Questions about units (number, design, animations )

This may have been discussed before so apologize in advance if all these questions have been answered by the past :

Number of units : I can see we have 2 T1 bots, 2 T2 bots, 2 T1 tanks and 2 T2 tanks.
Are these the final numbers or are there additional bots/tanks (or any additional land units, mobile missile launchers for example) likely to occure in final release ? Is the current set of units limited just because we're in alpha and it's just enough to make alpha playable ?

Design : When i watch the delta commander it looks like to me it's the units which has the larger amount of details (the most polished). Can we expect other units (bots, tanks ...) to have much more details [When watching biome concepts it seems to me original tanks have much more polygons and details, and also when watching kickstarted video, it looks like to me that Air engineers have much more details.]
Basically : Are the current units showing their final design stage or are they likely to change in final release ?

Animations : Well it's not really about animations, but the example is about Air Fighters. I have to admin that Air bombers perfectly match with what we have in kickstarter video, and their trajectories are really impressive, especially when breaking left/right. While actually, Air fighters are not really flying reallistically. Is it something which may be improved in final release ?

So to summarize : Are units in alpha stage roughly similar to what we'll have in final release or are there additional modifications and stuff that will be added in final release ?

Thanks

As per Neutrino's comments, the units seen in the unit white box accounted for about maybe 75% of the total untis.

The selection available in the Alpha is merely the bear minimum needed to 'play' the game and for the core units, additional units will be added once the gameplay is being worked on(Beta).

Think of it this way, why wouldn't you add more detail t the players avatar? Why make those tanks that will number potentially in the hundreds if not thousands as detailed?

All in all PA units aren't any less detailed;



They just have a different style about them. They have shifted away from smaller nuances and more towards visible details.

Mike

The first units looks like to me much more detailed. at least, it seems to have more polygons.

But how much do you think you'd pick up on that without the wire frame and and textures and a proper RTS view point?

Mike

Well My point is that (it's an example) the turret which is made of 6 polygons looks like a cube and not a turret. the second one looks like to be a toy while the first one does not.

The Turret on the tank? It is far more than 6 polygons.

Mike

sorry i meant the canon. Well i know that it does make sense to reduce the number of polygons if you plan to display thousands of units. I was just wondering if it's possible to avoid this "toy" look and feel with the same number of polygons. Or if it's possible to fake this with testures and post processing.

And? I assume you have noticed that the whole style for PA is fairly boxy.

Mike

I was just wondering if it's possible to avoid or lower this "boxy" look and feel with the same number of polygons. Or if it's possible to fake this with textures and post processing.

Are you happy with the Pre-Viz?

Mike

what do you mean by pre-viz ?

The Pre-Visualization that was used for the KickStarter.

Mike

Yes i used to prefer a few models (air engineers). many of the units look like less cubic

I hope there will be some flavour units like the fido, zeus/pyro, merl/diplomat, maverick etc alongside the standard assault stuff.

As for the "toy" look, I really can't stress enough how much I like it. The cleanest and most self-consistent aesthetics I've seen in a proper RTS in ages.

Pretty much this. Realistic, gritty or otherwise true-to-life aesthetics only degrade with time, while cartoony, unrealistic, toy-like graphics are generally regarded as "working as intended" no matter how old they are.

I'd much rather have Uber stick with their current style. Units are already really high poly compared to SupCom (about a 60% increase in polygons per model, on average). Any higher would be pushing it.

As a mechanical engineering student I find I like my tanks to look like they would be physically capable of shooting something. And I still like how the old TA units look, so I'm not sure I buy the whole realistic units degrade with time story.

That being said I'm sure this is all something that we will be able to address with visual mods.

Cheers,
TELunus

In general I like the blockiness, though I wouldn't mind if some of the details on the model are a little bit more round. Perhaps instead of a box shape for the cannon, they could use a pentagonal prism. The rest can just be done with proper textures and effects.

i honestly really love the blockyness, its good for the computer and goes on good with the cartoony feel of the game.
however it makes little sense to complain about the units look since many people actually like them... and for the people who dont there will always be mods that will fill every niche

Think of our units like a toolchest, or a painters studio. We start with a small number of them, that fill out the roles we know need to be filled. We make new ones when we realize there are holes in the roster. The 75% number if probably about right, at least for launch (as long as you totally exclude orbital and special use units for things like Gas Giants, Metal Planets, etc).

Ultimately the goal is to have little to no repetition. Will there be some (pure upgrades)? Probably a few, but we hope, when all is said and done, those are the rare exception, rather than the rule.

On the note of unit design, have you guys ever done the reverse? Made a pretty little unit, and then made a role for it?