This member has provided no bio about themself...

Comment History  (30 - 60 of 1,872)
.Corey. Dec 11 2014, 5:58am replied:

Yes, it definitely works. RaW installs their ai changes to the base game folder, which doesn't always work. It has a pretty decent chance to break the AI both for itself and for other mods (and the base game), so make sure to remove those files before playing other mods.

+1 vote   mod: Thrawn's Revenge
.Corey. Dec 2 2014, 11:57pm replied:

Luckily, mods are free so everyone can play as many as they want and we have no intention of trying to convince people to play one mod over the other. While Ascendancy and SoGE (and Interregnum) are all Star Wars mods, they are made by different groups with different teams, goals and styles so there's at least as much variance between them as between mods in different universes.

That being said, I will run down some of the major differences for you. First off, the factions ultimately being represented in them are very different, and I'd say we have a bigger "top down" focus on making the factions play differently through their tech and ships. SoGE's ship roles and functions also tend to be a bit more similar to Sins, whereas we go closer to in-unverse roles and build the gameplay from that.

In the details, we've also posted several news posts and pictures which describe several of the features in the mod, many of which are unique to Ascencdancy; migration, degrading ship systems, supply, etc. One of the main purposes for us to make the mod was because while we like Sins, we saw certain game loops and mechanics as being frustrating, and we place an emphasis on reworking or removing them.

+4 votes   mod: Star Wars: Ascendancy
.Corey. Nov 27 2014, 12:28pm replied:

Yeah, they're the ship markers. Considering that 90% of Imperial ships are the same shape, we went a slightly different direction. You get a top down view of half the ship, and on the other half you get role indicators which will be documented.

The circles (really more like beveled squares) are the placeholders for the frigates. We only have the markers for the capitals and cruisers done currently, so we needed something to see where our frigates were. That won't be used for anything in the release.

+3 votes   media: Galactic Cartography
.Corey. Nov 27 2014, 2:08am replied:

Eventually we want to do maps with pre-set starting positions, however that'll be after the beta release.

+8 votes   media: Galactic Cartography
.Corey. Nov 20 2014, 9:31pm replied:

Well it happened to me, so clearly it does.

+4 votes   media: Faction Select
.Corey. Nov 20 2014, 2:56pm replied:

Supposed to just be Sovereign. That's what happens when you write stuff at 5am.

+8 votes   media: Faction Select
.Corey. Nov 17 2014, 5:02pm replied:

IF you assume a baseline of ~100 techs, around 90 of them are flat upgrades that youd definitely want at some point. The rest are a split between 50/50 depending on playstyle, and stuff that is more upgrade than not while emphasizing one aspect core to the faction and minimizing one that isn't.

So, if you're a research buff you'll have no shortage of options. We just feel like this is a more interesting way than just AFK spamming every button.

+3 votes   media: Tech Screen #1 - Imperial Governance
.Corey. Nov 7 2014, 6:23pm replied:

That's fine with us

+1 vote   mod: Thrawn's Revenge
.Corey. Nov 7 2014, 3:20pm replied:

1. We haven't seen anything to make us believe that the Empire of the Hand is out of line with the other factions (except maybe the cost effectiveness of the Furions).
2. Every ability in Empire at War is absolute ****, especially the space ones. There's essentially just power to weapons, power to shields, and power to engines. Abilities in EaW are not moddable, so we can't add new ones.

+1 vote   mod: Thrawn's Revenge
.Corey. Oct 30 2014, 5:54pm replied:

Balance. Tech. Units. Scenarios. Factions.

+3 votes   mod: Star Wars: Ascendancy
.Corey. Oct 29 2014, 1:42am replied:

Beta = Something put out before everything is polished and finalized to get feedback and do bug fixing.
Demo = A small part of the mod to give a feel for it.

We intend to do the first release as an open beta, since it's the first time the mod will have as many people playing in as many different ways, so it's a good way to iron everything out. However, we have no intention to release any sort of demo since that would distract from working on the full mod.

+2 votes   mod: Star Wars: Ascendancy
.Corey. Oct 27 2014, 1:54am replied:

Considering how common this question is, I may or may not do a small dev diary thing about it in the near future.

+2 votes   mod: Star Wars: Ascendancy
.Corey. Oct 25 2014, 11:08pm replied:

We're not working on 2.2 until sometime after we release the first version of Ascendancy.

+1 vote   mod: Thrawn's Revenge
.Corey. Oct 25 2014, 1:07pm replied:

You can't give units build limits in Sins, and the game is hardcoded to only allow you to build one SSD at a time. We've considered using alternate means to allow more than one at a time, but we'd have to make sure it's balanced first, and wouldn't turn into the Imperial players being able to have essentially nothing but SSDs.

+1 vote   mod: Star Wars: Ascendancy
.Corey. Oct 24 2014, 8:13am replied:

Currently its just the Sins method; we don't see the utility in doing it the other ways.

+1 vote   mod: Star Wars: Ascendancy
.Corey. Oct 23 2014, 11:13am replied:

Usually its just that we're more sure of what direction we want to take something, and then that faction becomes a general testing ground.

+1 vote   media: Assuaging the Fears
.Corey. Oct 21 2014, 5:16pm replied:

****, this is free? That must be way our money back guarantee for cut content wasn't super well received....

BRB getting real job.

+18 votes   media: Assuaging the Fears
.Corey. Oct 21 2014, 5:02pm replied:

Normally that's the attitude we take. However, over the space of a few days we got about 15 comments saying the same thing between ModDB and even in the youtube comments on the trailer. I've even been getting emails about it lately.

This way, the majority of you who have been very patient and supportive get a chance to see exactly where we are in development and the high-tech way in which I manage the team, while I also get a standard copy-pasta I can just take onto any further comments. Everyone wins!

+30 votes   media: Assuaging the Fears
.Corey. Oct 21 2014, 2:40pm replied:

If the base (meaning unmodded) game doesn't run, there's nothing we can do for you, sorry. That error code usually has to do with the game itself from what I can find by googling it. You'd need to ask either steam or Petroglyph support

+1 vote   mod: Thrawn's Revenge
.Corey. Oct 20 2014, 9:45pm replied:

Does the base game run?
What do your launch options say?

+1 vote   mod: Thrawn's Revenge
.Corey. Oct 18 2014, 7:35pm replied:

If only we were a proven team which had some sort of established history of releasing our projects....

+10 votes   article: Trailer #1: The Imperial Remnant
.Corey. Oct 16 2014, 9:40pm replied:

Thanks, we appreciate it.

We have no plans to add either the Vigil or the Victory II Frigate (of course, the Victory II Star Destroyer is in). They don't serve any purpose that isn't already filled better and more recognizably by another ship. Also, we don't want to use more memory than we have to since Sins has memory limitations and build bar space isn't unlimited. We'd much rather use that memory space to add stuff to the Hapans and Ssi-Ruuvi than add redundant ships.

We've been pretty much able to put in everything we want to. The only stuff that we'd like to put in but won't make it is stuff that's just been scheduled for later releases because of time constraints, so we're pretty happy.

+4 votes   mod: Star Wars: Ascendancy
.Corey. Oct 15 2014, 2:23pm replied:

Any fleet moving in formation (as these were) both in game and in universe would make sure to coordinate movements. Its not like any of it is independent traffic.

+2 votes   media: Trailer: Imperial Remnant
.Corey. Oct 15 2014, 2:22pm replied:

"Suggestions" are far below my pay grade.

+5 votes   media: Trailer: Imperial Remnant
.Corey. Oct 15 2014, 12:26am replied:

New Republic, then Empire of the Hand. The Hand's serves more than one purpose.

+9 votes   media: Trailer: Imperial Remnant
.Corey. Oct 14 2014, 10:59pm replied:

Dammit, I was trying to go for corny when I wrote the script... I promise I'll try harder for the New Republic and Empire of the Hand ones.

+30 votes   media: Trailer: Imperial Remnant
.Corey. Oct 13 2014, 10:53pm replied:

I don't believe so. I just used the title Jinz had it under though since he's the one who took the shot so I'd have to ask him to know if its from anything.

+1 vote   media: This is How Space Junk is Born
.Corey. Oct 13 2014, 3:26pm replied:

No, there aren't hero units except in the flagship victory mode, and a free SSD would be too much.

+2 votes   media: This is How Space Junk is Born
.Corey. Oct 13 2014, 2:06pm replied:

Eventually, yeah. We're focusing on the more core aspects still, so that'll either be done very late in 1.0, or even something we hold off on until 1.1.

+4 votes   media: This is How Space Junk is Born
.Corey. Oct 13 2014, 2:05pm replied:

Everything is to scale. And no, we rarely if ever experience graphic-related lag, regardless of settings. The only times we've had any lag issues personally have been CPU-related when playing with 9 players on 3-4 different factions with about 150 planets (yay single-threaded stuff). I stress the "personally" bit, since we can't promise people with lower specs that they'll have the same experience, although I myself use a pretty middle-of-the-road laptop.

+5 votes   media: This is How Space Junk is Born
.Corey. Dec 29 2014, 7:12pm replied:

SoaSE:R is only availabe on Steam in the first palce, so I'm not sure what you're asking.

+3 votes   media: Q&A With a K-Wing
.Corey. Sep 4 2014, 8:59pm replied:

You're fired.

+14 votes   media: Trailer Teaser
.Corey. Sep 4 2014, 8:13pm replied:

Just to make sure nobody misunderstands, he's referring to the trailer coming out within the week, not the mod itself.

+11 votes   media: Trailer Teaser
.Corey. Aug 28 2014, 1:09am replied:

Shree and Wurrif classes. As the name implies, they're some of the main combat ships of the Ssi-Ruuvi Imperium.

Since the Ssi-Ruuvi get their energy from entechment, we thought we'd give them their own unique turbolaser and shield colours, so I went with purple.

+9 votes   media: Ssi Strike
.Corey. Jul 15 2014, 11:12pm replied:

Yeah, thanks. I know it's been around, I just felt like playing with shaders a bit and this seemed like the best place to start. If it ends up blowing up in my face, or we're ultimately not happy with the results my backup plan was to ask for the existing ones.

+7 votes   media: Shield Shader
.Corey. Jul 12 2014, 11:21pm replied:

Definitely dinosaurs. Pretty sure you're thinking of the Killiks.

+4 votes   article: The Ssi-Ruuvi Imperium
.Corey. Jul 9 2014, 4:18pm replied:

Functionally they're just like the playable factions in every way, except they aren't pickable and have smaller unit lists.

Currently the way it works is there are certain maps where, if the last slot is filled in the player selection, that AI will become the Hapans/Ssi-Ruu. So, you can choose to disable them or enable them. It also means if you were to play that map in multiplayer and you have more people than the map was "intended" for, the last person gets to lose. And also play as an NPF.

It'll be explained better ingame, but if it ends up being too confusing we may end up just putting them as selectable so people can have as many of them, wherever they want, just with the caveat that we're not balancing or filling them the same way as we are for the others so if they choose to play as them they're gonna have a harder time.

+2 votes   media: Dev Diary 10: The Ssi-Ruuvi Imperium
.Corey. Jul 6 2014, 4:03am replied:

That's cheating.

+3 votes   media: A-Wing
.Corey. May 22 2014, 8:16pm says:

It's based off of the station over Bilbringi in one of the comics

+4 votes   media: Imperial Command Station (Dev Diary 8)
.Corey. Apr 27 2014, 5:27pm replied:

2.1 is our last major release but we'll keep on putting out small patches as long as we have updated content; typically this'll be whatever we do for Ascendancy.

+5 votes   article: Patch Status
.Corey. Mar 22 2014, 12:51am replied:

I can assure you it is.

You're looking at the bottom of its front left.

+2 votes   media: Lancer Ingame
.Corey. Jan 15 2014, 11:00pm replied:

Well, he's dead so we can all see how well that's working out for him.

+12 votes   media: Imperial Approach
.Corey. Jan 2 2014, 1:16pm replied:

The issues with pathfinding start to happen with anything the size of a VSD up, but yes, bigger ships do exacerbate it. It's also a function of hardpoint distances (primarily where the spinning comes from), which the game doesn't take into account very well and it just tries to shoot everything with everything..

+2 votes   media: 2.1 Release Screenshots
.Corey. Dec 31 2013, 4:38pm replied:

Go the the galactic conquest list and select the GC's named "Survival: Faction"

+1 vote   article: Imperial Civil War 2.1 Released
.Corey. Dec 30 2013, 11:52pm replied:

First, the AI really doesn't use any edits at all; the game doesn't load the files from mods so there's nothing we can do about it. Secondly, issues with SSDs tend to have a lot more to do with pathfinding, which is hardcoded and not moddable.

+2 votes   media: 2.1 Release Screenshots
.Corey. Dec 13 2013, 5:22pm replied:

For ICW? Hopefully this month. Definitely not by February for Ascendancy though.

+2 votes   article: MotY 2013 Top 100
.Corey. Dec 11 2013, 10:00pm replied:

2.1 will be coming very soon, we're just finishing up the polish and making sure everything's put together. For ascendancy we've been posting a bunch.

+5 votes   article: MotY 2013 Top 100
.Corey. Dec 11 2013, 3:26pm replied:

The second pass will have a much lower concentration (there were some UV issues that I didn't account for). However on the contrast and line thickness, it's going to be very similar. The contrast is the result of colour matching, so I'm sure it's correct, and the line thickness on the larger circles is based on the source images as well.

+1 vote   media: Seat of Power
.Corey. Dec 11 2013, 10:34am replied:

That's what we were going for

+1 vote   media: Redone Massias
.Corey. Dec 5 2013, 6:33am replied:

We have a system planned to both accurately reflect the number of fighters a ship would have while still reducing the amount ingame at any one time. I don't want to go into it too much right now, since nothing's finalized and we may have to alter the plan quite a bit.

I can say with extreme confidence that early betas will have a lot of balance and performance issues, but one of the primary reasons we're making this mod is because we really want to play multiplayer against each other so we're going to do our best to make sure they get ironed out in the best way possible.

+7 votes   article: Dev Diary #4: The New Republic
.Corey. Jul 13 2013, 11:51am replied:

I dunno, I'm pretty sure this means you think we're worse than Hitler.

+12 votes   media: Consen-Class Transport
.Corey. Jun 7 2013, 10:16pm replied:

They'll be normal hardpoints as opposed to abilities in order to make them function properly, however we're going to make it so they can't target anything that's too small to feel worth it (definitely fighters, maybe even corvettes). They still have plenty of other regular megamasers to deal with those.

+2 votes   media: 7 Years of Thrawn's Revenge: Skinned Visvia
.Corey. Jun 7 2013, 5:57am replied:

Well, the front is loosely based off of the Kariek, which was loosely based on an inverted Carrack front, which is also what the Tartan was based off of.

+3 votes   media: 7 Years of Thrawn's Revenge: Skinned Vigilance
.Corey. Jun 6 2013, 5:27pm replied:

There are a significant amount of other defenses on this, don't worry. It's closer to a Golan II than a Golan III if you leave out the turrets (maybe a little less) but honestly if you leave out the turrets when considering this, you're putting yourself in a losing situation.

The cannons are not quite on the scale of the Hypervelocity Cannon with each individual shot. There are definitely some power tradeoffs with having this type of weapon versus the planetary weapons. On the one hand, you can't necessarily hit one target with the same single target up-front damage, but on the other you can have more than one of these, and the damage can be better distributed; there isn't the same bad feeling you'd get from wasting the cooldown on an HV gun on finishing off a ship with a few hardpoints, or even just using it to wipe out a corvette.

+4 votes   media: 7 Years of Thrawn's Revenge: Skinned Visvia
.Corey. Jun 5 2013, 4:50am replied:

If you actually look at the Vigilance, it looks pretty terrible. The small size and general shape help it a lot, but it's just a bunch of terribad extrusions.

+2 votes   media: Ship Rework - Vigilance
.Corey. May 31 2013, 3:53pm replied:

We plan to do more with more convenient times for Europeans in the future, but Enceladus and I had stuff to do before the start time anyways, so we decided to just keep it to the after work/school period for the North American time zones this week.

+1 vote   article: Game Night Episode 1: The Phantom Marza
.Corey. May 30 2013, 12:48am replied:

Colonizing isn't called colonizing in the mod; it's an occupation force. So while this wouldn't be able to colonize a planet, its canonical role was to drop troops, and that's effectively what it'll be doing.

+6 votes   media: Sentinel Render
.Corey. May 22 2013, 12:00am replied:

There's been some fluctuation over the last thirty years in official numbers, but it's pretty much always been either 17 or 19 km.

+1 vote   media: Scale
.Corey. May 20 2013, 2:42am replied:

There isn't an eta yet, and while we appreciate the offer we do not accept donations.

+1 vote   media: Fleet Tending
.Corey. Apr 29 2013, 11:43pm replied:

Yeah, I just tend to pick colour and icon accordingly.

+1 vote   media: Y-Wing Ingame and UI Edits
.Corey. Jan 8 2013, 12:11pm replied:

We're way to early to have finalized any tactical slot costs and such, but definitely way more than one per planet if you fill the tactical slots with only them.

+3 votes   article: Take Defensive Action
.Corey. Jan 7 2013, 2:12pm replied:

They function as defensive emplacements. These are not the equivalent of Starbases in base Sins, so no.

+3 votes   article: Take Defensive Action
.Corey. Jan 6 2013, 6:12pm replied:

This is a screenshot from an upcoming version.

+1 vote   media: MTC Reskin
.Corey. Dec 30 2012, 10:13pm replied:

We haven't decided if or how we'll implement heroes. Definitely not Vader considering he's dead though.

+2 votes   media: The Gathering Threat
.Corey. Dec 22 2012, 11:18pm replied:

Those stats are, as far as I'm aware, just from some wiki used for a roleplaying game. They're fanon.

Also, what's the Inquisitor?

The Assertor looks like it's essentially a worse version of the Sovereign or Eclipse, both of which are far more canonically relevant to what we're covering. Again, neither of these fill a space that's actually needed to be filled, it'd just be pointlessly plugging in units because they're there. They'd serve no new purpose but filling up space, the IR has all the superships they need.

+9 votes   media: V-19 Ingame
.Corey. Dec 22 2012, 8:08pm replied:

No. Neither has actual armament information beyond size, and their roles are already filled by the Praetor and SSDs as far as just "really big ships with lots of weapons". The Assertor is only a little bit shorter than the Executor, so I don't imagine there's any substantive differences between it, and the Bellator would be the same sort of idea, only half the size. Neither really adds anything though, there's no point adding something else between the Praetor and the SSD since there's no enemy ships between those sizes either. The Praetor itself was mostly just added to fill that gap between the ISD and the SSD, so continuing down that road with ships that do the same thing without actually knowing exact stats would add nothing to gameplay, and just waste a lot of development time and crowd the build bar.

I keep seeing mods that try to spam as many gigantic ships as possible, and it seems like a waste of time to me. There's like a 2 second window where people would say "oh superships yay" but after that you have to deal with EaW's ****** pathfinding and the fact that you've now made a faction really top heavy with irrelevant units.

+9 votes   media: V-19 Ingame
.Corey. Dec 14 2012, 11:13pm replied:

The fighters will be pulled from the existing rosters of PA units (including what we add for them in 2.1)

+4 votes   media: Top 100 - Lucrehulk Render
.Corey. Nov 22 2012, 12:41am replied:

I'd say it's a surprise but I've said the name in a few other places offhand already.

+1 vote   media: Dev Team Update
.Corey. Oct 31 2012, 12:07am replied:

Non-playable factions were a large part of our previous mod largely inspired by the Total War series, so while we're mostly focusing on the 3 main playable factions for now, we definitely want to diversify in the future.

+2 votes   article: Star Wars: Ascendancy Announced
.Corey. Oct 29 2012, 12:49am replied:

All of our units are properly scaled against each other. The Executor is 19,000 meters, the ISD will be 1600. Before we started putting units ingame we figured out the exact measurements in XSI units for each unit to be scaled properly without making anything too big or too small. In general our units are a bit smaller than the typical Sins ones, however since there won't be any Sins content to match it against that won't be especially noticable. Once we have more Imperial content in we'll have more screenshots whcih should give a better sense of it.

+1 vote   media: Announcement
.Corey. Oct 17 2012, 1:55am replied:

Thanks. We love us too.

+8 votes   media: Gallofree Render
.Corey. Sep 15 2012, 2:21pm replied:

If it's grey'd out, that usually means you have a faction selected which isn't available in that GC. The playable factions for each GC are listed in the description box. The Duskhan League and Pentastar Alignment aren't playable for that one.

As for more planets, we used as many as we felt comfortable with without essentially guaranteeing FoC's freeze bug would occur. The larger the GC, the longer it takes and the more stuf gets destroyed, which makes the control freeze occur earlier. In a GC where every planet's going to change hands multiple times, this means we can't have as many planets.

+1 vote   media: Current Projects
.Corey. Aug 27 2012, 3:12am replied:

Several of the members of the dev team use the Steam version of EaW. Just make sure you follow the instructions. (changing the modpath, making sure the folder is in the right place)

+3 votes   download: Imperial Civil War 2.0 (Zip)
.Corey. Aug 27 2012, 1:37am replied:

The current version on Desura is still 1.3, so I wouldn't suggest using Desura for this right now anyways. In general though Desura's installation is automatic, I'm not sure how it accounts for the Gold pack.

+3 votes   download: Imperial Civil War 2.0 (Zip)
.Corey. Aug 19 2012, 1:17pm replied:

Thanks, we'll do our best not to disappoint. It's going to be a total conversion, there won't be any original Sins factions or units in the mod, however we will have at least 3 factions.

+1 vote   mod: Star Wars: Ascendancy
.Corey. Jun 23 2012, 3:59pm replied:

It has the Remnant proper (being Isard's section of it), the Pentastar Alignment, and Zsinj's warlord faction. Basically all of the possible Empire splinter factions.

+3 votes   media: GC Select Screen
.Corey. Jun 21 2012, 6:17pm replied:

No, they're one of the main units of a playable faction already.

+1 vote   media: Munificent
.Corey. Jun 13 2012, 3:56pm replied:

Praetor II:


I don't remember what the Praetor in PR looks like, but I'm pretty sure it was made before the official images for the Praetor came out in the Essential Guide to Warfare. I *think* they use this one, which looks absolutely nothing like the source pictures:

+2 votes   media: Praetor II
.Corey. May 28 2012, 6:52pm replied:

As it says in the description, this is an original design by me for the Empire of the Hand, Anakin never piloted this and it was never in the Clone Wars cartoon.

The only cloaking ship in that show that I know of is this:

And this is definitely not that

+8 votes   media: Syndic Destroyer
.Corey. May 25 2012, 9:25pm replied:

Actually, the image description does.

+2 votes   media: Aramadia Class Thruster Ship
.Corey. May 9 2012, 10:09pm replied:

That picture is what this is based off of. The difference is that I changed some proportions in order to make it more similar to the Nebula. The Endurance and Nebula were built on the same hull, whereas when I did it with those proportions it didn't match the Nebula, and it looked ridiculous.

+1 vote   media: Redone Endurance Render
.Corey. May 4 2012, 11:50pm says:

Play through Art of War until you get to Era 3, or go to the GC Operation Shadow Hand. It's Palpatine's flagship.

+1 vote   media: House Cleaning Update Shots
.Corey. Apr 2 2012, 12:34pm replied:

No, there's no known design or even class name for the Springhawk, which was Thrawn's ship in Outbound Flight. There's barely even a description, but it certainly wasn't only armed on one side. This was all me.

+1 vote   media: Nuruodo-class Broadside Frigate
.Corey. Mar 21 2012, 6:21pm replied:

Because the Eclipse was his flagship. Endor wasn't his actual final death, he had a bunch of clones at Byss which he could soul transfer into. He took back command of the Empire about a year after Thrawn.

+2 votes   article: Some Number Games
.Corey. Mar 20 2012, 8:25pm replied:

New Republic.

+2 votes   media: Update Screenshots
.Corey. Mar 10 2012, 2:43am replied:

No shields, and all 3 turrets rotate.

+2 votes   media: Armoured Freerunner
.Corey. Feb 13 2012, 7:31am replied:

The Ascendancy, size-wise, isn't meant to be the same as the Imperial Star Destroyer. It's about as strong or stronger, but it's more compact and has less defining hull characteristics so there were fewer obvious targets (based on the description of the Chiss Star Destroyer in every book it's been in). The only problem is that like the Warlord and Kariek, it still has to be set to the proper scale. The old model was a turbo-smoothed triangle full of mesh errors.

+1 vote   media: 1.3 Release Fleetshots
.Corey. Jan 29 2012, 11:37pm replied:

A lot of the models have been upgraded since 1.1, considering 1.1 was well over a year ago. Phoenix Rising uses models from other mods, we make our own. We prefer the ones we have, and the ones we don't think are good enough we redo ourselves. It's just that there's a lot of them, so it can take a while before we get through them all.

+6 votes   media: 1.3 Release Fleetshots
.Corey. Jan 6 2012, 8:22pm replied:

Eventually they'll get one. The problem is designing them.

+1 vote   media: Mortar Tank Ingame
.Corey. Dec 11 2011, 8:15am replied:

Actually, looking at Snowbound again, disregard everything I said. It matches Snowbound a lot more this way.

+2 votes   media: Covenant research facility
.Corey. Dec 11 2011, 7:53am says:

Brings back memories of camping with the Oddball. The only change I'd make is make it a bit less wide and slope the inside rampish orange bit a bit more (as in round it out). It seems a bit flat in that area instead of the more rounded Covenant design style. Other than that looks great.

+3 votes   media: Covenant research facility
.Corey. Dec 10 2011, 1:41pm replied:

Thanks. In my defense, this was at the end of a 26 hour awaking-spree.

+3 votes   media: Minor Faction Units for Major Factions
.Corey. Dec 8 2011, 4:50pm replied:

What changes would you suggest making? It's a star destroyer, which tends to mean trenches, hull plating and little else. Even adding the side stripes for team colours is really going beyond what the design calls for.

+1 vote   media: New Victory Star Destroyer Model
.Corey. Dec 3 2011, 11:34pm says:

The one in the picture is this model (if that's what you mean by some time back). There haven't been any modifications to it, so if it looks different that's only because of environmental lighting and the different angle:

The original design is this:

+1 vote   media: New Ascendancy Model Ingame
.Corey. Dec 1 2011, 3:35am says:

I'd say edit the main building texture. Bring it more in line with the other UNSC buildings with some of the standard dark green extended plating (I don't know what else to call it). As it is that bit looks a little bland, especially considering the size with the Hornets there, but the rest looks great.

+2 votes   media: Airpad
.Corey. Oct 27 2011, 8:16am says:

Just a suggestion Farseer, but it might be worth tossing in a unit beside props in these pictures just to give an idea of scale.

+4 votes   media: Forrunner Structure #1
.Corey. Oct 19 2011, 12:10am replied:

Well the map can't cover the whole planet. This is Coronet City. Earth is part desert, part urban, mostly water, part tundra, mountainous and a hundred other things, but a map of New York wouldn't have all of that.

+15 votes   media: Corellia
.Corey. Aug 25 2011, 12:00pm replied:

Not to speak for Farseer, but what he's said several times is that he doesn't like Halo Wars or its designs. It has nothing to do with canon.

+2 votes   media: UNSC
.Corey. Jul 27 2011, 12:59pm says:

It's not a bad model, but you really need to work on optimization. There seems to be thousands more vertices/polygons here than you actually need, and the game definitely won't appreciate that.

+2 votes   media: Octoptuarra droid (not skinned)
.Corey. Jun 8 2011, 3:43pm says:

I should add that any attempt to fudge the numbers with fake accounts will be counted against the total.

+4 votes   media: The Yuuzhan Vong Fan Challenge
.Corey. Jun 7 2011, 11:39am says:

The turrets are modeled, we wouldn't just skin them on, and this model is not the one from RaW.

+2 votes   media: Update Screenshots: Venator
.Corey. Mar 14 2011, 6:51pm replied:

Song of War, Prince Isolder's personal Battle Dragon.

+1 vote   media: March Update Screenshots
.Corey. Jan 11 2011, 12:26am replied:


+1 vote   media: Star Home Render
.Corey. Nov 27 2010, 4:58pm says:

Another Hapan. The left is the Hapan Nova Cruiser, the right is the Hapan Battle Dragon.

+1 vote   media: Hapan Assault
.Corey. Nov 24 2010, 2:38pm says:

Not just Intrepid. Intrepid, the Little Lancer that Could! The rest of the words and the exclamation mark are important.

+1 vote   media: Galactic Voyages
.Corey. Sep 26 2010, 1:26am replied:

This isn't a Clone War mod.

+5 votes   media: Concussion Missile Effects
.Corey. Aug 4 2010, 3:48pm says:

The Endurance and Nebula are, canonically, built off of the same hull. The only available picture of the Endurance is
which is from a not-comp[letely-canon source, so I took both of those things and combined them. The Endurance in other mods was made by Evillejedi, which is why they all look the same, but it's still just a design made up by somebody that isn't canon.

+1 vote   media: Endurance Fleet Carrier
.Corey. Jul 25 2010, 4:15pm says:

You see different types of ships on different levels, the rest of it is just from the camera angle. It is possible to do what you want, just code variants of each type of ship and give them different Z-layers, then set them to unlock and lock in sequence with each other.

+1 vote   media: Eclipse
.Corey. Aug 18 2009, 5:20pm says:

Well, it's a canon ship, so it probably does. They use Warlords models I'm pretty sure, and this model was made using the Warlords model as a reference.

+1 vote   media: Nebula Star Destroyer
.Corey. Jul 24 2009, 6:13pm says:

That is the Wild Karrde.

+1 vote   media: ICW Ingame Screens
.Corey. Jun 28 2009, 5:59pm replied:

It is in the topic entitled "Fall of the Republic Minimod V2 Public Beta" in the stickies of the MO forum. Just read the list of topics, it is hard to miss.

+1 vote   article: Fall of the Republic
.Corey. Sep 13 2008, 1:20pm says:

They're Chiss Clawcraft.

+1 vote   media: Splash Screen
.Corey. Apr 4 2008, 9:44pm replied:

This one is for FoC.

+1 vote   download: Fall of the Republic: Minimod
Offline Since
Jan 27, 2015
Canada Canada
Member Watch
Track this member
Comment Statistics
Posts per day