The only complaint i have about the editor is how tedious it is to do relatively simple things. Other than that, I think it works extremely well and can do most things I want easily. Most problems i face are usually related to engine and latency issues.
- Registered User
Member for 11 years, 7 months, and 21 days
Last active Sun, Nov, 29 2015 06:54:53
- 0 Followers
- 156 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
Jan 13, 2013Posted in: Map Feedback
I realized that I forgot to announce it her so here it is. Fleet Assault has been updated with many changes including new ships, items, revamped ui and mechanics, and much more. Expect more changes over the next few weeks
Jul 21, 2012Posted in: Map Review
Fleet Assault has just been updated with most of the changes that have been implemented in the Beta Arcade. It will probably need a re-review as there has been major changes with the UI, tutorial system, and certain gameplay mechanics. Additionally, AI player support is now fully functional, so you won't need to wait for players to play this map. As a recommendation for the AI, make sure to play against Hard difficulty or LOWER as Very Hard/Insane AIs are too difficult for the average player to handle.
Jun 10, 2012Posted in: UI Development
Hi there, i'm not sure whether this topic is covered in the tutorials as I wasn't able to find it, so pardon me if this question has already been covered.
In my map Fleet Assault, I'm looking to change the way the Info Panel displays information. Currently, the number of icons for a unit's weapon that will be displayed is limited to up to 4 weapons, assuming that the unit has shields. I want to change this limit(even if it means enlarging the Panel size or reducing icon size). I would also like to remove the armor/shield icons and display the unit info in text(like how it would appear if the unit has Veterancy) instead. Is that possible?
So to sum it up:
1) All unit information such as armor, shield armor, and movement speed will be displayed in a list of text
2) The number of Weapon Icons will be limited to 24 instead of 4. Icon size and Panel size will be modified to compensate
3) If possible, i want to display the weapon icons based on the Turret that they are equipped to.
Apr 11, 2012Posted in: Map Review
Quote from TheDyingTitan: Go
i have played the game but i don't play often due to a crappy computer but the shooting angled are not random its just that most weapons are ungiuded hence my favoring insta hit or splash damage based weapons, and some weapons like Tri mac cannon and the shot cannon (the one that shoots tuns of auto cannon shpts at once) have spread shots and not all of them will travel alone the centre line to the target.
and killdar on the side note of models for ships here is a list of possible models you have not used
probe scv cinamatic battle cruiser void ray regular dark voidray arcade battle cruiser dimond back hercules dropship terra tron obsever
hope this helps
the probe/scv/observer units have already been used for non-hero ships. The battlecruiser models look the same so there's no point using the other variations(except the pirate battlecruiser). Terra-tron/voidray are already allocated for the new classes but i don't have the protoss/terran counter-parts for them. Hercules has already been used for the IEF Cruiser. Diamondback isn't a ship so don't bother mentioning it.
Mar 30, 2012Posted in: Map Review
Quote from Eiviyn: Go
I love Fleet Assault, but it has so many fundamental problems.
1) Text. Wow, text everywhere. I recommend reducing it to the minimum amount needed to convey each weapon's point.
2) Useless weapons. I'm not going to buy a Machine Gun when I can afford an Autocannon. This rule really ruins half the equipment, especially the defensive stuff. I really recommend removing 90% of the weapons, and making the remaining 10% upgradeable into the 90% you removed. This slashes redundancy completely and makes the shop UI less of a train wreck.
3) Carrier equipment. Not sure why you changed these from having a build time to being a long cd weapon, but it sucks. Recommend separating them from the inventory entirely and just allow players to purchase ships. Capships will rebuild them, while squads add the bought ship to their formation (the bought ones don't get inventories).
4) The dreadnaught's speed is a joke. Twice I got as far as a dreadnaught, and both times I just had to leave the game out of boredom. It takes 4 minutes to travel from base to base. Insane. No endgame squad ship. Not a huge issue but rather sucks that the only endgame ship is the slugnaught.
5) Lack of feedback on YOUR weapon hits. I'm really clueless as to when I've scored a hit vs when I miss vs when an ally hits. Recommend some feedback, perhaps a damage number?
6) Income is completely random. There's so many npcs and shots fired that landing the killing blow is really just down to chance. Recommend some area or contribution based income.
Just my thoughts.
Thanks for your feedback. Appreciate it. Now let's clarify some stuff first:
1) You're referring to the weapon stats? That's as concise as i can make it. How would you suggest cutting it down further? And the "bar graph" was added because it was what the players wanted.
2) Yea i have received several similar feedback about this. I'll see what i can do but i'm just having emotional attachments to most of the weapons. xD The other problem with this suggestion is that the weapon system might not be able to pull off an upgradable weapon. I'll have to think through it first.
By defensive stuff, did you mean equipment or the "defensive" weapons?
EDIT: Actually, to be honest, the only useless weapon i can see is the Machine Guns. The rest are still being used and have a purpose for them. Also, the whole idea is to have cheaper weapons serve as a "placeholder" that you can swap out for stronger weapons when you can afford them.
3) The problem with the original Carrier system was that it caused massive lag as players liked to spam and hoard the squadrons. And the reason why i don't want them separated from the inventory is because the whole idea is for players to decide how they want to manage their inventory and what they want equipped. Again, I also want to avoid having units accompanying the ship in a "formation" due to lag concerns.
4) The whole idea of a dreadnaught is for it to be a massive tank. Also, there are known "speednaught" builds where you chunk in a couple of supercharged engines to make it really fast. Have you seen a dreadnaught faster than a fighter? I have. Also, the Dreadnaught is the not the best ship in a game. I can rape dreadnaughts with squadrons and even my maxed out Frigate. As for end-game fighters, the reason why we don't have them is because i ran out of models for them. I'm currently just waiting for HotS so i can start making the classes i have planned out here: http://brokenalliances.com/forums/showthread.php?10765-Upcoming-New-Ship-Classes
EDIT: It doesn't take 4 minutes to get from base to base lol. There's a reason why you have "Hyperspace Jump" ability and the "Power to Engines" ability.
5) This i can definitely try and do. Only thing i'm worried about is whether it may add to the lag in-game. Something i rather not have added. lol
6) I disagree with this. With practice there's actually ways for you to secure farming kills. Also it depends entirely on what weapons you equip. Some weapons farm better than others, that's all. However, i'll still accept any suggestions to make this better. =D
Mar 30, 2012Posted in: Map Review
Quote from IliIilI: Go
+ Fleet Assault
You have a serious problem with people leaving the game in the first minute. I thing it has something to do with initial weapons not being powerful enough to kill ships. Newbies won't see they can buy additional weapons at the start of the game, and the default ones they got when buying a ship are too week.
Quote from IliIilI: Go
I've found what is the problem which is making people leave the game. The tutorial seems to be preventing people from launching their ships.
Actually, no. The tutorial does allow you to launch your ships. The problem is people often don't follow instructions correctly. The thing with the tutorial is i've been trying to force players to read through the tutorial carefully(and hopefully understand them) before they actually get into battle. However, most players have a huge ego and think they can grasp the game immediately without properly reading the tutorial, hence they tend to just skip the instructions that would actually allow them to launch their ships. This measure is extreme yes, but i find that it's necessary to do so else they won't read the tutorials.
But then again it doesn't seem to be effective either. I really don't know what to do to make the learning curve easier for the newbies. The ways for making tutorials on SC2 is really limited. =/
Anyway, the steps to get out of the tutorial section successfully is done in 4 steps:
1) Buy Ship 2) Buy an Item 3) Move an Item in inventory to another slot 4) Launch Ship
If they can't even follow these simple instructions properly....
Feb 17, 2012Posted in: Map Review
The problem here, is even though we mappers try to make players have an easier time understanding the game, it's not gonna do peanuts if the players themselves don't try to learn the game properly. Over the past year i've tried MANY MANY different ways to get idiots(yes, i'll term them so) to learn to play the game. I did everything from loading screen tutorials, game manual, in-game screen tutorials, and hands-on tutorials(forcefully). And STILL i have idiots telling me that they don't know how to play. What would you have us do? I've even tried getting some players to make tutorials in the perspective of a newbies, but nooooo, that didn't help too.
As IliIilI pointed out, the main issue is that most ppl just give up after the first try. They think they're SOOOO smart that they can understand a complex game WITHOUT reading the tutorial in the first get go. I would say the problem lies not with the mappers, but the players themselves.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.