM   #13
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'.
My comment referred to the way they've made each faction's bombardment represent the faction in question.
Quote:
It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine.
If you only saw a "prototype" car with a V8 when the design was still under development and then the version of the car that hit the market was a V6, you probably wouldn't complain too much. After all, your first look was only when it was a prototype, before the team had finished working on it, before the car company had shifted its goals to meet the market, etc.

Two things:

1) Forces of Corruption is still in development. There's no reason why the bombardment shown couldn't have been an early version of the code. They programmed in the bombardment but hadn't optimized or balanced it yet--they were just showing it off in its early stages.

2) They were trying to show off what a bombardment looks like. Just like they tweaked the Executor to show off what the Executor blowing up looks like. They weren't necessarily even trying to show you exactly what you are going to get. That wasn't the point!

E3 is for showing off what's in development, not what final products look like.


wedge2211 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-14-2006, 05:37 PM   #14
Darth Anarch
Junior Member
 
Darth Anarch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'. It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. PG is only lining itself up to receive complaints from people who don't see the information on sites like this, who see promo clips, buy the game and wonder why things are different. But what does PG care, as long as they bought the game, which will end up needing patch after patch to get it right.... no false advertising please PG.
Pretty much all software companies I've ever heard of do it this way. A demonstration video is there to show the fans what the feature in question looks like, not decimal-specific representation of exactly how it will look in the finished game.


"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 09-15-2006, 12:35 AM   #15
Rust_Lord
Rookie
 
Rust_Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 171
I did not see the video to know that it was a demo video, I only read what Torpid wrote; but this only reduces my ire, it does not extinguish it. I don't like exaggerated demo vids period. Thats just my opinion. If a company has to resort to such sensationalism to get attention then its a real turn off for me. Anarch is right, a number of companies use them but I made my point above. Wedge I never saw the vid with the executor either but I saw the screen shots; and it is feasible to put such a ship in with little health to show what happens when it is destroyed....but if they made the executor so powerful that it took out mon cals with the blast of a solitary turbo-laser or something as exaggerated then that would annoy me.

As for Valter it seems you missed my point. Unless it is implicitately stated it is not actual game play then one may expect to play something akin to what is shown when they buy the game. If they clearly state in the promo vid it is not real and exaggerated then fine, they can do what they like. A demo for me is a pre-full version release that can be played and plays exactly like the full game but with limited units/levels etc. Such 'promotional vids' shouldn't be called or referred to as demos in the strictest sense but it is a common term that is too easily attached to such a vid. If the only place PG showed this vid was at E3 and they were clear that it was only under development then that is fair enough. But its not uncommon for game companies to blur what is in demos and what is in full games over time, even if they release a demo, in which they can restrict access to the best stuff.

As for the game being in development; it is always in development; other wise we wouldnt need patches.

Wedge, the example i was thinking of related to the Alfa Romeo Brera that was a concept car and developed with a V8. I was hell bent on buying one but when it was released the biggest engine you could get was a 6. I was annoyed and I wont buy one now. Sure they will still sell but unless they put that V8 in will well never know how they could have sold. From the mags I read most enthusiasts wanted the V8. Fair enough the company wanted to change the car, that is entirely up to them, but i will spend my cash on something else.
Rust_Lord is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-15-2006, 01:51 AM   #16
Valter
Rookie
 
Valter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Standing behind you!
Posts: 199
Quote:
As for Valter it seems you missed my point.
Really? How did I miss your point? I was under the implication that your point was that you were annoyed that companies present their products in a way that undermines honesty. In other words you are annoyed when companies show their products to be better than they truly are. If I was mistaken then I apologize.


"You will pay the price for your lack of vision!" - Palpatine
Valter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-15-2006, 02:27 AM   #17
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
This reminds me of how people were pissed when Fable was released and it wasn't the best RPG of all time even though Peter Molineux said it.

What do you think he was supposed to say? "My game is a pretty good RPG, not the best, just pretty good, which is why you should buy it."

They're just good salesmen. It's up to the consumer to distinguish what should be taken into account in his speech. Otherwise...don't buy anything ever again...because it turns out everyone's product is the "best"...


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-15-2006, 02:50 AM   #18
ZagFel
Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
I did not see the video to know that it was a demo video, I only read what Torpid wrote; but this only reduces my ire, it does not extinguish it. I don't like exaggerated demo vids period. Thats just my opinion. If a company has to resort to such sensationalism to get attention then its a real turn off for me. Anarch is right, a number of companies use them but I made my point above. Wedge I never saw the vid with the executor either but I saw the screen shots; and it is feasible to put such a ship in with little health to show what happens when it is destroyed....but if they made the executor so powerful that it took out mon cals with the blast of a solitary turbo-laser or something as exaggerated then that would annoy me.
I think your getting too worked up about semantics. (ie. whether a video is a promo/demo/whatever) It is not unreasonable for developers to assume that viewers will understand that anything shown at E3 is just a demonstration of the capabilities of the engine rather than a reflection of the details of the final product. Even if you are right that Petroglyph could have altered the content solely for the purpose of increasing the goshwow factor of the game, the fact that they could have altered it or other parts of the game for balance issues means that your expectation is unreasonable. Indeed, at many times during the various videos the developers mention that "we're still working on this," which more than meets your standard of "implicitately (sic) stating" that "it isn't actual gameplay." The distinction that you make between the Executor and the explosion is wholly arbitrary. Decreasing the health of the Executor so that it can be easily destroyed by Rebel cruisers is no different than "exaggerating" the power of the cruisers that they can easily destroy the Executor. They are graphically indistinct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
A demo for me is a pre-full version release that can be played and plays exactly like the full game but with limited units/levels etc. Such 'promotional vids' shouldn't be called or referred to as demos in the strictest sense but it is a common term that is too easily attached to such a vid. If the only place PG showed this vid was at E3 and they were clear that it was only under development then that is fair enough. But its not uncommon for game companies to blur what is in demos and what is in full games over time, even if they release a demo, in which they can restrict access to the best stuff.
This is really the crux of your contention. You have an additional expectation of what constitutes a "promotional" or "demo" video. Terms, which I have never seen Petroglyph use to describe the E3 video. The response on this forum demostrates that this is not a prevailing expectation or even an expectation that extends beyond yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
As for the game being in development; it is always in development; other wise we wouldnt need patches.
This is a bad argument, and I think you know it. There is a definite, quantifiable difference between pre-release development and post-release patching: a difference of $29.99 US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
Wedge, the example i was thinking of related to the Alfa Romeo Brera that was a concept car and developed with a V8. I was hell bent on buying one but when it was released the biggest engine you could get was a 6. I was annoyed and I wont buy one now. Sure they will still sell but unless they put that V8 in will well never know how they could have sold. From the mags I read most enthusiasts wanted the V8. Fair enough the company wanted to change the car, that is entirely up to them, but i will spend my cash on something else.
The reason why your analogy doesn't apply is because the V8 on the Alfa Romeo was a major selling point in the car's design; a reason, in and of itself that one would buy the car. The blast radius on a secondary support ability of the ground component of the tactical component of one of three factions is not. Plus, consumer reviews mean that you have no argument. If the product is altered in some fundamental way during development, then potential buyers have the opportunity to make an informed decision.

For those of you employing the Harvard study method or too lazy to read all that: what Wedge said.
ZagFel is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-15-2006, 07:46 AM   #19
Foshjedi2004
Junior Member
 
Foshjedi2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Buckinghamshire, England
Posts: 478
Guys...Calm down...

Things have been rather calm and civil up to now thankuverymuch. -LIYAD



My Personal Opinions are not Endorsed by Any Websites, persons or places.
Check out my Gallery
[/color]

Last edited by lukeiamyourdad; 09-15-2006 at 12:38 PM.
Foshjedi2004 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-15-2006, 09:20 AM   #20
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
Such 'promotional vids' shouldn't be called or referred to as demos in the strictest sense but it is a common term that is too easily attached to such a vid.
I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that "demo" is short for "demonstration." That's really all you should expect from a demo or a demo video: a demonstration.


wedge2211 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-15-2006, 12:52 PM   #21
Valter
Rookie
 
Valter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Standing behind you!
Posts: 199
Excellent arguments ZagFel! I believe you just won the topic.


"You will pay the price for your lack of vision!" - Palpatine
Valter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-15-2006, 06:13 PM   #22
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
Agreed


ex-UEAW Mod Team Mapper.


ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-15-2006, 10:04 PM   #23
TheMonsterOfTheIsland
Rookie
 
TheMonsterOfTheIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 124
I believe that yall are missing a very important point here.
Three wonderful, simple letters:

X. M. L.

Using this wonderful code will allow the Rust Lords of the world to simply mod their Consortium bombardments to their E3 levels. Or request said mod on the modding forums.

If you want your grossly overpowered bombardments, you can still get them.


This is not your island. This is our island.
-Mr. Friendly
TheMonsterOfTheIsland is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-17-2006, 05:41 PM   #24
PoiuyWired
Unregistered User
 
PoiuyWired's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,503
Well, E3 Bombardment shows us what they will be in concept.

Obviously the demos are for show and does not have to be playable, hence the tweak in HP of units and what not.

It is happy to see that Petro is working hard to balance different aspacts and fractions of the game, while keeping it close to their own theme.

Its not like they are posting grossly inaccurate screenshots and pictures on their product boxart, like throwing in a jedimaster in kimono lashing it out with some force sucking sithlord.
PoiuyWired is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-18-2006, 02:26 AM   #25
Rust_Lord
Rookie
 
Rust_Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 171
Valter you were dead right about my point as generally applied to games, and in this instance of what was shown on the promo, provided that a person viewing it or screenshots didnt know that it was implicitely stated as being very far from what you will receive after you shell out your cash; as I for one had not seen those disclaimers and I wasnt there but I have seen it with other games and yes I disagree with that marketing strategy. Since I hadnt seen it is was more of a gripe to Torpid for PG not to go down this path now, or ever.

Zagfel your right about semantics, my bad, people interpret and classify things differently but your off the mark about my comment regarding the executor; im not sure if you saw the vid but I only saw the screenies and I was under the impression the executor was already damaged, as can be seen in those screenies, not that it had 'reduced' health. If they used a half clapped out executor that was accurate to what it will be in game, then there is no exaggeration there.

Sure I have expectations and im pretty black and white about my views, the game being under development for example. I know that some of you take everything said as literal and for you to post that confirms this, and obviously the game has been completed but in my own opinion, and I dont care how many people agree or disagree with me, if you need alot of patches to fix game balances issues (not just bug fixes or improvements) then the developers havent really finished with the game. So this is the way most games are these days, i still dont care for it, there was a time, before everyone and everything was on the net, when you didnt need to get patches. EaW for example has been out for many months and we are still looking at 1.6.

Pretty impressive sentences Zagfel but I think your inclusion of "the tactical component" was superfluous....seriously what you say about the car differs from what Wedge said as he believed I would still buy the car with a 6 cyl because of the other refinements. True the bombardment ability is a small part of the game as compared to the engine but if an ability of a unit in a game was so totally imbalanced then I would not buy the game. Sure it might be fun to play it once or twice but playing against it would never be fun, hence why all gamers, EaW gamers no less, are very sensitive to game balance issues. If that imbalance ruined the land side of the game play then that is pretty major.

Monster has stated the best argument and the saving grace of anyone who doesnt like something about the game and that is to mod it. And I am very grateful that PG has used a system that is very easy to mod, and mod well as we can see by the quality of the mods being produced. But monster, i was actually in favour of toning down the bombardments not having them have the same effect as nuking the battlefield! :P Super-mega-death-holocaust weapons are so boring!

Last edited by lukeiamyourdad; 09-18-2006 at 10:33 AM.
Rust_Lord is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-18-2006, 05:24 PM   #26
TheMonsterOfTheIsland
Rookie
 
TheMonsterOfTheIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 124
Sorry, your posts are kinda dense lol

Nuking the battlefield would be fun once or twice.

But yeah, gotta love Petro for giving people the right to do what they want to with a game.


This is not your island. This is our island.
-Mr. Friendly
TheMonsterOfTheIsland is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-18-2006, 08:47 PM   #27
ZagFel
Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
Zagfel your right about semantics, my bad, people interpret and classify things differently but your off the mark about my comment regarding the executor; im not sure if you saw the vid but I only saw the screenies and I was under the impression the executor was already damaged, as can be seen in those screenies, not that it had 'reduced' health. If they used a half clapped out executor that was accurate to what it will be in game, then there is no exaggeration there.
I saw the screenshots and the video. Either way, arguments about the video still apply because they're both promotional media. Also, your confusion about the content of the screenshots proves that the final product will never meet expectations. For example, another user could have counted the number of Mon Calamari cruisers in the shot and used that to generate a (false) approximation of the Executor's power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
Pretty impressive sentences Zagfel but I think your inclusion of "the tactical component" was superfluous....seriously what you say about the car differs from what Wedge said as he believed I would still buy the car with a 6 cyl because of the other refinements.
It's not redundant. It would have been if I had written "tactical component of the ground component." Either way, that's irrelevant to the larger question of whether or not bombardment is a large enough part of the game that it would convince people to purchase it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
True the bombardment ability is a small part of the game as compared to the engine but if an ability of a unit in a game was so totally imbalanced then I would not buy the game. Sure it might be fun to play it once or twice but playing against it would never be fun, hence why all gamers, EaW gamers no less, are very sensitive to game balance issues. If that imbalance ruined the land side of the game play then that is pretty major.
This contradicts your previous argument that exaggerated promo media misleads consumers into purchasing less sensational games. It also hurts your position because it means that developer dishonesty is ultimately self-correcting: gamers won't purchase a game with sensationalized promo media because of perceptions of imbalance. I also don't understand why it warrants your earlier criticism of Torpid because, if anything, you should be pleased that a potentially unbalancing feature was corrected.
ZagFel is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-19-2006, 11:14 PM   #28
Rust_Lord
Rookie
 
Rust_Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZagFel
I saw the screenshots and the video. Either way, arguments about the video still apply because they're both promotional media. Also, your confusion about the content of the screenshots proves that the final product will never meet expectations. For example, another user could have counted the number of Mon Calamari cruisers in the shot and used that to generate a (false) approximation of the Executor's power.
I never saw the video and as I indicated in above posts I wouldnt have a problem with it if I saw/heard the disclaimers they gave. I am sure that they will advertise their product accurately if they are already clarrifying what they show. I wasn't confused about the screenshots, I only interpreted it from what I saw and read from others posts that the Executor was already damaged since it would take a while to destroy if at full 'health'. Whose expectations will not be met? Mine? Im going to receive the game with a fairly open mind, but there will undoubtedly be things I would change, its not going to be able to please everyone, I just didnt want any hideous imbalances. Your right about the Mon Cals and the executor but it depends on the person and what conclusions they want to draw...Those mon cals could in fact be the 10th wave of ships to have a go at the executor and if that was the case people would know it was alot tougher than what was shown. Since we dont have access to the values of ships from promos we only go on what we see, thats why the devastating barrage is hard to misinterpret.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZagFel
It's not redundant. It would have been if I had written "tactical component of the ground component." Either way, that's irrelevant to the larger question of whether or not bombardment is a large enough part of the game that it would convince people to purchase it.
...Tactical component as compared to what...strategic component? Bombing runs are available in galactic conquest as well, if you consider that the strategic component but the whole tactical V strategic thing this been discussed ad nauseam in other threads and I dare not revive it for sanity's sake. We'll just have to agree to disagree me thinks. Which reminds me, not at all trying to ridicule you, im curious as to what you deem a primary support ability? ...reinforcements? The bombardment may be but one feature/ability amongst many of the game but any one feature can be imbalancing to the game overall. Likewise for the sake of one feature or unit, it can be enough to influence people to buy it or not buy it. Its hard to say which way it would go because while gamers would love a devastating weapon they also want balance and dont necessarily want to be on the receiving end of it. This raises another point which I probably should have mentioned and that was whether or not if the exaggerated barrage was race specific or not. Since it wont be in the game its academic but hypothetically if each race had such an ability then its not as bad, they can both blast each other into the stone age but its still only going to come down to who can purchase a run first. If its only available to one race/faction then its more of a concern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZagFel
This contradicts your previous argument that exaggerated promo media misleads consumers into purchasing less sensational games. It also hurts your position because it means that developer dishonesty is ultimately self-correcting: gamers won't purchase a game with sensationalized promo media because of perceptions of imbalance. I also don't understand why it warrants your earlier criticism of Torpid because, if anything, you should be pleased that a potentially unbalancing feature was corrected.
I do not see any contradiction....my gripe has always been about advertising exaggerated features to sell games and game imbalances, be it the bombardment or whatever. Just because the engine is a major part of the car its the one feature of it that *I* look at when buying a car; somone else might look for safety equipment etc. I only used the example of the car to show the *effect* on one consumers decision when there was a change between the prototype and the production product (a deflation of a feature you could say), not comparing a game to a car in any other literal sense that I believe was taken by some. I understand now that it wasnt deliberate on PGs part to create a 'wow' factor about it, since I said a number of times I didnt see the video or hear the promoters discalimers but of course I am happy to know that the end version will not be like I feared, even if it could be fixed with a patch. Last line, first paragraph of my last post= since it was not deliberate it could also be interpreted as nothing more than a plea to PG not to do what some other game companies do. I doubt they will. Seeing as PG werent guilty of product sensationalism im sure Torpid couldnt care less about what I said. The poor guy has copped alot more flak of others for various things, im sure he has pretty thick skin otherwise he wouldnt be on the forums. PG know they have a great product that doesnt need to resort to such shinanigans to sell it. I do believe that "exaggerated promo media misleads consumers into purchasing less sensational games" as you say. It just depends on how exaggerated it is. This happens with any products; as we all know its called advertising. It comes in different forms. Sometimes its not accurate and it leads people to buy stuff and be disappointed. Your a smart enough guy to realise that if you bought that convertible your not going to have three bikini clad babes hanging out of it as you cruise the beach, when you live in, say texas, and neither will 99% of guys but some will believe that by buying that car they will have more fun/get more attention/etc and that is what the advertiser wants you to think. Thats how they succeed. Unfortunately dishonesty is not always self correcting due to consumer demand because some people arent as careful as others, some just don't care and some are down-right gullible. Some dodgy people only need to burn a consumer once to get the desired return.

Anyway, I have crapped on long enough. At least it might provide some with entertainment...
Rust_Lord is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2006, 05:30 PM   #29
Boba Fett 1991
Rookie
 
Boba Fett 1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somewhere in the South
Posts: 31
Seriously guys, this was the stupidest discussion ever. Also I can't belive you would spend that much typing about this. Cool the engines people.
Boba Fett 1991 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2006, 10:38 PM   #30
Rust_Lord
Rookie
 
Rust_Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 171
I agree. While I enjoy a healthy debate from time to time, I have too much time on my hands at the moment...im taking the key out of the ignition.
Rust_Lord is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-21-2006, 12:25 AM   #31
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boba Fett 1991
Seriously guys, this was the stupidest discussion ever. Also I can't belive you would spend that much typing about this. Cool the engines people.
So ignore the thread?

People debate if they want to debate. As long as there's no hostility or flaming, there is no reason to step in and stop it. If the parties decide to end the debate, then they end it.

Carry on.


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-21-2006, 07:05 AM   #32
HerbieZ
Mythical Beast
 
HerbieZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 2,053
I support orbital bombardment!


Waking up.
HerbieZ is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-21-2006, 08:23 AM   #33
Darth Anarch
Junior Member
 
Darth Anarch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 366
Me too.

By the way, orbital bombardment is going to be in addition to bombing runs, right? Not instead of?


"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 09-21-2006, 10:01 AM   #34
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
Maybe they replace bombing runs when you have a cap ship in orbit?


ex-UEAW Mod Team Mapper.


ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-21-2006, 05:28 PM   #35
Crezzer Fett
Rookie
 
Crezzer Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Edinburgh UK
Posts: 71
For Orbital Bombardments...what actually happens?? is it just a blisster of missles from the capital ship above?


Crezzer Fett is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-21-2006, 07:00 PM   #36
Marsman2020
Rookie
 
Marsman2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 21
What I want to know is if they are more or less powerful than bombing runs?


War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory.
Georges Clemenceau
Marsman2020 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-21-2006, 10:51 PM   #37
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
The only one we've seen so far is the Zann Consortium bombardment; it consists of a two-blast attack with an electronics-scrambling EMP blast arriving just ahead of a destructive cannon blast.

From Petroglyph comments, I assume that the Rebel attack will be something like an ion barrage or a dispersed cannon barrage. The Empire, as pretty much everyone suspects, will probably be a hard-hitting, ground-pounding turbolaser assault.

Marsman, towards the beginning of this thread, Darth Torpid mentioned:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Torpid-PG
it is still much more powerful than bombing runs


wedge2211 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-22-2006, 06:35 AM   #38
Igor_Cavkov
Forumite
 
Igor_Cavkov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsman2020
What I want to know is if they are more or less powerful than bombing runs?
As PG said it depends on the civ you are. so Empire's Bombardment will probably be more powerful than the rebels etc


SW Galaxies Online name: Cavkov
Server: Chimaera
Profession: Bounty Hunter
Guild: DOS - Dark Order of the Sith

If you only knew the power of the darkside!
Igor_Cavkov is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-23-2006, 01:17 AM   #39
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
Indeed, PG said that Orbital Bombardment will be stronger then regular bombing runs.

As for Anarch's question, I think that bombing runs will be an early game thing, replaced by orbital bombardment if you have the capability. If you have an ISD and Tie Bombers (yeah, they go together, but anyway), you'll only be able to use the ISD's bombardment abilities.
If both were available, it would be an overpowered ability.

It's my take on it


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-23-2006, 07:50 AM   #40
Darth Anarch
Junior Member
 
Darth Anarch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 366
That's a good point. So I'm assuming that you'll have bombing runs up until you get ISDs/Mon Calamari cruisers, which should be at Tech level 4. Or maybe you'll get it at Tech 3 (Victorys and Assault Frigates).


"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,
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 > Forces of Corruption > Orbital Bombardment

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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:52 AM.

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