Why I stopped playing 1v1

i find moons very boring actualy ...

I'll interpret promise as something said in a kickstarter update since going to obscure reddit comments or stuff said in a bulk q/a portion of a live stream is just silly.

Ice asteroids, tsunamis, amphibious units (Dox and slammers really shouldn't count here IMHO), orbital space platforms. Source: https://www.kickstarter.com/project...nihilation-a-next-generation-rts/posts/293648

Geothermal plants and liquid metal processing facilities on lava planets. Source: https://www.kickstarter.com/project...nihilation-a-next-generation-rts/posts/299852

Better galactic war (The last bullet point mainly): https://www.kickstarter.com/project...nihilation-a-next-generation-rts/posts/303555

+sing (We're getting this next update anyway though so)


My feature wish list:
Hovercraft
More energy types.
TA type wreckage.
More units.
Better server mod support pls.

Oh goodness, not this again. Firstly, ice asteroids was delivered on through a biome. Next, as you well know nothing in there is a promise. It's a Kickstarter FFS, it's a list of "things we want to do", they're hardly going to promise stuff when the engine isn't even written yet.

I recall the disappointment Jon Mavor showed in the livestreams when he realised just how dumb people were when it came to games development. Everything Uber said becoming a "promise" is a symptom of that.

They presented a vision of a game. Some of it was possible, some of it was not. Welcome to the art of making games. People got to see how the sausage was made, turns out some people couldn't quite adjust their brains.

If every time I said "I want xyz" people around me would consider that a promise that xyz would happen then.... omg.

I want cookies.

I'm not suggesting that uber fulfill all of that. I'm merely answering Colin's question on what Uber hasn't delivered yet that they said they wanted to.

We have asteroids now but they can't be ice. Therefore ice asteroids aren't here yet.

Well the question is more: What things are there that are considered "this is a promise we have to do" that they actually still plan to do. Some of those "promises" turned out to be completely crazy dreams that certainly wont happen after all. (and that is fine and expected, well it should be expected)

An 250 radius ice biome is an ice asteroid. It was delivered back in, what, alpha? In fact, I believe the unit of measurement is meters, so almost every "planet" in the game is an asteroid.

God, the whole "we don't have asteroids yet" was the dumbest thing the community managed to date. An asteroid is a small rock, a planet is a big rock.

But buuut

Respawnable smashables!

I think a lot depends on maps. Ladder maps are simply too small and T2 is not viable there. However, I have just played a game vs Pt4h, we used the maps from the finals of big bang. The game was 108 minutes long and we used literally every tech path and T2, nukes, orbitals, t2 air, t2 ground, t2 navy, doxes, grenadiers bombers holkinses. The balance in starcraft broodwar was mainly done through maps later on, this is something we could consider partially here for PA as well. I think the big bang maps are much better than ladder and the games there might be much more interesting

To be honest there is also *a huge amount* to be said for playing *different* maps once in a while

The ladder maps were mostly well received when they were first created (introducing new things like symmetry and so on). The problem is they are fairly small and now very well played- people have worked out pretty much set plays on many of them and well it gets repetitive. This is where I think the random generation of maps was better than many gave it credit for (especially when you can randomly generate with symmetry).

Making people think on their feet and improvise is likely to create some different strategies, and I do agree larger maps are helpful. The issue is if the balance was to be changed based on the small single planet 1 v 1, it could likely throw out the balance in larger games and when I'm playing large team games, or big FFA's on large maps you see pretty much everything in PA turn up at one point or another

The flip side of all this is unfortunately, whilst very experienced players enjoy the challenge of new and complex scenarios to pick through, I know from other games a large chunk of the established community tend to dislike this. TA:Spring comes to mind- there BA community has essentially boiled down the maps to about 4 that still get played, usually in large 8 v 8 team games where each starting position has about 2 or 3 optimal play styles. The reaction you get if you try a different map (even one of the older popular ones) is so negative. I guarantee if Uber were to change the ladder maps regularly there would be major complaints, their best option imo is to slowly but regularity (every month maybe?) add 1 map to the pool, and possibly retire and older one.

They should add a bunch of large maps as a start. The maps in the ladder pool are all either tiny or medium sized at best. No need for a ton of constant map changes, but the map pool needs more diversity in the sizes.

What I'd really like (but I'm pretty sure most *wouldn't* but I can dream lol), is to have an option for a symmetrical random generated map in ranked.

I like diversity in maps, but larger maps become air dominate. Smaller maps allow more units to be important and avoid lag.

this is the big stupid argument I am really horribly annoyed by by now. When did we ever even have large maps to prove this? Where are people taking this from? If this is a problem then fix air damn it.

I don't believe you

If the spawn balance on randoms was better I'd use them a lot more. The best game of PA I ever had was a 3v3 on a large randomly generated desert planet. eXodus lost because we played the terrain wrong. It was long and it was brilliant.

Yeah, I think this is a view of a couple of players at the top, but it's no where near well tested enough because 1v1 games on large maps don't happen very often.

This is not a problem. It was, until bombers got prioritised by AA. It is well tested enough. We know it's not a problem.

The large-ish maps in the 1v1 ranked pool are reasonable for air, because they have lots of awkard CSGs and water. On a 700 size moon, I really doubt you'd see much effective air usage.

I agree. I think the biggest factor why air is so strong is because ground movement is so impaired. if there were less csg obstacles for the land layer, you could have a better chance defending without having to have air superiority.
Also I think air should be a really tiny tad slower. And while I'm at it, make orbital faster... I almost fall asleep when games go orbital, which probably is the fact that so many players dislike Styx.

Well, he responded to my ssx attack with avengers, so technically, he did go orbital ^^

Well, my thought process was -
oh **** something is shooting at me from the ******* outer space
what the **** is this
i better build the only orbital unit i know
what's it called? ah right avengers
ok gogogo 100 avengers,
lets hope it works
?????
worked

That I believe

that is exactly how I perceived it xD