Talk:Ascendancy (video game)

Ascendancy 2
I've heard about a sequel Ascendancy 2 but can't find any info about it? --90.219.167.234 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the project was cancelled, or at least hasn't been shipped yet. I added what information I could find into the article - Logic Factory kept mention of the sequel on their site until 2007, when it was pulled. --Culix (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Bug Report
Hello, I moved the bug report below to the discussion, as I think what is reported of is not a bug, but the power consumption of active shields. Shields that are active consume power every turn, as well for the player as for the AI. So if you have let's say 5 ships in one star system and all ships have their shields activated, then if one of your ship moves, all the ships drain power. If the enemy then shoots at you, al your ships and his ships drain power again. Thus it can be possible that you have only moved one ship and that all other ships have drained their power, only because their shields were activated. To save the power drain from the other ships, you should temporarily desactivate their shields until it is their turn to move, but the AI may not be that smart and activate its shields all the time therefore draining power of all its ships in the star system at every move.

--Toon Macharis 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Power consumption release problem
There is also a problem with power consumption of enemy ships. They appear to work off of the same power use across the current star system. So instead of each ship using power according to their actual expendature, all ships of the enemy are drained at the same time any ship from that species expends power. This seriously tilts the advantage over to the player. This might have been fixed by the bug patch at Logic Factory's web site linked below. However due to the way they released their patches - if you run the antag patch - then you aren't really sure if the antag patch incorporates what was released in the bug fix patch. However, the Antag patch seems to load with the same version number as if you load with the bug patch - so it's hard to tell (According to The Logic Factory's homepage the antag patch includes all bug fixes). Although such problems do exist, credit is given by most players to the fact that the patches are still hosted on the Logic Factory website.

Fansite links
I would like to add the links gathered at my fan site:


 * http://trascendancy.altervista.org/links.php

I also have updated the MODguide, available in the download page.

I'd be glad if someone reviews my request, thanks. --Legolas558 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added the link. I think it is in accordance with External links. jaco ♫ plane  12:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * thank you! I have edited the link to better fit the real linked content --Legolas558 16:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Broken link
I have removed the Ascendancy2.com forums broken link


 * Ascendancy Message Board - a closed down message board run by a couple fans

Just to know, I could backup most of the content of those forums and now it is available in the downloads section ("historical downloads", requires registration) --Legolas558 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Antagonizer vs. Patch
I'm a bit indecisive about which one to use, I've played a while using Antag.exe, then run to a trouble, having my battleships equipped with Myrmidonic Carbonizer, but being unable to target enemy ships with it (just starlanes). So I switched to Patch.exe, which is two and half months younger (read: less buggy), proved to be right, as the enemy fleet was vaporized in few turns, but the AI got so lame it ruined the game in the long term anyway. Now I've looked in the .cob files and the Carbonizer is definend properly, so, what's going on, here? BTW, Replenisher replenishes the Carbonizer too.

Wrong shield strengths
Be warned, numerous faqs state incorrect strenght level of shields (cca double of actual values). This may be caused by incorrect values in commentaries in the help file, which was probably used to automatically create those faqs. Real values used by game engine are in other file, and were probably tuned down during betatesting, but not updated in the help file commentaries.

Gameplay description
I added a large gameplay description, which is in need of melding with the background description where it notes topography its elements. I think a portal is in need of this game, details on units, buildings, etc.--Notmyhandle 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt the game is popular enough to warrant a portal of its own. I could be wrong, though. Chronolegion 11:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are portals about popularity? I had just thought that it would add organization and allow more detail to the overall topic; will they not allow us?--Notmyhandle 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All I was saying was that a popular game would allow more people to update said portal, correcting mistaken info, adding strategies and stats, etc. Chronolegion 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If it exists, perhaps more people would contribute. I don't know how to start one, but if I did I would.--Notmyhandle 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ship designs would probably make a great section to which players could contribute. I know there's an FAQ out there that has some great ship ideas. I particularly like the one that allows a ship to travel through multiple star lanes and red links in one turn, finally bringing the term "Blitzkrieg" to the game. Chronolegion 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit description
I was thinking of adding material from the William R. Trotter interview, where he says his over-enthusiastic review of the game permanently hurt his reputation. (I think he over-compensated, the game is quite playable.)

Instead, I discovered the article needs a lot of cleanup. (See WP:VG/GL for a not-amazing-difficult-to-deal-with explanation.) I've made standard copyedit changes, but just to the opening paragraphs, so folks can see where the content might be improved. This stuff really does matter: it reflects on the game itself (one of my favs).

A number of changes were made that should be made to the rest of the article, to get it close to Wiki style guidelines:

1) Removing "you" and "one", to replace with "the player", as per style manual.

2) Standard copyedit cleanup of unneeded words. E.g., "in order to travel" becomes "to travel".

3) Removes vague, subjective, original research statements such as "fairly complex, by 1995 standards". That's suitable for a fansite, but not an encyclopedia. E.g., what does "fairly complex" mean? That kind of statement needs an independent source (it can't be the personal opinion of the person who wrote in Wikipedia). I understand that this statement is just a way of giving a general idea of what's going on, but the problem is that it sounds like original research, and that's really not appropriate. See WP:OR on this. Another example is equating "starlanes" with "wormholes". The game doesn't use the word wormholes, so saying they are the same is personal opinion.

4) Fixes spelling errors. (In this case I made all the changes.) Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Alpha says: "I think he over-compensated, the game is quite playable." Me says: yes but barely. Antagonizer is necessary for some resistance. The music is hypnotic and running on a general scifi theme. That's actually the best part of it, but the graphics sometimes is somewhat impressive too. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've tried to clean up and organize the article, in compliance with the guidelines. I will continue working on in in the new few days. --Culix (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Old 'fair use' requests
I have removed five requests for fair image use rationales from the talk page; they were taking up space and the images have long since been deleted. If you want to see them you can look at an old version of the talk page. --Culix (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Other References
If anyone has a copy of the following magazines they apparently discuss Ascendancy in the editor's column and letters to the editor sections. --Culix (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Computer Gaming World, November 1996 - Editor's column.
 * Computer Gaming World, February 1997 - "Letter of the Month".

Ascendancy Awards
Since 2005 this article has said Ascendancy won "Best Strategy Software of 1996 by PC Gamer magazine". The claim has been copied all over the internet from this Wikipedia article, but I can't find any actual reference to back it up. I did come across this review from PC Gamer November 1995. In that article the reviewer (William Trotter) gives his opinion that "Ascendancy is strategy game of the year", but I don't believe that corresponds with an actual award from the magazine. The review also notes on the side that Ascendancy earns the "PC Gamer Editor's Choice" award, but that doesn't sound like the same thing. And it looks like the Editor's Choice award is the only one claimed by The Logic Factory on their website (see here).

If anyone has a reference for Ascendancy winning Best Strategy Software of 1996 by PC Gamer magazine please post here, or add the reference to the article. Until then I am removing the reference. --Culix (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots
I have added some screenshots to the article to try and illustrate various aspects of the game. I added screens showing the System Display (planetary control, space combat, spaceships, star lanes); the Planetary Screen (Research/Industry/Prosperity levels, building on planets and in space, colored square topography); the Diplomacy screen (trading info, going to war); and the New Game Screen (showing the icons of different species, and controlling all of the parameters that go into a game).

I believe that these screens cover most major aspects of the game, and are broad enough to display and explain things in an encyclopedic article such as this wikipedia article. We don't have pictures of everything, but I don't think we need to. We don't want to spoil everything, and wikipedia is not a guide. Plus, videogame articles like StarCraft and Halo:_Combat_Evolved have become featured with a low number of screenshots, so I'm not sure we need to add more.

Regardless, feedback is welcome. I have tried to make the shots interesting by showing action, lots of races interacting, interesting galaxies, varied topography, etc. But if you have an idea for a shot we are missing, or a better shot that illustrates some key game element, I am happy to take more. --Culix (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Release Dates
The wikipedia guidelines and discussion state that GameFAQs is considered a reliable source for video game release dates and publishers, so I have added this page as a reference. Still, if anyone can find a better reference for the release dates of Ascendancy (including exact dates) that would be good. --Culix (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment Request
I left a request for assessment on the project page. I have fleshed out the sections of the article and tried to make the writing flow well. I have added several screenshots and references. I believe the article meets all of the requirements of a B-class article. It still needs work and a bit of cleanup in the Reception section. Reliable reviews and references for the game are hard to find, so I am trying my best and cleaning up that section as I can find things. Feedback is welcome. --Culix (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have assessed this as C-Class. There are several things that I see right now that stand in the way of a possible B-Class:
 * The paragraph structure needs some improvement. Try and avoid one-paragraph sentences whenever possible, and aim to write full paragraphs of text (normally somewhere around 4-8 sentences in length), and make sure they are consistent throughout the article when possible.
 * You currently have four non-free gameplay images in the article, which is a problem as far as the WP:NFCC is concerned. My recommendation is that only one gameplay image is necessary, which should be one that best conveys to readers the basic gameplay elements of Ascendancy.
 * There are still several maintenance tags and some verifiability gaps throughout the article. The "Gameplay" has some stuff cited, while others are not.
 * Work on those issues I mentioned above, and also ask for a WP:VG peer review after you have made some improvements so that you can get other people to look at, scrutinize, and suggest further improvements to the article. –MuZemike 00:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ascendancy (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hj8QmdNR?url=http://siia.net/codies/2009/pw_1996.asp to http://siia.net/codies/2009/pw_1996.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)