If Uber hadn't started working on HR, how close would we be to having offline/saves/insert feature h

I dont think the lobby handles more then 11 man atm. Thx for the reply over the rest however!

I think you may be exaggerating a little, maybe.

Are you sure? Why would Uber go for this KS so soon if they didn't need the money? I'm willing to bet their running on fumes at this point. Only time will tell - let's meet back here in 30 days.

Because making a game on borrowed money is an extremely risky endeavour and Uber have already been burned twice by that business model.

My view from the HR kickstarter was that they are very, VERY much in preference of the crowdfunding model, likely because of past burns from publishers like Microsoft, and that it grants more freedom for them as developers. But I don't think they've been too up to date on the current trends of crowdfunding - people just aren't funding big expensive projects anymore.

Thank you! +100 at least someone gets it.

Yes there are many things that people would *like* with PA, however in keeping with earlier games of the genre the majority of this stuff can *and likely will* be dealt with by modders if they are given the required tools.

For PA to have a long future it doesn't need full on support from Uber, it simply needs a few more features from them to get the modding crowd fully up and running (we're already partly there after all).

These are:
- The server (which covers offline, LAN and private servers, I find it annoying when people list those as 3 points to make things look worse- it's the same functionality!).
- Additional server hooks
- Server side scripting support (important for things like the creation of a campaign or timed scenarios).

Once those are available, we (the community and especially the modders) can run with the rest. The other nice thing would be an integrated (by uber) store / mod manager so that mods can be presented front and centre to new players (so not on by default but easy to access and use). That would then cover things like the ladder- want to play on the ladder with matchmaking? there's a mod for that!

The point is that PA isn't really that far away from the point I think it needs to be to ensure it's own future. Also despite what others like to argue I agree with @neutrino that PA is very much in line with the concept / vision, note that his comments aren't the same as 'finished'. Uber pitched a game about large robot armies fighting across multiple planets simultaneously and that is exactly what has been delivered. Are there more things they could do to improve it? Absolutely! That doesn't negate the game we have now though.

Because otherwise they'd be using PA's funds to fund HR, which would most certainly kill PA.

Whaaaa????

Besides all the points made it would be kind of a waste of manpower to start work on HR before it was even funded.

How is any of what Mavor said not true? Are you saying the vision can't be imagined unless everything they've promised was in the game? Has the "vision" of PA not been achieved? To them PA is not complete but this is the base game they envisioned. I don't see where you get "PA is done" from?

So now they prefer to pledge on Kickstarter. Where if they fail to deliver there is no refund.

Excellent business practice.

How has the vision not been achieved?

Offline, DRM free, saves, server access, 40 man games, GW where the opponent actually does something, multiplayer GW, Unit Cannon, Asteroid Belts, Naval (specifically submarines), and much more.

All of that is in the vision. And many of those are very integral into the vision of what was sold. None of them have been delivered.

No, they don't necessarily have to deliver on every little thing. But much of what hasn't been delivered is very important and integral features.

So features not being added means the vision for PA has not been achieved? Am I getting this right? SO you can't smash planets together and have massive armies fighting across multiple planets? That vision of the game is not there?

Offline, DRM free, server access, and 40 player games are really all the same thing. I think you know that.

Saves, unit cannon, and asteroid belts are all "would be nice" things but they really aren't core features. I'm not even convinced that unit cannons and asteroid belts would be gameplay improvements at all. Saves is a feature that the majority of players would never use.

Naval improvements would of course be nice, but small balance changes and a new unit or two don't count as a change in the game's overall vision. Naval isn't even that bad if you use it right and play the right maps.

"And much more" is not something I can respond to because you didn't actually say anything.

What you have described is not even close to "vision." These are just the things you have personally decided the game needs.

There was MUCH more to PA than planet smashing. In my perception that was more a gimmick feature even, since you cannot base the entire game around a single game-ending move.

I'll go through your examples 1 by 1:

1: Offline / DRM Free / Server access: There are all the same feature. A big one maybe but it's a little misleading to quote the same things 3 times.

2: Saves: This is an 'assumed would be in'. I agree it is something that needs to be done but isn't really relevant to the 'vision'.

3: 40 man games- we already know it's possible and will likely be modded in as soon as offline is available.

4: GW where the opponent does something- this is also assumed. Very little was really given on the single player version of Galactic war other than it would be a meta-game. That is the case, some may not like the implementation but that is a preference.

5: Multi-player GW: This was stated in the campaign so I agree this is something on the to-do list.

6: Unit Cannon: Never explicitly stated as a goal but I agree was in pre-vis. I think this is one of those 'changed along the way' type things mainly due to technical problems. I don't expect to see it honestly, you've said yourself orbital mechanics can be improved through other (more technically feasible) means such as drop pods.

7: Asteroid belts: Would be nice, was in the pre vis but like unit cannon may not be technically practical (probably performance reasons more than anything else). We *do* have the core functionality from that though in smashable moons so the difference is an aesthetic one predominantly.

8: Naval: In the game with limitations we've discussed many times.

I agree with @DeadStretch none of this really distracts from the 'vision' in my opinion. The key feature that needs doing now is the server (which covers a number of other areas you mention).

OMG!! culverin!!! welcome back!

I missed you!!

Oh to be fair the version of "saves" that is possible with a "little" more work on the chronocam would be used by a lot of people. I am sure of that much. I mean restart a game from anywhere in a replay. That's helpful to singleplayer as well as multiplayer people. A lot.

Yeah that's fair. Using chronocam to branch a game would be really cool. It's not really a core part of the game's vision though. It's just something I want.

Not to mention Chronocam Saves can be a great learning and teaching tool. Have two great players play their opening of a match, use that cut-off point as a start point for a learning match or even a "equal starting" match or something.