Which was reviewed and reversed by me within 10 minutes.  There are no current bans on the forum.

But thank you for verifying that you were the one who was posting that BS.  

While I have not been on these forums as long as others, and obviously have not participated in as many discussion - from what I am seeing here I do have to agree slightly on what Frog said, Tatsujb. I made this thread about my Impressions regarding Ashes - and that is the topic of discussion in this thread. In your very first post you didn't mention any of the major points I made except for,"This game offers so much more currently than Ashes." Which I believe you took and ran with, because I even noted that the game was still in Alpha; then you automatically target Ashes by saying how FA kills it ( at least in the UI) when I didn't even mention the UI at all.

In that way you did hijack this thread.

I absolutely love FA - and I do play it on FAF all the time as well; but, it is an older game and we wont have it forever. I am glad that Ashes of a Singularity is being made; and that they are actually striving to make the game ''grand'' in scope amongst this sea of Dota fest games and hilariously small scope strategy games we get today. Supcom is an amazing game and I hope they make a third one someday based upon the first game and not the second, maybe even using the Nitrous engine!, but Ashes is trying to be something different and arguably over time it may even give us a Bigger experience than Supcom ever did.





 

I gotta say I'm pretty tired of hearing about Forged Alliance and FAF when coming to the Ashes forum. There is a "PC Gaming" sub-forum here for a reason. Yet, we have this "Forged Alliance" thread that keeps getting bumped within the Ashes forum. It's bad form. Does the FAF forum have other game topics popping up in its dedicated forum? No, it doesn't. They appear in Off Topic. People who obsessively play one game get tunnel vision and aren't even aware of it. It makes it very difficult to conceive of something new, something outside their box. There's a thread on the FAF forums about Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak (again, in the Off Topic section). What kind of comments do you see? Oh I hope it has strategic zoom like FA. Oh it doesn't seem to have base building like FA. Oh, maybe they can make one of the units into a commander unit like FA. It's so bizarre. I know MOBAs have been partly responsible for the decline in RTS online populations but I also find players so rigidly knee-jerk when it comes to certain RTS features that it just fractures any chance of an online community from the start. This is why there are only 2 RTS games that have any semblance of a large MP community currently. Granted, it's also because sometimes bad games get made. For Ashes, give the best feedback you can, leave personal gripes out of it, understand that at the end of the day, it's not game design by committee, some things will and some things won't fit the vision the devs have for it. RTS players need to embrace more variety imo.

So I'm not also guilty of continuing the hijack of the OP's thread:

Unit variety: archers and brutes differ in range and dps (and health probably, don't recall) but maybe it isn't that apparent due to the scale of the game and could be tweaked a bit more? I feel like the unit roster is decent but could use maybe a couple additional units if they added specific strategic options - stealth is a possibility. I like that the medic and scout apply buffs - it keeps them relevant longer than they would be otherwise.

Unit upgrades: I'm not sure I'd worry about players building excessive quanta generators. There is a lot competing for your radioactive expenditures as it is. More upgrades or more orbital abilities would be cool though. Unit speed is one that comes to mind.

I dont think its too difficult to explain that feeling, you basically did it within the rest of your post. Its a combo of playing the game at higher zoom without icons and the units looking very similar at that distance, partially because all of them are hovercrafts...then the game obviously being big scale with lot of units present (them being built in groups) and there you go, all of this helps the create the perception of lacking variety. If you cant see the difference, you dont feel the difference. Making a list of units on these boards highlighting their roles  to say "hey, but we have variety!" sadly does not count, they have to be easily distinguishable ingame, One has no issue to tell apart the chinese tank and artillery in CnC Generals and probably would not have even if zoomed further out on the very first gameplay session...i wish i could say the same about PHC units (except obviously dreadnoughts, those are fine).

Grey Goo had similar issue (among others, while being smaller in scope to Ashes) - especially the Human faction had units visually very similar to each other. 

Anyway, with all the talk about Forged Alliance and Total Annihilation, while i hold both games in high regard and understand why this game is sort of spiritual successor to exactly these games and not some old school RTS clone like aforementioned GreyGoo, i hope neither of these games is going to be source of inspiration for "faction design" aspect of the development, since both of these games IMO failed hard in this regard and there are far, far superior RTS games to be influenced by...

BTW when are we going to get Substrate? 

Ok, I was a TA player, I sinked thousands of hours into SupCom1 and FA/FAF.

I was an Alpha backer for PA and I am really tired to read the same threads in all the forums. Discussions are nice but to re-read the same stuff over and over again, posted by a few very vocal people is really tiring. 

I know that a lot of friends who support these kind of games and are good players too never attempted to post on the forum, they simply do not have time for pseudo discussions.

We had the same in the PA forums, there were quite some arguments going on about exactly those things. Why cannot someone just simply accept that Frogboy does not want certain things to be repeated here? Why keep on arguing?

Why not simply start making posts regarding the game itself and not pointing to SupCom again? We all know it is not going to be a SupCom game, might this be a good or bad thing does not matter, they are not going for it.

When I want to come to this forum I want to read about new ideas, new information and not the same rants over and over again.

Uber was very tolerant in my opinion and they paid a price for that as well.

On a side note, Freedom of Speech can also mean to be silent from time to time. ^^

Hello everyone
I would like to take this time to congratulate the developers on a job well done so far I would also like to let you know that I'll be testing a little more consistent since I've taken care of a few real-life issues (a few Family members Passed away from Cancer)

Anyhow:

After playing the game a few times and noticed a few issues that need to be rectified,  I'm not sure if this will make a difference in the bench marking but I definitely get better bench marking in other games than I do this particular game so I’m waiting for a good optimization session. I'm also trying different resolutions and considering as I run 5 screens and I'm sure other people do as well, your system does not like bench testing the resolutions that I use currently I run my system 9800 x 1080 P this gives me at very low score for what reason I'm not sure maybe it's just not designed to be able to cover those resolutions secondary resolution would be 5760 x 1080 P. Now I'm sure I'll probably end up getting a better bench marking after you have optimized the game and the graphics portion of the development I just want you to know that some people do run multiple screens within the game and if you have to make some adjustments to the bench marking to the accommodate these resolutions you might need this this information and I thought I would let you know. Otherwise playing the game I had no problems whatsoever I get a steady 30 to 60 frames per second no clipping no tearing and very little graphic lag, so great work so far.

I played about 42 hours of the game lost the first game due to playing an AI that ways absolute painful to start this game off with. After playing the game a few times and having multiple wins to try figuring out the AI's inaccuracies.

Now please forgive me if these issues have already been brought up I have not had time to read through all the founders forms considering as I was unable to get into it the last time. One issue that I've found very frustrating it is that when you're issuing an order of attack to the group of units you cannot select the specific target you wish to attack for example if the AI is sending you a attack force with a few dreadnoughts incorporated within the force you cannot specifically tell your units to target the dreadnought, I don't know if this will be fixed in a later patch but I do hope that this would be on the slate to be rectified.

Another thing that would be a good idea I believe would be templates the option to create templates to speed up game play and game micromanagement. I would also like to know if there will be an upgrade system for power amps or amplifiers metal extractors radioactive extractors HQ's factories units themselves and or Special weapon’s. I find that the units are in need of spicing up in order to incorporate extreme long-time battles, this will even help in ranked games to allow a person to be able to upgrade the units on the playing field so that you don't waste so much economy upgrading all the units all-in-one shot upgrading the units with specific weapon will set a tone depending on the variable attacking sequence that you are wanting to execute. I do understand it's just a single click under the quantum upgrades but to me I find that to be too simple my apologies. As it is, this game is just a rusher’s game. Spam Factories and pump out the units, this needs to be averted so you won’t get to many crybabies screaming the expert rushers are cheating, hacking, or stacking teams.

The targeting of the defense turrets are off and they are stupid (intelligence wise), for example if I have a large incoming force from an enemy which includes dreadnoughts down to the smaller units, the defense turrets will a fire upon the smaller units rather than the large more dangerous dreadnoughts. I also find that it's impossible for me to issue orders to the defense turrets to target a single unit, this will be needed when you're in the need of being able to pick out a single unit that is causing you the most damage. You may want to look into the issue were the turret wont fire on a smaller target when it sits right next to the turrets. And add the ability to issue waypoints targets to Defense turrets and units

the economy needs to be reworked a bit and expanded on, being able to incorporate adjacent buildings for added bonuses to improve production like metal extraction radioactive extraction would be an increasing bonus for hard-core players that like in-depth gameplay. You also have way too many resources points there is no need to clutter up the map with so many (will reduce game lag as well) and it takes away from strategic game play. Even though I am immensely enjoying the game. I am expecting more of an intense gameplay for experienced RTS players I do understand its pre-alpha don't get me wrong, but I'm hoping that you will be able to take into consideration the needs of in-depth hard-core RTS players ( if not this will be another supreme commander II ) . I know for a fact that if you can incorporate more of a hard-core game style you will be able to win over the TA and sup com players.

I found that the anti-air units are somewhat over powered for myself who uses air rather frequently and forces the other players to need adequate AAA defense against my air rushes, after I build my air factories and I get my Air Force up and running it’s a sure win doesn't matter how many AA you have or fighter jets to combat my air rush they will lose, none of the anti-air is sufficient to stop a significant air rush in any way. Maybe if you increase the fire rate of the AAA to target more than one unit at a time this could be a significant deterrent against an air rush. After playing the game little bit longer I experimented more with the anti-air and incoming aircraft, in order for you to stop an incoming wave of approximately 10 incoming aircraft you will need in excess of 25 AAA guns, this is clearly showing that the AAA is under powered. calculations aside common sense dictates that 2 or 3 AAA should take out a wave of 5 or more air craft. You will need to reconfigure the firing importance of the AAA at the moment I find it shooting at scouts, jets then bombers. I think it should be reversed bombers jets scouts. Increasing the AAA would help create a more enjoyable gameplay without too many complaints of the air rushes I do request that you look into the calculations as to AAA versus aircraft.

Also have a few other opinions that might be able to be taken into consideration, the Seed as the game calls it I prefer the HQ you could incorporate high-powered antiaircraft protection to prevent a wave of bombers coming in and taking out the opponent in the first round or pass. I've done this multiple times against the AI without any problems and successfully completed the bombing run every time.

considering as you are trying to balance the economy and build your units at the same time I do believe that the pause for building for the factories would be in order, this would help to improve the balancing of the economy while under pressure. for example if you lose a node that cuts off radioactive resources you will be in a down turn and fall sort of the needed resources, pausing unneeded extra factories would help to prevent this sudden and potential reason for a lost game match from building large amounts of units. I have found that once you start building 5 to 8000 units you run into economy issues namely radioactive once you get into building lots of units you will need to control almost all the radioactive points on the map, I do understand balancing of the game is to be brought up in a later date but I just figured that maybe we could take this into consideration so that later on during balancing times they will be able to take this info and Incorporated into the gameplay.

I also find that it takes way too long to be able to build defense turrets in any area to defend your needed space I believe the ability to rapidly heal units would be an added plus maybe add a field engineer designed to rapidly build defense turrets and repair areas and units in need until your able to build a repair station and the stations should be able to be given orders to repair a single important unit you need repairs asap!. In addition it's impossible for me to actually issue orders to a group of units to target a single unit within the attack area of the battle. ATM it seems to be attack the group of units in the area of effect, I'm sure you guys will rectify that issue later on down the road but I thought it would be worth mentioning. I also found that with the enemy amplifier that has been built it is impossible to destroy or I have not figured out how to destroy yet, I was thinking maybe you could incorporate the ability of either being able to destroy them or being able to capture and turn them into your power apps or amplifier after X amount of time of holding that location or strategic capture point. I don't know if it's been incorporated or it's just worked out this way but I do believe it needs to be looked into and modified, I would also like to suggest that maybe being able to upgrade the amplifiers to increase the resources out of the resource point would be an excellent addition to the gameplay

I found a real life player to test out the AAA a squad of 10 planes is able to kill a HQ by 50% ON A SINGLE RUN WITH 15 AAA around the base and killed the HQ on the 2nd pass, i do think the AAA needs the to be added to the HQ and maybe have a better AAA system then the standard AAA you can build to help protect the HQ.

we tried it they got though the first round but the AAA and fighters killed the wave of bombers ... but they still killed 50% of the Hq ....and yet hopefully this info will make it all moot >:

 BTW is this the founder forum? if so .. i feel naked i have no founders tag

That's interesting - I like the Repair Bay idea. 10 bombers is a lot so I have to wonder in real games what the opponent would be doing while you are investing that much income into bombers and not taking any territory.