Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.

Greetings!

I'm on the plane and have some time to talk a little bit about Ashes.  I've been getting a ton of questions about the game and I'm going to try to answer these questions in the clearest way I can.

First, some house cleaning:

1. If there isn't a subedit on Ashes yet, could someone make it? The nature of this game is such that we really want to be able to talk to the community a lot prior to release. 

2. We are instituting a new Founders system that we will apply retroactively to other games that have had founders programs (like GalCiv III).  In essence, we will be giving Founders more exclusive stuff early on. That stuff may be made available later to everyone but we want people who supported us from the start to get first dibs on things.

Next, Founders info:

a. Re Supreme Commander & TA questions.  Yes, Ashes is probably most similar to those games with one major difference - the maps themselves are broken up into regions.  Thus, you have to control the region (ala Company of Heroes) and the contiguous regions back to your seed (Base) in order to receive the resources of that region.

b. Re scale.  I've seen a lot of people talk about how many units are in other games with an accompanying screenshot.  The difference here is that one of those big battles would just be one of potentially many battles going on across the world.  The difference in actual units is an order of magnitude higher than anything that's previously been done. 

c. Re Managing units.  While each of the potentially tens of thousands of units can be commanded individually, that would be relatively insane to try.  Instead, think of each individual as being a lego and being able to quickly and easily put together these legos into a single bigger unit which we call Meta units.  The meta unit works together as if it's a single unit. You click on one, you have clicked on all of them and all their special abilities are available to use.  They will automatically help each other (since they see themselves as part of a greater unit).

d. Meta units are not control groups. A control group might have multiple meta units in it. A meta unit can be 1 unit or it might be 3000 units depending on what the player wants to do.  

Next, early debates on topics we can have:

a. There are 3 main resources players are fighting: Metal (for constructing stuff), Radioactives (for advanced units and researching), and Computronium.  Comporting acts as the victory point ticker in this game. It's a real word and a real concept.  But we hate the name.  We are open to ideas on a different name.  Computronium is the theoretical name of an idealized computing substance.

 

b. Map sizes.  Our tiny map is about the size of the Bay Area in California. The largest map size is difficult to describe because it's so big. It takes a hour for a unit to travel across it.  Based on who is reading this post, how long do you prefer your RTS games to last?

 


Comments (Page 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Mar 24, 2015

I love long games. Mainly because if i want to be stressed out and make quick decisions i go to work.

 

1 hours travel for a unit to cross a map is good. i remember 64MB maps for TA being seen as insane. If there are units with significant range, a decent ferry system maybe enhanced from SC:FA, and possibly teleportation from structures, then i see no issue. If the engine can handle it, then you should build it. Potentially then you may have a campaign on just one map!?

that would be phenomenal. having lots of Allie players cut off, entrenched, all needing support, or trying to help eachother, yet logistics could be an issue. what a great game that currently has never been done. Yes you need the smaller faster skirmishes for multiplayer, and to compete with the existing market.

on Mar 24, 2015

But we hate the name.  We are open to ideas on a different name.  Computronium is the theoretical name of an idealized computing substance.

Well, while computronium sure is a mouthful to say, a slight tweak to lore could potentially resolve this.

 

"With material needs a thing of the past, humanity entered a new golden age. A substance called "computronium," long theorized, became a reality. Computronium is the arrangement of matter that provides the best possible form for computing in a given amount of matter.

Unfortunately the humans quickly discovered that raw Computronium was inefficient to their needs, and most importantly unstable. With the help of the AI, tiny machines, called "nans," the humans were able to process the raw Computronium into a more refined and immensely powerful substance called Ash. Soon the humans and AI had quickly converted much of the usable mass of the Earth into ash.

Ash became the ultimate currency. The more ash one possessed, the more intelligence – and therefore power – one had."

 

This way you have the word play tying the name of the game to an actual in-game asset! Or something to that effect...  

on Mar 25, 2015

Wow, these are interesting infos. All green lit by me

on Mar 25, 2015

racso5

I respect your opinion, but I am sure you understand that most likely this is just a business decision. Basically, Stardock's decision to limit some material to Founders is probably because they want to create an additional incentive for people to purchase the game early, not because they want to encourage elitism or give preference based on socio-economic status.

This still creates two classes of people.   People who have $45 dollars and people who don't.  Justice?  Separate but equal?

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

  • You sit up there, and you see the whole gamut of human nature. Even if the case being argued involves only a little fellow and $50, it involves justice. That's what is important.
    • Interview in 1953 after being appointed to the Supreme Court, as quoted in Earl Warren : A Political Biography (1967) by Leo Katcher, p. 315
  • We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

 

I'm  irked by the fact that this is a defacto paywall.  

 

What would you do if your best friend said, "You can look at my new toy, if you give me $45."  How long would you be their friend after that?  Doesn't sit well with me.  Seems mean spirited.

Share the information with everyone, for free and when they come upon $45 they will know about a great game they can buy; how's that for economic incentive?

 

backs out of the room slowly...    

 

 

 

 

on Mar 26, 2015

As I mentioned in the previous post, Founders are allowed to discuss the news and info they receive with non-Founders. They just cannot share the actual art, video files, or any other docs with anyone. The news and information is the most valuable content. Thus no one is being denied justice or being discriminated.

 

Also Stardock's mission as a company is not to be our friends, to act as a charity, or to promote equal and just access to any and all information. They are in the business of digital entertainment and are offering various options for consumers to purchase their products. As a marketing decision they created the incentive of access to extraneous art, videos, and other documents to those who pre-purchase their products (i.e. Founders). But again, the majority of the core and most valuable information about their product is being disseminated to the general public, not only to Founders.

on Mar 26, 2015

Red Dwarf, if you see it this way, our whole society has to be changed. You have to pay for things you would like to have. If I want to have a car, I have to pay for it. If I want to have something to eat I have to pay for it. If you like to have the album of a musician you have to pay for it. In this case I would like to have early access to the game so I have to pay for it. I also want to support the development of the game. In fact, that's the main reason why I spent money on it. And that's the reason Stardock/Oxide came up with this Founder's Plan. I don't know if they are in need of money at the moment, if it just makes development a little easier to have some more cash available or if they just want to see how much public interest is there for Ashes.

Point is, all the people who work on the project need to be paid as anybody needs to be paid in his job. I think that's a good way to raise money from interested people in advance instead of getting a loan from a bank and having to pay interest.

on Mar 26, 2015

RedDwarf999

This still creates two classes of people.   People who have $45 dollars and people who don't.  Justice?  Separate but equal?

That's quite a stretch. The vault is just a feature available to people who are very interested in the game and choose to take part early.  

on Mar 26, 2015

Island Dog

That's quite a stretch. The vault is just a feature available to people who are very interested in the game and choose to take part early.

 

And have $45.  A lot of people who don't have it are interested and would choose to take part early if the door wasn't locked.  Also you say "quite a stretch" but you are saying that from the front of the bus.  Actually you are saying that from the front office of the company that makes the bus.  

 

It just doesn't make sense to me, nor is it good karma, to limit the information people can receive based on the thickness of their wallet.  The more you tell the more you sell.  

 

"Red Dwarf, if you see it this way, our whole society has to be changed. You have to pay for things you would like to have."

Jungleelf

 

I see it more as a public library.  You don't have to own the books to read them.  A community also sees the value of educating its members.  Everyone benefits.  And information is like love the more you give the more you have.

 

"And Stardock has stated that Founders can discuss in public the information they obtain early, they just can't post screenshots or videos that show it (especially gameplay footage once Early Access becomes available). Therefore it is still possible for anyone who is not a founder to learn about the features and other gameplay info at the same time (e.g. via comments in the forums made by Founders)."

racso5

 

There is a difference between someone describing their trip to the museum and going there yourself.  The thing about art is that it is very personal.  Just look at the way Sacrifice of Angels 2 interpreted Star Trek vs Armada 3 A Call to Arms.  And I really don't want to spend the next 5 years discussing Titan vs No Titan.  The best solution is to try both and make up your own mind for yourself.  (Personally, for the record, I like both but I still play SOA2 more.)

 

backs out of the room slowly... 

on Mar 26, 2015

You'll also need those 45$ to play the game anyway

on Mar 26, 2015

RedDwarf999


"And Stardock has stated that Founders can discuss in public the information they obtain early, they just can't post screenshots or videos that show it (especially gameplay footage once Early Access becomes available). Therefore it is still possible for anyone who is not a founder to learn about the features and other gameplay info at the same time (e.g. via comments in the forums made by Founders)."

racso5

 

There is a difference between someone describing their trip to the museum and going there yourself.  The thing about art is that it is very personal.  Just look at the way Sacrifice of Angels 2 interpreted Star Trek vs Armada 3 A Call to Arms.  And I really don't want to spend the next 5 years discussing Titan vs No Titan.  The best solution is to try both and make up your own mind for yourself.  (Personally, for the record, I like both but I still play SOA2 more.)

backs out of the room slowly... 

 

Did you read the second paragraph in my previous post? I explained that Stardock is a business. It is not a non-profit organization promoting the free sharing of all information in existence, it is not an art association interested in sharing more art with the world, it is not a publicly or privately funded museum with the goal of educating and delighting everyone without charging an admission fee, and it is not a publicly funded library welcoming anyone with an interest to come in and access information without limitation. Stardock is a business that creates digital entertainment products to consumers with the intent of making a profit. And we as the consumers benefit from their business practices... if this were to change and we no longer benefited, then eventually they would go out of business.

 

Think of it this way, if you pay $45, it is as if you were commissioning an artist to provide you with new art content. Even artists need to make a living somehow.

 

Here is another comparison to consider... original art creators and private art collectors have no obligation to share their work with the world. If they choose to do so they can sell it or make it presentable to a limited audience defined via arbitrary criteria (which may include socioeconomic status).

 

Just because other art and information is made available to the public at a very low cost (almost nothing is truly free... someone somewhere has to pay something in some way), it doesn't mean that a business in the digital entertainment industry has some moral or philosophical obligation to do so as well.

 

You have the right to disagree and make your opinion heard of course. Though at this point I think you have made your point very clear to all members of this forum as well as to Stardock and therefore there is little value in continuing to discuss it further. I suggest that we conclude this discussion.

on Mar 27, 2015

racso5

Did you read the second paragraph in my previous post?

 

Yes, yes I did.

 

But you're taking this in the wrong direction because you have misinterpreted where I'm going with this.

I get that the game will have a price and that price will be paid to play it.

But I question that information about the game, as it develops, should be put behind a pay wall.  I think it's a disservice to the community.  The very people who are interested enough in the game to show up and follow every little detail (because it fills them with joy) may be turned away simply because they do not have $45 in their pocket at the moment.  

If you are going to keep everything under wraps until it is released; that is a level playing field.  Releasing information to individuals based on their ability to pay for it (information that will be freely available later) draws circles around us creating haves and have nots.  

It may be unintended but it is a slight no less painful for the people on the outside looking in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

backs out of the room slowly...  

 

on Mar 27, 2015

'Red' dwarf, indeed

on Mar 27, 2015

@ RedDwarf

I see your point. I also think it's sad for those who can't afford the ticket. Maybe Stardock/Oxide needs some money right now. All they can do is selling the game in advance. To make that more interesting and let you have something for the time until release they give you a sneak peek. If they made the vault accessible to everybody there would be much less people willing to pay for the game in advance. So, they need the money to develop the game. We want them to create this game so we give them money.

They could go to the bank and take a loan. They would have to pay interest for the loan which in turn would have an effect on the release price.

Hey, it's just 45 bucks. If you can't afford that you probably won't be able to afford the game. That's sad. Go and ask a friend or two to lend you a few bucks. Or maybe a friend of you is interested in the Founder's Edition so you can go and visit him and have a look at the files.

on Mar 27, 2015

RedDwarf999


Quoting racso5,

Did you read the second paragraph in my previous post?



 

Yes, yes I did.

 

But you're taking this in the wrong direction because you have misinterpreted where I'm going with this.

I get that the game will have a price and that price will be paid to play it.

But I question that information about the game, as it develops, should be put behind a pay wall.  I think it's a disservice to the community.  The very people who are interested enough in the game to show up and follow every little detail (because it fills them with joy) may be turned away simply because they do not have $45 in their pocket at the moment.  

If you are going to keep everything under wraps until it is released; that is a level playing field.  Releasing information to individuals based on their ability to pay for it (information that will be freely available later) draws circles around us creating haves and have nots.  

It may be unintended but it is a slight no less painful for the people on the outside looking in.

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

backs out of the room slowly...  

 

 

I fully agree with this. 

I did not preorder the game. If it was Sins 2, i would do that the moment it would be possible...but this, i am not entirely sure. It looks good and i will probably get it down the road, cause its similar to Sins and SupCom after all and there are not many games like that...but then again i am put off by lack of naval warfare for example... if you want me to preorder, you got to convince me, make me excited, make we want it ASAP... not exactly happening this way, when in order to see some stuff to get excited i need to pay first...

Just saying.

on Mar 27, 2015

@reddwarf

Soz but i wanted to contribute early to the game as i respect the game and the fact that its pushing some RTS boundaries technology wise which will eventually benefit me in a year with hours of play.  Obviously its nice that they have decided to give those that have contributed to the game early on a little sneak peak at pics, free life time updates and access hopefully soon to the pre alpha.  You obviously want to contribute to but cant afford to, im sorry for that but i really don't think they should change anything because some would like to contribute to it but cant afford to.  That would simply be a fact of life.

Typically anyway you would never hear any thing on game development if you think back a few years, its only now with this new world of "kickstarter" style funding taking place before somethings even made that has made information before a game is ready even possible.  Normally company's would be pretty tight lipped so as to not get bad press on unfinished work or someone else pinch an idea before its had chance to make cash.

Im not massively clued up on these kick starter things but i imagine the early contribution probably takes a lot of pressure off if its not burning a hole in someones pocket everyday to have a bunch of programmers coding something for 2 years.  Im not minted i just liked what they are trying to achieve.

 

5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5