The Future of PA

No i want this game comes up again .

Wy?

Because even that i dont play i now its a good game.

Between all the fail rts we have out there, this is the only that got power to grab players ,but there is lot problems with game.

Until that miss features ,or any other kind issius that wont let you enjoy the game.
PA players wont come here every days to play it .

Problems thats not up to me say ,its up to you PA players ,and developers of PA that showld start listen this community.

But remenber that 6 months ago, i told iff they wont listen to the good players ideas about this game, PA wont live long.

thats wy you go to multiplayer and see this

But some times there are 2/3 host games !!!!!!

I knew we could count on you! Did we ever doubt you

Jables: will Uber announce what they plan to do with pa soon? Will we see new units, terrain that affects game play etc etc. .?

Honestly, why do people put more hype into the game's politics, rather than the game's play?

This game isn't going anywhere. The people that say they are going somewhere, I doubt they are never coming back, not in the current climate of games not sticking, if this game isn't perfect it has to be the shiniest of turds at the very least.

It really is a political "lack of numbers creating lack of numbers" situation. Is this game really not that fun to play weekly or with friends or suggest to others even right now?

I was expecting this game to be a good foothold into the game genre, something to build something off of later even if not perfect itself. I argue it ended up better than that within 3 months after release, let alone on release. Yet, some argue even now, it is less than a foothold. I don't get it, but meh.

I just think the really strong coders to mod this game are absent, don't get me wrong that the ones we got are really trying and really getting into everything including the server code, and that the game code is really simple webscript on the interactive frontend but not as easy code on the engine end at least compared to ye ol' Unity or Unreal. Still plenty enough for total conversions though. Still could be nicer via adjusting game end conditions and such from a lobby option or at least an easy to access config or something.

Let me tell that i try to play a bit to see what i feel play it.

i have to do my standard naval * TA for me without Naval not game .



Units work mush bether then fa in many ways,the concept its bether now .
Pathfind its good.
The game is bit cartoon ,but got his magic.
Naval with good work could have lot fun here ,but some naval units stop without reason when they have to attack.
For my surprise i have play +/-25 min ,and i realize iff this game got the right features i was play it.

Probably im sick but i have fun play it.

I like the units even if few ,the builds ,the eco system its the only thing i dont like ,miss lot options there but.....
My conclusion is wy this game isnt bigger .

With lot units, even experimental units, we have plenty field to that (its a planet )
Zoom in on planet showld be + flat.

Can't believe no one is calling this guy out.

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/upcoming-work-3-30-15.68435/#post-1079606

What's there to be called out on? It's my opinion - if you don't like it, I literally do not care.

It's not like anything I've said is mindblowing or new either. Seriously, have you never read any of the reviews for the game? http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/planetary-annihilation From what I can tell my opinion is pretty much square in line with the opinion of many other people regarding the game.

Multi-planet warfare is awesome!!! Only noobs can't handle the jandal...

I think you misunderstood me.

Lolnope

I disagree that multiplanet gameplay is fundamentally flawed or that uber's approach to invasion is fundamentally flawed; the only thing I'd call fundamentally flawed is air 2.0 aka orbital combat. The invasions need a rework but they aren't fundamentally flawed; the flaw is in the execution, not in the core mechanics.

I don't think it's awesome. I think it was an interesting idea that seemed like it would be awesome, but the execution has not worked out. You know...I've never really thought about it much, but when you actually consider PA at a conceptual level it actually seems like it was probably destined to a lukewarm reception.

What's the number one thing that turns people away from playing RTS games? The complexity. Now on to just the normal complexity of a RTS game, PA adds:

1) Multiple different planets - multiple different battlefields to monitor
2) Randomly generated planets - no clear landmarks, ways to get your bearing, etc.
3) Constantly changing camera position - hard to get your bearing even more
4) Weak base defensive structures - no way to lock down an area and focus somewhere else. Demands constant attention, everywhere.
5) Spherical battlefield, meaning attack can come from any direction at any time, including orbital!
6) Weak commander - easily sniped. Demanding constant attention.
7) Tiny planets - meaning time to kill (time to get a unit from your base to opponent base) is next to nothing.

So you've got a game genre that scares away people with complexity and even just at a conceptual level PA ramps that up to over 9000.

When you consider all this, it's no wonder how things worked out.

This thing called "complexity" is actually what RTS enthusiasts want. It's this "complexity" that we love. Go play another genre if RTS isn't your cup of tea. Maybe turn based strategy is more your thing?

I didn't say it wasn't my cup of tea. My point was they took a genre that already turns away a lot of people due to complexity, and dialed complexity up to 11. Which makes the critical response to the game a bit more understandable.

BTW, can we not do the whole "Oh my gosh, I do love me some complexity. If you can't handle it you're a noob get on my level scrub" treatment which I can see incoming from a mile away.

PA is complex yes but it's complexity is just different, not worse than any other RTS. I actually find PA easier than StarCraft 2. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with your argument? You wish PA was dumbed down so that it uses the same mechanics as every other RTS before it?

I agree, PA is a LOT easier than SC2.

Difficulty is entirely different per game and person and situation.

PA requires wider view, sc2 requires more speed and accuracy, sc2 has a higher tactical ceiling, PA games can get more massive. In that regard, PA has a lot more flexibility in playability, both for low and high end games, but a diehard playerbase already established on SC when it was easier for a game to accomplish that and now no matter how stagnant it gets it will remain.

Really, I feel PA is easier to learn at a base level and at least compete with the average other player you face, where SC2 you have to dig to the bottom of the barrel to find bottom feeders even if you are experienced because a lot of the speed cap can prevent you from being any more than a bottom feeder yourself.

Actually, my answer is Yes. I do think PA would have fared much better if it stuck with tried and true mechanics of games like SupCom or even TA. I think people would absolutely love the **** out of a modern take on SupCom. For example, I bet you're going to read tons of comments and reviews about Ashes of Singularity (http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/) where people say stuff like "This is what I wished PA would have been".

Where I disagree with you though is saying this is in any way "dumbed down". That's like arguing that chess is a dumbed down version of 3D chess, with 10 chessboards, and so now chess is for "noobs that can't handle the complexity of 10 chess boards stacked vertically and played simultaneously". No, it's just that regular chess is fun, it's a tried and true game that works. The same is true of flat map RTS games. They work.

I don't begrudge Uber for trying something new - it's great that they tried. I just feel that it has really only introduced a few positives over the more traditional RTS approach, and a whole massive slew of negatives that outweigh those positives.

That is why someone came up with the idea of 3d chess back in the late 60s on a nerdy tv show called Star Trek and that concept became memorized by nerds as timeless and immortal?

Meh, PA could have been either a clone or an attempt at a new franchise. You are arguing they should have stuck with cloning older games with a new engine, they took a shot at making a different game. What can you say. I mean, if SC didn't try to be anything more than an identical TA, it may have been worse than it actually ended up being, not better. And Spring, if they didn't find some magical formula and some crazy fanbase that stands out among a larger base calling them "crazies" for playing a game that intentionally defys formulas like tiers, they might just be nothing special themselves. Really, PA isn't that bad for having not been copy-pasted.

Ashes of the Singularity is a whole other niche RTS though? Yes it's macro but it'll have very different gameplay at the same time.

I'm really, really hyped for it though.

Anyway planets as maps just feels right for me, I don't even like flat maps anymore. They feel too unatural. I think it's because of all the 3D modelling and stuff I do.