Uber over reacted to balance complaints? vote vote vote

yea i remember that one ... trying to forget it ... -_-`

sry for the confusion ..

I like the Style off FAF obvius.
Normaly on FA a top player 1v1 dont now whats a Megalit or colosum,that give the prespective how a top player think about a rts style.

But TA and now FAF ,open to us doors that no other game arrive on options, to we use it in all kind stress situations .

Planetary Anhilation its a shadow on that, totaly lack of tatics, its easy to see the impossible way PA can arrive to FA and im not talk about the awsome mods we have http://faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/ PA its +/- just spam ground units nothing + too boring....

I kind like the look its fun and i imagine TA SCFA style with PA design could be something very intersting since its not the graphics quality we want.

I cant be + honest even iff all players think i only say bad things about PA,Planetary Anhilation has no return no +.

They just cant make new game to fix all this black hole its impossible now,thats wy PA got new director because team move on to other games.

What trust can we have in a team that give us a unfinish game and move on?

You guys must agreed with me in this,you really back a team that the last game give us a unfinish product ?

Sry the bad english.

We all know how you feel littleinferno, you can stop now.

You're missing my point -- they are [expanding, multi-front, multi-unit]. I think people have given up trying as they race to emulate other players (particularly well known players) - it has nothing to do with Dox and everything to do with what people think is the only winning strat. I already explained how expanding can work using vehicles, commanders and teles. People just aren't even trying.

Case and point, yes not 1v1 but team vs team so its not entirely disimilar (its not a FFA): Clan Wars Cult vs Vow 1. Perfectly illustrates my point at how far from being the 'Dominant Unit' Dox actually are. Either team had plenty of time to put up proxies and/or teles, didn't but could've an it would have worked.

Could you PLEASE stop bringing this up in every thread you post in?

The first half of your post was on topic, but then you went on to bring up something that's irrelevant and has proved inflammatory in other threads. I'm fairly sure you're in breach of forum rules here, can you not just keep on topic and voice your concerns about the PA team 'abandoning' the game in the appropriate place.

On topic: the more I think about it, the more I think a lot of the current lack of distinct and diverse strategies is down to the unit roster, and the lack of really individual units. At the moment we basically have four classes of attack on the ground: straight line projectiles, arcing projectiles, flame and uber cannon/vanguard blast. If you want to be technical you could maybe include reclaim and boom bot/mine blasts as 2 more. And there's fewer attack types in all of the other layers: 2 between naval, one between air, 3 for air to ground, 1 for orbital... You get my point.

Furthermore, a lot of these 'attack types' are pretty similar, or only distinct in fairly minor and niche ways.

I don't really know what I'm getting at here, I just feel like there's not enough variables interacting to allow for many distinct strategies to emerge.

The most fitting description I have come across involves sandwiches. You have all the bread and butter units to fill the basic needs, but no filling to make it interesting.

Now there are some units that could be viewed as the filling, but they are under developed and overshadowed by the bread and butter units.

Yeah that works pretty well. Most of the specialist units don't excel enough in any one niche to make them worth building over all purpose units that do the specialists' job almost as well and 10 other jobs.

"as well and 10 other jobs" .................hum..........is specilazing the way to go then?

why wouldn´t be the gil- e or hornet worth to build in your opinion?
why not the combatfabber?


PS: i still don´t like the poll ... first i don´t realy understand it
secondly it seems biased ...

look at pa stats builds the top guys r using and the records that go along with said builds and youll see what we r talking about.

I used multi unit expansion builds and was ranked 270

switched style to the meata and now im like rank 50 in 2 days

The balance is skewed that much.

and what about it is starcraft like?

if you play on small maps 1v1 sure (especialy if you play on a small lava planet with only one tiny island and max 4 to 8 mexxes .. if you spam planets full with mexxes sure ... if you play on maps with easy terrain sure ...
if you want territiorial control to be essential limit the ammount of mexxes from 100 to 10 or 20 at best and spread them over a large planetoid
thus making those strategic points ala dawn of war

rushing is always viable ... be it rushing bots tankrush, nukerush orbital rush ... rush at this point is very vague
and macro is always rushing numbers of stuff x .. no matter if only bots or tanks or both .. macro = spam/produce stuff like an addict ..

and the best units you can micro with are actualy only bots (namly dox) as they are the most nimble ... bombers however wipe them clean of the map ... and micro is almost always only viable early game if you manage to outproduce the doxplayer with tanks and blocked his dox with walls an turrets micro wont help him much ...

this is the most funny thing actualy ... i saw manny players lose do a botrush in 1v1 because they don´t build walls nor turrets or fortify their mexes ...
however in a ffa recently the one with 32 players because of low space per player ... walls turrets, switch to tanks and bot composition ... why is that? the more territory there is to defend the harder it is to cover it ...
however if there is lower space with high ammount of resources and the player is good enough he will fortify that and max his resources out in that area ... if he isn´t what usualy happens is the other player doesn´t built proxifactories but just goes out and captures any mexx uncontested by the other player and this on an planet with a lot of resoeurces is fairly easywhich is the reason the fortied player will lose for the most part ..

you say you want more warfronts? then make the maps with low resources .. the player must immidiatly understand that they have to do both expand AND fortify their resources as there are only few and they can´t afford to lose them at all ..
and as such only then there will be wars about those resources ...
people ask for instance why players don´t use teleports on planets ... because units are too fast for that too matter
as such planets need to be big ... you want them to build bridges that connect from resources to defend to resource to defend or get close to the enemy base withou him seing you ...

again having many resources clumped up toghether and small landmass leads to players not building more smaller bases but them expanding their mainbase ...

this is different with multiplanetmatches ... but that however depends on the planets in the system again ...
make a couple small ones with decent ammount of resources and people will jump on as many as they can get ... have however big rich ones and the play may just try to get every mex on it and fortify that planet than leave it ... and that´s for games not having smashtoids or annihilasers ... because with those the players will always try to rush torwards those as they serve for the most part as cold war weapons ...

so that to me seems to be the thing ...
the smaller and richer the combatarea the more effective raiding armies get to be at the beginning of the game
if however the space is large and with less resources .. raiding gets harder and for any mex being fought over you need more units ... ... go try it ...
i have yet to see more people actualy do that ... i have yet to see reclaim to seriously matter in this game ... i don´t hear anybody say "oh if i only could reclaim unitwrecks to stack up metal now"