EAW Second Interview POLL!!!

[plokoon9619]

1. Can you describe the overall effects of the ground base defenses like the Ion Cannon and Laser Cannons.

 

2. We have seen a general increase of ships appearing in the trailers and Screenshots. Can you reveal any new designs added to the ship lists.

 

3.Will there be AT-TE's?

 

4.What percentage, roughly, of the game have been we been shown?

 

5. In the videos, the fighters tend to clump a lot. Is this a limitation of system requirements, or are there different foemation/movement options?

 

6. Skirmishes in all the C&C series generally are very quick and decisive. However, fans of Star Wars know that SW battles generally play out much slower. What are your goals for skirmish speed in EAW?

 

7. Is there a tech tree? If there is how large is it?

 

8. Outside of the Death Star, will there be any other WMDs?

 

9. Can you reveal any new details on the multiplayer? Such as how the server list be set up, will there be a stats system, will there be a quick player match up based off stats (if there is a stats system), and what measures are being taken to prevent cheating?

 

10. How is base building/expansion going to be handled?

 

11. Can the Death Star fire on the Capital Ships like it did in Episode VI and Rebellion?

 

12. Will there be a skirmish battle for single player or just campaigns and multiplayer ?

 

13. Is it possible to show us couple more units or is it top secret till later ?

 

14. We remember hearing a interview from E3 about recording video from ingame. Exactly how will this work ? Will we be able to record freely or will it just be normally recorded and freeroam in it ?

 

15. Can the Imperial (and if there is a Rebel scout) Scouts on their bikes get off and snipe or set up traps or are they only scouting types only on bikes ?

 

16. Will it be possible to script a neutral AI to engage in trade between planets. Not really trade but just allowing a neutral AI to be scripted to go to planets and land to conduct business and then leave the planet for another planet.

 

17. We've seen ground based heros, and a sample of their power in Darth Vader. What can we expect from space 'hero' units such as the Moldy Crow and Rogue Squadron? Will they have abilities of their own, or can existing Heroes be applied to different spacefaring vessels, will it have an effect other than an attribute boost (to damage and accuracy for example)?

 

18. What is the average length of a battle?

 

19. The rebels have the T23 speeders. Will the Imperial side have any similar aircraft to use in ground battles?

 

20. Can multiple Death Stars be Built?

 

21. To what extent can capital ships bombard the surface of a world? Can they fire at the ground with their turbolasers, just call in a few tie bombers as we saw at E3, or somewhere inbetween?

 

22. Are Super Star Destroyers in the game, and will they be buildable or will they be a hero unit?

 

23. What happens when one faction controls the surface of a planet while the other faction controls the space?

 

24.Will EaW Make an offical classes of all ships, with offical stats and size. Will petro be working with LA to make an offical cannon of ships and stats?There is great debate everywhere what certain classes of ships look like, armlements, size ect. Especially with more unknown ships like the Mon Cal classes.

 

25. Will there be an artificial population cap/limit?

 

26. Will grand strategy mode have more to it than just building your army/navy up (such as sabotage, espionage, covert ops, etc)?

 

27. Will large ships be produced out in the open and will we be able to see them slowly be built?

 

28. Will we be able to capture buildings? (ie: space staions shipyards, etc.)

 

29. Will there be a variety of characters or just the few main characters in the movies and previous games (Kyle Katarn and Mara Jade).

 

30. Will there Be a Death Star Surface map?

 

31. Will there be any artificial limitations on the Death Star unit in the game such as being only able to build one of it, not allowing it to target other ships like in the movies, forcing it to be a stationary object during battle, etc?

 

32. How will bombing be handled, or, in other words, is there a limit to the number of bombing runs you can have on one ground attack?

 

33. What is the final number of planets that will be in the game?

 

34. Will b-wings and tie interceptors be in the game?

 

35. Will the following cam view be available for fighters since its used for cap. ships?

 

36. Will there be a "recall" ability for fighter sqaudrons during space combat, to recall them back into the hangar of your starship/s? This would be for situations where you would only want your starships to fight, for example, when victory is assured with only your capital ships and you wouldn't want to risk losing some of your fighters.

 

37. What will a ground battle on Coruscant (Imperial Center) look like? Will it live up to all our wildest Star Wars expectations and be a multi-leveled, planet-spanning megalopolis?

 

38. What kind of map editor can we expect and can we use it to create our own planets and campaigns?

 

39. Will you be using any EU sources (such as the Thrawn Trilogy) to create material for the game.

 

40. How will planets like Coruscant and Bespin work in the game?

 

41. Will there be a strengths and weakness' point table. IE ISD > Nebulon Frigate > TIE Fighter however ISD < TIE Bombers

 

42. Do you plan to create a community website ? Forums ? Before or after the release ?

 

43. What do you think of critics about the graphic engine toward for example the AOE 3's ?

 

44. How will planetary defenses be set up manually placed or automatically placed and how strong will they be compared to units?

 

45. Since the Super Star Destroyer is probably in the game, how will the Rebels counter it?

 

46. Are hard points predetermined? For example some can only have weapons built into them or some can only have shields built into them.

 

47. From the reports we know that the ships in the battle must first get into postion before firing. They ahve more firepower on the port and starboard arcs so that they can turn right or left during the battle and still be able to fire loads of weapons. What happened if the enemy destroys the weapon subsystems on the left side. Would the ship automatically turn to get the weapons on the right side in position or will the controller have to manually order a 180 degree rotation??

 

48. Can you give us a more detailed explanation on how the 2-player "campaign" will work?

 

49. How does the Death Star work? How is it destroyed, does it have defenses against other ships, and what happens when planets are destroyed?

 

50. How are new unit type aquired? For example, the X-wing would be obtained by raiding the production facility. Are there any other similar "quests" for units?

 

51. Are big ships built in shipyards, or in the "galactic map" mode like other units?

 

52. Are there plans for an expansion of any type?

 

53. Will the game be playable over LANs with only one CD?

 

54. Do Mon Calamari capital ships have random appearences, or are there several different types which look different?

 

55. Will we see all of the space units seen in Return of the Jedi?

 

56. Will the TIE defender and Phantom variants be in the game??

 

57. What will ion cannons do to enemy capital ships?

 

58. Will there be sub-groups to the Rebels/ Imperials. IE can we get the Hapan Ships and the Chiss Clawcraft??

 

59. Will there be an world wide ladder system - WOL style. Basically something as comfortable as we had in RA2 / with Quickmatch, Clantag and Clanladder etc... Plz don't tell me we will get a Gamespy(-server) based system.

 

60. I've been told that the game will be very moddable and use data driven XML files. Can you give an example of an entry in these files(such as the X-Wing)? Also how many files would we need to edit to put in a new unit?

 

61. Will people be able to play the same side in a multiplayer skirmish? ie empire vs empire......take it it's a given you can't in the story multiplayer

 

62. Can teammates in multiplayer games share control of units and buildings or is it simply shared vision and victory?

 

63. The heroes seem very strong in the videos. Could you give us a since of how powerful and intergral heros are in combat? Can they be killed fairly easily if you are reckless with them?

 

64. At E3 it was said that the powercore will be outside of the shields on planets “true to star warsâ€

[Imp High Admiral]

this is my top ten

3

11

13

27

34

36

39

49

54

65

[Foshjedi2004]

As we have only had 20 replies I shall keep this open until Wednesday.

 

So far the results now look like this

1st: Q 11 with 9 votes

Equal 2nd with 8 votes: Qs 10 & 25

Equal 4th with 7 votes: Qs 14, 21 & 27

Equal 7th with 6 votes: Qs 9, 17 & 64

Equal 10th with 5 votes: Qs 4, 28, 34, 36, 39, 49 & 60

[Cobra848]

64. Hear this out, do not ask this question because you did not think about it.

 

You saw that the generator was easy to take out because it was a demo video. It was just show off how things will work. There will be AA guns, defense around the generator, and more armor. In the gane it will be hard if the defender puts a lot of defenses around it.

 

I think you missed the point of the question. It was about inaccuracies and how those inaccuracies effect gameplay. Rather than how defensible the powercore is.

 

I answered the part about how easy there are to be taken out.

What is inaccurate about how easy it is to take them out. In the movie it only took one AT-AT at full power. I don't read the books, tell me what is wrong with it. YOu have take the shields down before you can bomb and art. the enemy base and units with in it. The shields help defenders and bases. The generator is the only weak part. Can't have a perfect defense.

 

Or I think the question should be re-worded then.

[Makwu]

The question could be reworded. The inaccuracy is that the powercore gets bombarded because its "outside" of the shields. When, as you noted, they used an AT-AT in the movies. This is because it was "within" the shields and they couldn't bomb it. They had to send in an AT-AT to take out the core at which point the shields came down and the empire could start bombarding and landing its troop carriers. As soon as the shield is down the rebels do a full evacuation because they no longer stand any chance.

 

This seeminly minor detail has large gameplay consequences to it. Being able to bomb the core to take down the shields and then being able to bomb their troops is very different from having to land troops outside the shields and march them towards the center to takeout the core before you can bomb the enemy. Although I'm not saying each wouldn't have its own strategic elements to it, I am simply saying that the core inside the shields would be true to star wars and I think would make for more interesting ground battles.

[Cobra848]

Its not a bad thing for gameplay, it just it makes the gameplay different. I think it makes a more interesting ground battle when it is on the outside. You may notice that the shield radius is a whole lot bigger if the generator is on the inside. But in the game, where the generator is on the outside the shield has a smaller radius.

 

If it is in the shields, then almost all fighting will happen with in the shields. Yeah I know people will still have units outside for flanking and ambushing. But it is smart to kept the units in so art. and bombers can't get to one's troops. Also wait for enemy to come in waves instead of fighting all of them at once. Every base that has a huge shield, will be a very strong turtle base. If the generator is on the inside, the radius has to be increased so turtling within shields is not a powerful way of defense.

 

 

If the generator is on the outside, then there will be two things needed to be defended instead of one powerful defensive spot. Also the incerase in the radius will not be needed. I beleive that the armor is light in the vids so they can show off a scenario. Also you see very little defense around it in any of the vids. With it on the outside, there will be more stratgy then it being on the inside. Because an attack can be on the generator or the main base, which gives ideas like flanking, withdrawing, or fooling your enemy to think you are going to one but goto the other. This can be done with your way, but it all happens in the shields, which is less different because the disk and generator can be next to each other.

 

I think it all depends on what Petroglyph finds best by gameplay wise.

 

The only problem is that you say it is not the SW way. If anything they were told by Lucas arts the generator can be on the outside.

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

 

The best question to ask are ones that do not give away any information about the game, but tells you have they will handly things. Their answers can be an inderect way of telling us something.

I.E.

There are a lot of Star Wars fanatics, who will tear apart anything that is wrong, how well are you going to please Star Wars fantics wothout alienating the mainstream?

 

That example sums up some of the questions. It would be good to ask, since most of you need to know how much they are doing for you SW fans.

 

But if we can figure it out for our selfs, we should not ask. Like are B-wings going to be in the game.

[Darkmark]

I know I'm cutting it close, but:

 

5

10

14

17

19

26

38

53

63

64

[FiX]

9

10

59

62

64

11

27

28

36

21

[Foshjedi2004]

22 people have put in their choices. If nobody posts any new in the next 24 hours I shall post the final choices.

If there are any problems there will be a proper Poll for people to enter for the final questions. When that happens the Poll will last for 24 hours and at 10pm BST on wednesday the Poll will end and the final choices will be revealed.

[General Ackbar]

22 people have put in their choices. If nobody posts any new in the next 24 hours I shall post the final choices.

If there are any problems there will be a proper Poll for people to enter for the final questions. When that happens the Poll will last for 24 hours and at 10pm BST on wednesday the Poll will end and the final choices will be revealed.

 

 

how long does it usually take to get a response?

[Darkmark]

I recommend perhaps editing the way some of the questions are posed when they're collated and ready for action. It's probably not important, but personally I wouldn't mind some of the questions being tidied up a little. I'll see what others think when Fosh has the results.

 

(I can't help it, it's the english student and slight perfectionist in me. I can't help it, honest guv'...)

[Makwu]

Its not a bad thing for gameplay, it just it makes the gameplay different.

That is basically what I just said. Both would be fun, but different. And in a case like that, why not make it accurate to the SW universe?

 

If it is in the shields, then almost all fighting will happen within the shields.

That is the whole idea. The fighting takes place where the attacking bombers and fleet cant bombard the defending army. The shield is supposed to help the defenders. It forces the attackers to fight on the defenders terms.

 

Every base that has a huge shield, will be a very strong turtle base. If the generator is on the inside, the radius has to be increased so turtling within shields is not a powerful way of defense.

Why would the shield radius have to be increased? The shield is already large enough to accomodate the core on the inside.

 

 

If the generator is on the outside, then there will be two things needed to be defended instead of one powerful defensive spot.

What was said is that if you move the core inside, then there are still two targets. The attacking forces will either have to attack the core or the shield generator (which will not be placed next to eachother, ut rather on different sides of the base). Therefore the defensive army will not be able to simply surround one. They will have to be strategic and defend both. And they won't know where the attacking army will deploy their forces.

 

The reality is, a shield should give a large defensive boost. That is its purpose. With the generator outside, then the attacking army's target is not effected by the shield and the point of the shield becomes mute. Further, much defensive force must be placed to defend a target outside of the shields. And that defensive force will be subject to arial assualt, again making the point of having the shield mute.

 

The shield should defened the troops as it is a defensive component to the game. If the core is outside then what defense does the shield offer? The attacking army never has to worry about a single troop defended by the shield. First they have to worry about the unprotected troops defending the powercore. And once those are gone, then they take out the core...then again, they are attacking unprotected troops.

 

By placing the core inside (but not by the shield generator) you give the defenders two points to defend but also give them a large tactical advantage in that the attackers cant bombard while you can use your airspeeders within the shield. That is balance and balance is good.

 

But this whole argument is why the question is being asked. So that you and I don't have to sit here and argue with only parital information. We are guessing how the gameplay will be affected. The question for Petro is, how is it affected?

 

If we want to talk about this more though, we should move to a new thread. This is a voting thread, not a discussion thread.

[Cobra848]

A. I read that, I just wanted to say it too.

 

B. I know that the whole idea but it may be to strong or unblanced. With the size of the shields now, a force within the shields can react to an incoming force and a player can put their whole force where the enemy will come in. There are less tactics involved with the generator on the inside. I want more tactics involved then just a striaght up battle at the edge of the shields. It will still make the enemy fight on their terms, just there will be more tactics involved. THere would be more chances for ambush, counter attacks, flanking, withdraw and counter, and so many more.

 

C. It's not just the core, it's the battles in the core. The way it is now snowspeeders have little room to move around in. Also battles would not be a striaght up battle at the shields, because there are more places that have to be defended and snowspeeders will have room to fly. The shields are to stop long range art, landing troops, and bombers.

 

D1. We do not know how fog of war and shroud are in the game. The defender may see a lot, also can scout. We don't know how it will be, players may be able to put them next to each other.

 

D2. The shields defense does not become mute if the defender uses tactics. The generator is right outside the shield wall. There are always air defense for incoming enemy aircraft, if you don't defend it, that is defenders fault. .

 

D3. The shields offer protection from what it is suppost to be doing. They do have to worry about defender in the shield because they could be used to flank or counter attack. Or they may not want to go after the generator and for them. The generator doesn't have to be attacked first.

 

D4. It is not balance when one side is very over powered.

 

 

It is true that we do not know enough about game play let, but I am just going with what I have seen and going with that. Ans seeing what it can and will do for the game. But I don't thinkwe will get a striaght up answer for this question. Needs to be reworded or use an inderict question about it.

[Naja]

Hmm. If there's slim to nil activity, would it be too rash to add a new question?

 

If it would not be, then my question would be similar to my ship explosion thread:

 

In the videos we have seen, the only ships that are destroyed in a more interesting way than simply blowing up are Imperial Star Destroyers. Are the developers going to make other starships and space stations explode in a more different way than simply going "kaboom!" ?

[Makwu]

I'll make this short and be done with it. Your arguments aren't very clear to me so I'm not going to bother retorting. This is a "star wars" "game". When it can be like star wars and still be enjoyable from a gameplay standpoint, then it should be so. I believe this was oversight rather than a calculated gameplay decsion. I think some people who are star wars fans simply want clarification on the matter. As far as questions go, I think it is a reasonable one when compared to other questions that will be asked. I agree that it can be worded better.

 

A general rule when balancing a combat game is that an invading force ratio of 3:1 should be near certain victory, 2:1 should be a very close battle and 1:1 should almost always be won be the defenders. If you really apply that to your mindset when balancing, I do not think that the powercore/shield system I suggested would be too favorable to the defender, I think it would be just about right. But what would I know on the matter? Nothing. But the Devs would. And this question will be asked, and hopefully answered well.

 

PS: Little-Death is a common synonym for orgasm. "Peu de mort" as the french would say. It is often used in conjunction with tantric practice and should be avoided but not feared.

[Foshjedi2004]

Thats it guys. The Poll is now Closed!!!

 

I have read the last few posts and this thread is starting to try and answer the questions. This thread has fulfilled it's purpose. The Final 10 will be posted shortly. If there are any clashes there will be another poll A proper Poll starting soon.