Population Caps

[Naja]

This all depends on how moddability is handled. Everything that we are dissapointed about rests on it.

 

If LEC decides to be cool, and more or less universally provides the correct tools (or at the very least, provides the tools to all serious modding groups like Legacy of War), then the dissapointments are negligible; we'll just change them to our liking, and then have a truly 100% kickass game as a result.

 

If LEC decides to be...well, a bunch of suits who value short-term revenue over long-term quality, then EaW may very well end up like Battle for Middle Earth - obsolete and forgotten to the very impulse RTS gamers that the game would be pitched to; like a used up (censored) with broken teeth, left to die in a dark alley.

[Avaris]

I'm thinking that you'll just need to look at the trailers and screenshots to see how big fleets will be. Maybe fighters won't count, small caps will count as 1, medium caps count as 2, and heavy caps count as 3, or something like that.

 

It is pretty clear fighters dont count. That ties in to why they can be produced by the ships themselves. They are small, die easily and are expendible. So, making them count against population cap doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

So, ussing your 3-2-1 model, that would mean 3 ISDs 3 VSDs and 5 Patrols would be a full fleet.

 

Larger galactic problems aside (Like when one player has 10 times as many ships but can only put forth an equal amount for battle) I think that number is fine. It will make ships more valuable and hopefulyl therefore more durable. Quick out-of-control conflict has never been my impression of starwars. But others may disagree.

[Ghostly_Substance]

Naja dont try and cuss your way through messages. The W word isn't needed Improvise

[Havok9120]

Thats a problem I hadnt considered, a PRH-Manticore situation...er, sry bout that, prob not a huge # of David Weber fans here lol.

 

Okay, one side is out# 10 to 1 but can only fight on = terms.

 

Here's another problem. Say you're attacking a system with alot of ground-based anti-space defenses. Or even orbital defenses? If the moblie forces are even and the Defenders have all the built-in defenses, the Attacker doesnt have much of a chance.

[Avaris]

exactly, i had pointed that out on previous page. Attacker has 10X the ships, but is forces to play 1 vs 1 against the defender who also has planetary weapons and a level 5 station. Ouch

[Naja]

Right. One of the greatest aspects of this game that so attracted me was the notion of unequel warfare!

 

The Empire has the advantage in the obvious respects, and the Rebels in the others. It's a classic Sun Tzu situation!

 

If the population cap restriction does indeed introduce a foux 'equality' of forces, then blahh.

[Avaris]

I suspect that this might be what happened for the "seemingly" low pop cap. LA went to PG and said "You have to make the game run on these specs" after the engine had already been made, and most of the models. At that point, PG's arms were tied as far as unit caps and found 20 to be the highest they could good and still meet LA's system requirements.

[Phantom_pff]

Ok, imagine this, you have a 2 year old computer that can not be upgraded, and you find out about this game and that it can actually run on your computer, are you going to bash the game because you can only have a pop cap of 20 in a space battle? NO

 

Your going to love the game like you would your own child. This would be a dream come true to you.

 

Just because you might have a higher-end computer and there is a pop cap dose not mean this is not still going to be one of the best RTSs ever. Practically EVERY RTSs made has a pop cap, and you all bashing the game and you don't ever know what constitutes for 1 pop. point.

 

And here's a thought to all you pessimists: If you have noting good to say, shut the hell up and get off the boards.

[Avaris]

Ok, imagine this, you have a 2 year old computer that can not be upgraded, and you find out about this game and that it can actually run on your computer, are you going to bash the game because you can only have a pop cap of 20 in a space battle? NO

 

This is very correct. However, there is a limit to how far back this concept should be taken. When halflife2 was released, and doom3, they had very high relative spec requirements. Those titles were both successful. Its been shown that games that push the envelope actually help drive the computer hardware market. (To a small but noticeable degree). 1GHz processors came out at the very end of 1999 (more than 6 years before the game is released). The average computer cycle is about 4 years. So, the requirements seem to be lower than needed for optimal availability/quality. The reality is: If you have a 6 year old system, you should not expect to be playing new games. (Other 3d RTS game requirements: B&W2 1.6Ghz, Earth 2610 1.5 Ghz) (Popular "successful" games: Quake4 2.0Ghz, Fear 1.7 Ghz), (Space Combat: X3 1.7 Ghz), (Games for children, whom generally have lower quality machines, and are the group you are likely referring to: Chronicles of Narnia 1.5Ghz, Harry Potter 1.4Ghz).

 

Now what was your point exactly? Every publisher other than LA seems to think differently. Maybe LA feels that marketing their new movies through happy meals has changed their demographics and that you can't expect a 8 year old to have a computer built in this millennium. OR maybe, simply, they want to milk everybody.

 

And here's a thought to all you pessimists: If you have noting good to say, shut the hell up and get off the boards.

I respect what you are asking. But I feel the same way about unjust optimism. Only I would never express myself so rudely.

[Phantom_pff]

 

And here's a thought to all you pessimists: If you have noting good to say, shut the hell up and get off the boards.

I respect what you are asking. But I feel the same way about unjust optimism. Only I would never express myself so rudely.

 

Sorry about that, but right now im really mad, alot of people are bashing a game that they have never played before, and i my opinion right now this forum is geting as bad as the LA forum on the main site.

[Ghostly_Substance]

 

And here's a thought to all you pessimists: If you have noting good to say, shut the hell up and get off the boards.

I respect what you are asking. But I feel the same way about unjust optimism. Only I would never express myself so rudely.

 

Sorry about that, but right now im really mad, alot of people are bashing a game that they have never played before, and i my opinion right now this forum is geting as bad as the LA forum on the main site.

 

Agreed. Since they're just arguing with what they barely know. Its like arguing about chocolate you never tasted or a drink you never drank but only heard about

[Guest]

 

And here's a thought to all you pessimists: If you have noting good to say, shut the hell up and get off the boards.

I respect what you are asking. But I feel the same way about unjust optimism. Only I would never express myself so rudely.

 

Sorry about that, but right now im really mad, alot of people are bashing a game that they have never played before, and i my opinion right now this forum is geting as bad as the LA forum on the main site.

 

this site will have to get really bad to lower itself to lucasarts' level, at least the mods here don't abuse thier power and ban for bogus reasons

[Phantom_pff]

AH, but in the 4 months i have been active on this forum the quality of the posts, poles, and threads have been getting steadily worse, and most within the past month.

[Teradyn_pff]

 

And here's a thought to all you pessimists: If you have noting good to say, shut the hell up and get off the boards.

I respect what you are asking. But I feel the same way about unjust optimism. Only I would never express myself so rudely.

 

Sorry about that, but right now im really mad, alot of people are bashing a game that they have never played before, and i my opinion right now this forum is geting as bad as the LA forum on the main site.

 

Agreed. Since they're just arguing with what they barely know. Its like arguing about chocolate you never tasted or a drink you never drank but only heard about

 

The real problem here is that it is not something we do not know... alot of people here know Star Wars, probably more than Lucas himself (silly as that sounds), and others know RTS games and alot have knowledge of both. I think alot of the people on this board are very informed and knowledgable about what they are talking about.

 

Which of course presents problems when we see the game as it was described to us initially turning into a game targetted at the same snot nosed dribbly eyed teenagers like the one I asked how he thought Episode II compaired with the first 3 and he had no clue as to what I was talking about!!!

[Avaris]

Well, we have been given bad news of late. It is natural that "bad news" will be followed by disappointed threads, and unfortunetly it makes people emotional and leads to people going overboard. But it is exactly the same for good news. But to say we should't be negative about bad news because we haven't played the game is the same as saying we shouldn't say good things about good news. Everything is in stride. We respond to what we get, that is all we can do until we get the game. And then we get to make our final judgments. But that doesn't mean we should sit here silently until then. We are all too invested and excited.

[Ghostly_Substance]

Ok so I made bad examples. What I meant to say is that you know a lot about the chocolate as in every single detail but you never tried it.

[Avaris]

hehe, ok

[WhiteSkull]

People need a chill pill till we see how the pop cap works.

 

since fighters are probly free cap ships could count as 1 and smaller caps like neb etc.. could be 2-3 per 1 point.

 

So again just chill till we hear some more info.

[Phantom_pff]

Avaris i can understand exited, believe me im excited, been exited since i first heard about the game in february, i just can't stand people arguing without all the facts because they may be arguing and getting people mad about nothing. like whiteskull said, we don't know how the point values are going to work, so there is no point arguing about it until we learn all the facts.

[Naja]

I think another important thing to consider as to why some people are so incensed is that a lot of claims about the game have been contradicted at such a late point in the game's development.

 

"Barely noticeable pop cap" --> 20 max for space, 10 max for ground defense

 

That's one of the examples, and frankly, I find them to be legitimate reasons to be a tad peeved. So while true, Phantom, we have not seen the meat of the facts, we still are quite aware of the existence of the facts; and when these facts are touted as one thing only to be contradicted by the same people a mere few months from release, then I believe it's a classic example of not having to put your hand in the fire to know it's hot.

[Avaris]

Phantom,

 

We definetly don't know everything. But I haven't seen a trend of people getting really upset about things we know nothing about, its by and large thigs that have been confirmed. We don't need to know if every capital ship is only one point to know that there won't be more than 20. And although we "don't" know for sure, PG has mentioned that ground units will varry in their "cap point" requirements. Thus, its fair to assume the same is true for space units. That being said, in all likelyhood we are looking at less than 15 units per side. (Give or take). Now, 15 (or even 20) is less than most people were hoping for, and that is why they feel disappointed. They were told that "Yes there would be a unit cap, but that it wouldn't be noticible" and "You can recreate classic battles". But 15-20 units only, is a noticible amount by most standards and far less than classic starwars battles. Further on the same line, classic battles has been reduced to "Yavin" which doesn't even have capital ships. And thus, you have people complaining. These are reall confirmed things, that fall short of peoples expectations and result it people displaying their disappointment. It will always be like that.

 

But as I said, I'm all for the smaller ship count and this issue doesn't bother me. All in stride though, when they release good news (And there is plenty of that to come im sure) you will see everybody up in arms about how great the game is again. As PG said, balance is good

[Teradyn_pff]

I don't think balance is good at all when it means that a Mon Cal Cruiser is going to be designed to stand toe to toe with an ISD. The only possible way that should go for the Mon Cal is the fact that they have redundant shielding and their fighters should be able to take out the ISD's fighters and go to work on taking out its hardpoints. Not counting fighters, it shouldn't even be a contest. This is balance without cookie cutter, you balance a force based on what they bring as a group, not unit to unit.

 

This is the type of thing I think we are going to have to fix to begin with when the game comes out. I see a realism mod being worked on very soon after the games release, unless someone gets clever with the demo...

[WhiteSkull]

I don't think balance is good at all when it means that a Mon Cal Cruiser is going to be designed to stand toe to toe with an ISD. The only possible way that should go for the Mon Cal is the fact that they have redundant shielding and their fighters should be able to take out the ISD's fighters and go to work on taking out its hardpoints. Not counting fighters, it shouldn't even be a contest. This is balance without cookie cutter, you balance a force based on what they bring as a group, not unit to unit.

 

Mind showing me the hardcore facts from LA where this should not happen?

 

from the few books i read the MC could infact standup to a ISD because of the extra shielding.

 

Also your ausming again(something you are doing alot of the past few days) that the MC is not being designed to be weaker then a ISD and that the x-wings and y-wings will not make a ISD vrs a MC a balanced fight.

[R1ob7]

The other problem with a population cap the games become a race to only build the best weapons. For the empire would there be any reason not to have a fleet with 20 Star Destroyers? By putting such a low pop cap you marginalize the smaller ships and weaker units. Lets look at this scenario in a ground battle without a pop cap you may have recon units, units to raid an enemy force, or throw away units to try and delay and advance through your main line while your artillery destroys the enemy. Now what happens is that it forces you to sit back at your base and wait for the enemy to attack so all your turrets and base defenses come to play. It takes all defensive strategy out of the game. Just build a line with your best units behind your base walls so when the enemy breaches you sit back and delay them while your artillery kills them.

 

Such small pop caps take away the strategy elements. There is no longer any reason to build smaller weaker units. I've been excited about this game until I herd about this pop cap, if the cap is really so low I actually may not buy this game.

 

Oh and BTW for the people talking about owning a 2 year old computer being excited about this game, what about the people spending money to build an uber powerful PC with 2 Nivda 256mb Nvida 6800's (SLI) and 4 gigs of RAM who could play the massive game we've all dreamed about, this game will be a huge disappointment because you know it could and should of been better. Why can't they just make an optional pop cap for lower end PCs?

[Garbageben]

The other problem with a population cap the games become a race to only build the best weapons. For the empire would there be any reason not to have a fleet with 20 Star Destroyers? By putting such a low pop cap you marginalize the smaller ships and weaker units. Lets look at this scenario in a ground battle without a pop cap you may have recon units, units to raid an enemy force, or throw away units to try and delay and advance through your main line while your artillery destroys the enemy. Now what happens is that it forces you to sit back at your base and wait for the enemy to attack so all your turrets and base defenses come to play. It takes all defensive strategy out of the game. Just build a line with your best units behind your base walls so when the enemy breaches you sit back and delay them while your artillery kills them.

 

Such small pop caps take away the strategy elements. There is no longer any reason to build smaller weaker units. I've been excited about this game until I herd about this pop cap, if the cap is really so low I actually may not buy this game.

 

Oh and BTW for the people talking about owning a 2 year old computer being excited about this game, what about the people spending money to build an uber powerful PC with 2 Nivda 256mb Nvida 6800's (SLI) and 4 gigs of RAM who could play the massive game we've all dreamed about, this game will be a huge disappointment because you know it could and should of been better. Why can't they just make an optional pop cap for lower end PCs?

Well for multiplayer certainly there needs to be a set population cap. Especially if you have a person with a 2 year old laptop versus someone with a high end computer. Also just look at the movies and screens and ask yourself "Isn't that battle size large enough for me?" The rebels succeed with hit and run tactics, so you won't be massing a huge fleet to pound away at the Imperials. This is accentuated by knowing a lot of the Imperial navy's movements and being able to strike where they are weak. I personally don't think that the pop cap will be detrimental to the game at all and I do have a high end computer to boot.