Teradyn_pff Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Well, waiting for someone else to play should refer to turn based games (not too many are multiplayer I don't think). In EAW, you do any waiting and it could be fatal. From what I can tell, the multiplayer galactic mode will be hectic enough to keep someone occupied. Your views on multiplayer strategy games does make sense given how you are talking about this one. I think that the problem is you don't really want a Star Wars Strategy game that is multiplayer. You would prefer the entire galactic mode to be more involved, slower paced and single-player, thus leaving the multiplayer portion to skirmish mode. This is fine, and your own opinion, but I think the way that EAW is set up, multiplayer is a big and possibly the primary component. My Death Star is bigger than your Death Star!"The XML is strong with this one!"http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/teradyn.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthscharnhorst2 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 This doesn't mean that I wouldn't want that stuff, but since it doesn't have it, I see it as a worth-while trade off. EAW will not replace every RTS out there, but it will definitely have its own place for a while. And I think that is the crux of the issue. For those of us who buy a game primarily for the single player experience and who look at multiplayer as a nice feature but not the heart of a game there is no fair exchange. This is why I have a high regard for the Total War series and others think its rubbish. I think CIV Four *got rid of the annoying stuff but kept and even added imersive features to the single player experience* is a good example of a game that does both equally well, but of course its not an RTS! Also if you have ever played Hearts of Iron I or II it is a very deep strategy game played in real time which is also fun online. While I don't think that the gameplay found in that title could be carried over to a star wars game, it does prove that RTS and deep strategic gameplay can go hand in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevets Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Well, waiting for someone else to play should refer to turn based games (not too many are multiplayer I don't think). In EAW, you do any waiting and it could be fatal. From what I can tell, the multiplayer galactic mode will be hectic enough to keep someone occupied. You don't plan on stopping at any point for a full galactic conquest online? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teradyn_pff Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 And I think that is the crux of the issue. For those of us who buy a game primarily for the single player experience and who look at multiplayer as a nice feature but not the heart of a game there is no fair exchange. This is why I have a high regard for the Total War series and others think its rubbish.Thus, the concensus would be that EAW is primarily a multiplayer strategy game with a single player component for completeness, rather than the other way around. You don't plan on stopping at any point for a full galactic conquest online? I am confused, I thought that I indicated that online full galactic conquest is what I would be primarily doing in EAW. What do you mean? My Death Star is bigger than your Death Star!"The XML is strong with this one!"http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/teradyn.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevets Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I am confused, I thought that I indicated that online full galactic conquest is what I would be primarily doing in EAW. What do you mean? It would take hours to complete that, the average play isn't going to want to play that straight through, you are going to have to pause and meet up later at some point in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthscharnhorst2 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Thus, the concensus would be that EAW is primarily a multiplayer strategy game with a single player component for completeness, rather than the other way around. Exactly! Which is why a number of us are a bit disappointed since by looking at the code some aspects like Diplomacy were on the table but nixed and ship renaming was stated but never realized. However units not gaining experience and no persistant damage makes little sense as they easily could make the transition from a singleplayer oriented game to a mu litplayer one. Perhaps Lucas Arts forced a release date or the Dev's axed it in favor of "fun." Its sad because I think these little things would have gone a long way in making the "strategy" segment of the fan base happy and have encouraged repeat buyers based on Petro's name as opposed to the Star Wars Logo. I have a feeling many traditional RTS fans will do the same as they will bemoan the missing base building and not like the time it takes to complete a galatic campain in multiplayer. As it is now, I am buying this title because of Star Wars, not for Petro's slant on the gameplay. Had they included more strategic elements to the the galaxy map code, I might have followed them like I do Paradox, Creative Ensemble, etc. In essence I think they are trying to make everyone happy but in the process will alienate quite a few gamers in the process. I do however wish them luck as they have a lot of promise. I think there follow up game, if not based on Star Wars will prove if they chose the right focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teradyn_pff Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 It would take hours to complete that, the average play isn't going to want to play that straight through, you are going to have to pause and meet up later at some point in it.Ok, yes, I agree. That is why the save and resume feature of galactic multiplayer is such a good idea (really a no brainer). What I was referring to was having time during an active play session to wait on an enemy player. The galactic mode is realtime, so any time you are sitting there is time you should be spying, moving fleets, building up defenses, planning attacks, etc. Exactly! Which is why a number of us are a bit disappointed since by looking at the code some aspects like Diplomacy were on the table but nixed and ship renaming was stated but never realized. However units not gaining experience and no persistant damage makes little sense as they easily could make the transition from a singleplayer oriented game to a mu litplayer one. Perhaps Lucas Arts forced a release date or the Dev's axed it in favor of "fun." Its sad because I think these little things would have gone a long way in making the "strategy" segment of the fan base happy and have encouraged repeat buyers based on Petro's name as opposed to the Star Wars Logo. I have a feeling many traditional RTS fans will do the same as they will bemoan the missing base building and not like the time it takes to complete a galatic campain in multiplayer. As it is now, I am buying this title because of Star Wars, not for Petro's slant on the gameplay. Had they included more strategic elements to the the galaxy map code, I might have followed them like I do Paradox, Creative Ensemble, etc. In essence I think they are trying to make everyone happy but in the process will alienate quite a few gamers in the process. I do however wish them luck as they have a lot of promise. I think there follow up game, if not based on Star Wars will prove if they chose the right focus. As for the way they implemented this game, they went with a more Starcraft approach, rather than a Rome:Total War approach. This should garner more sales and is more in line with their other games, C&C franchise and the like (which makes sense considering the team makeup). This is kind of like the difference between an RPG like Diablo and one like Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate was more RPG than Diablo by far, but you couldn't say Diablo wasn't fun, or didn't sell copies. Now for the comment about the base building... yes, I totally agree with you there. That is my major gripe with the game design right now, because of the potentially unlimited ground troops that can be brought against a planet that is under siege as a small error in base defense makes a big difference. Besides, with everything being static, each planet will have its own optimal attack routes and force makeup. Something that could not be done if the defenses are different depending on who built them. I will be the first to say EAW is not perfect, but in the current market, it is going to be better than what we have for Star Wars at least. Plus, the galactic mode being multiplayer is something that has been needed for a long time. My Death Star is bigger than your Death Star!"The XML is strong with this one!"http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/teradyn.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkthehunter Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 What does this have to do with ship-naming???? Protecting the world from those who have an IQ higher than 30! Huzzah! Trust me...I'm a professional. Some other members and I are trying to be superheroes and save the forums. But we can't do it on our own. We need your help! Join us! http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5380/pffuserbar2modnp0.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthscharnhorst2 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 What does this have to do with ship-naming???? More on why features like renaming were not inculded and our chances of getting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevets Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 What I was referring to was having time during an active play session to wait on an enemy player. The galactic mode is realtime, so any time you are sitting there is time you should be spying, moving fleets, building up defenses, planning attacks, etc. Exactly, and Rebellion managed to include a lot of these immersion elements we are talking about and then some (worrying about if you have enough mines and refineries and boring stuff, glad they axed that for the most part) and it was realtime. You still had time to rename your ships, send out spies, use diplomacy and build fleets and attack planets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teradyn_pff Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Well, it was semi-realtime. Everything was done by day but the days increased automatically. In EAW you can send a fleet and it can get there in the middle of the currently running day. This is more realtime than Rebellion was. Don't get me wrong, I was one of the ones who were disappointed when we learned that this was not Rebellion 2. However, once I accepted that, I moved on. If Rebellion 2 was made, with the good stuff from this and Rebellion, but without the bad stuff from either, I would drop EAW like a rock. At this point debating the how and why of how EAW is designed is pointless unless we are discussing mods and those are restricted to the EAW engine. My Death Star is bigger than your Death Star!"The XML is strong with this one!"http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/teradyn.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevets Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Well, it was semi-realtime. Everything was done by day but the days increased automatically. In EAW you can send a fleet and it can get there in the middle of the currently running day. This is more realtime than Rebellion was. Don't get me wrong, I was one of the ones who were disappointed when we learned that this was not Rebellion 2. However, once I accepted that, I moved on. If Rebellion 2 was made, with the good stuff from this and Rebellion, but without the bad stuff from either, I would drop EAW like a rock. At this point debating the how and why of how EAW is designed is pointless unless we are discussing mods and those are restricted to the EAW engine. Yea guess so, I really wish there was a Rebellion 2 made that was top of the line. It sucked that it bombed initially because it was outdated before it was even released, now LEC probably wont touch it. I hoped the reaction they got from EAW about Rebellion 2 may sway them a little bit, and perhaps tweak EAW a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthscharnhorst2 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Yea guess so, I really wish there was a Rebellion 2 made that was top of the line. It sucked that it bombed initially because it was outdated before it was even released, now LEC probably wont touch it. I hoped the reaction they got from EAW about Rebellion 2 may sway them a little bit, and perhaps tweak EAW a bit more. This is my hope as well. I was hoping for a streamlined state of the art Rebellion 2 when I heard of EAW but I can understand Petro's desire to carve their own path. If it sells well and they make an expansion, hopefully they will include some of the missing features in order to encourage people to buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOT Hadoken13 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 just edit the note pad files w/ the ships names in them like every time i build a vsd it is now called the OMG A TALKING MUFFIN! my EAW online screen name [PFF]HAdoken13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevets Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 like every time i build a vsd it is now called the OMG A TALKING MUFFIN! I guess there are some good reasons why it isn't in..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now