Unit stances indicator

It seems Uber don't like the unit stances because they make the game less transparent, but why not make them more frequently visible in the game instead of heavily restricting them?

Units on the non-default stances could simply have tiny indicators under their health bars or somewhere else, to show what stances they currently use, I don't see how this would be more distractive than the unit rank indicators in other RTS games.

If this make the unit stances less annoying to Uber, perhaps we could finally get more stance options like the construction priorities.

whats the question?

What are unit stances in this case?

That's what i was wondering.

Configurable automations of units, currently we have weapon and maneuver stances just like 16 years ago in Total Annihilation, I would like to see something more advanced in this game.

He's probably saying that he wants a visual cue as to what behaviour the unit is using, patrol, move, attack, reclaim etc etc.

No, attack or patrol is obvious to the player at all time without the need of a visual cue, what I was talking about are unit AI states like hold fire, roam etc. Basically this thread is a reply to this:

I'm not planning on something more advanced. In fact I would make it simpler if I could figure out how.

Just out of curiousity.. why?

Because I'm interested in innovating in other areas of the game and we have limited time and budget. I don't design games in the "ideal" world, I design them in the world of tradeoffs. When I play the game I'm not getting frustrated by lack of options in this area.

A better question to ask is, why would you change it? What's the cost involved? What are the benefits? etc.

I'm starting to get tired of hearing this 1. Why don't you lay out some kind of expansion pack / patch plan and list the things outside of the scope of vanilla PA that you think would be good additions in some kinda of priority order. That way you still won't have scope creep on your initial budget but good ideas that aren't necessarily essential don't get trashed outright because they aren't worth their weight in gold. Then you can get to those expansions or patches as you have the time and budget (assuming community interest in them remains constant) and let the community refine those ideas for you in the mean time. Of course, if you just don't like an idea then you should just say so (and why) instead of citing the budget yet again like some kinda homeless person I just gave money to who still has their cup in the air...

Because the future plans are going to be based on how the game ends up and what we actually think is important. We build games using iteration which means that rough ideas become reality when we go to implement them. I'm sure you are sick of hearing that too, but it's reality. I'm worrying about building the game we promised to our kickstarter backers and which I have a fairly clear vision of. Speculating on future cool features is fun but not really something we can or should spend a lot of time on at the moment. Do you think Core Contingency was all figured out while we were shipping the core game?

And given that budget is our primary number one constraint expect me to continue to live in reality. You asked why, I gave you the answer, budget, budget and more budget. This game has been very much designed around that constraint and to ignore that is folly.

As for commenting on ideas I don't like, you really want to hear me bag on every idea I don't like? I seriously doubt that would go down well. Every time I say something it ends up turning into a cluster f.

I don't see this as being a major issue. I don't really care what my unit stances are.

The classic RTS stances are "Hold Position", "Guard", "Aggressive", "Passive", and a few specific others depending on the way the game works (a good example would be DoWII's "Burn" stance where units would continue to seek out targets after destroying one).

There is a very blurry line between Guard and Aggressive, the difference is when the unit begins to seek out enemies. With Guard, if the unit is attacked, it will seek out its attacker and destroy it. With Aggressive, the unit will seek out ANYTHING within travel distance and destroy it.

I personally think with smart unit design, we only really need the current stances. Roam being Aggressive, Hold Position being... Hold Position, and Maneuver being Guard. Now, PA also has a FIRING STANCES toggler, which allows for Hold Fire, Return Fire and Open Fire. These 3 different options across 2 different stance categories allow for a wide permutation of different settings which allows a Commander to best organize their unit's AI to benefit them.

I would also like to see scriptable units, but that is likely a mod opportunity that I will seize.

All I'm saying is budget is a timeline thing (as long as it's a good idea) so ideas where that is the major obstacle should be shelved into the "later" category (in which case budget need not even get mentioned) like the unit currently being discussed in the backers forum instead of getting shoved into the trash can for that reason alone. If it's not a good idea, make your case for why it's either covered by something else or unnecessary because of something else that you have planned so users can either understand or convince you otherwise. I'm not saying you have everything planned out, but I am saying the community could help to guide your road map for the future more constructively that way.

iron, drop it. It's a job, his job and the job of all his employees, he must succeed, not loose it all for himself and others because of some whims, it's buisness, you don't mess around with that. you follow the rules. there are serious consequences to thinking you're immune to loss of money.

I know that Neutrino has a better understanding of buisness than you do. believe him when he sais it's the budget and time. It's not his choice.

Mind you that the "budget" of a game is a soft goal (for Planetary Annihilation, it's anywhere from 3-7 million depending on how much of their own money Uber poured into PA's cash pool, as well as any post-Kickstarter sales). To "break even", a game must make back its cost in revenue. To "make a profit" a game must make back its cost in revenue, and then continue to generate revenue.

A good Programmer gets anywhere from 100k to 300k dollars depending on their position in the company, the amount of responsibility they have, the amount of work they undertake and how many people they manage.

I don't know how many people Uber employs, I think I saw the number 50 somewhere. Mind you this is a lot of arbitrary math, as the numbers aren't solid, but...

They are paying each employee (let's say 120k as an average number), 50*120 = 6,000,000 dollars a year in salaries. Give or take 2 million. Now, factor in the cost of making a game; for PA, 3-7 million. That's 9+ million dollars a year spent. They have to make all that money back with PA, and the game's retail price at launch will be a measly 40 dollars. Compare that to Call of Pooty's $60, going upwards of $120 for limited editions, and 4-6 $15 DLCs (which everyone buys because they're LEMMINGS).

The more man-hours Uber puts into developing PA (a niche game in a niche genre for a relatively small community), the less they will make out of it. PA will probably break even and then earn about a year or two's worth of salary payments in profit. Uber has to keep on trucking to stay in business, which means working on new games like Toy Rush and maybe another MNC game. If they just go back and keep making new content (which will likely be free, given the company's business model), they will be belly up very quickly. Very quickly of course meaning 2-4 years, as these are millions of dollars and corporations we're talking about. Bear in mind that PA will NOT BE A FREE TO PLAY GAME, which means that once the initial profit is made, the cost to support the game will very likely be higher than the income made from it.

Point is, while I would just love lurve wuv Uber to keep making content for PA, it is just not feasible if they want to keep all of their families fed, keep their company in business and continue to support PA using the UberNet service. I love Planetary Annihilation with all my heart, and the idea of making a perfect RTS, but in this day and age, with the world economy being what it is, I do not expect more of Uber than putting the game release out, making maybe 1-2 minor Free DLC packs, or 1-5 major Paid DLC packs, and then just moving on to other developments.

The story would be completely different if PA was a Free to Play game, but that would be a slap to the face to both the Kickstarter Backers, and would mean another F2P game on the market. And while I respect F2P games, I will always prefer to pay up-front for a game and get everything at once. I don't want to have to grind through a game for 100+ hours of play and then end up with a Cardboard Axe with Razor-Sharp Duct Tape Edge as my primary weapon. Arguably I could pay for it, but your average "good" weapon costs about $10-$30 depending on the game, which is money I could be using for SOMETHING IMPORTANT.

there is nobody on this forum who would ask for a pay-to-win game I think.

I'm getting misunderstood. To put it clearly if Uber likes an idea, they find room for it later down the line (like a certian bot with a name starting with M). If they don't, they have their reasons. But when they say "budget" it means "I don't think your idea is worth the time and money in the 1st place no matter the time scales involved" because if it was, they would add it some time after release. Now the reason it might not be worth the time might be "it's ugly / doesn't fit the style / is too much work for too little reward" etc. but If they don't share that underlying reasoning then all we get is a high level excuse and no avenue to refine the idea into something worth implementing. For the record, I don't personally have any interest in the OP's idea, I just really didn't like Neutrino's handling of it for the above reasons and want to foster better collaboration across the forum.

dude you're misuderstanding us it isn't an excuse, he has yet to pronounce himself on the possibilities of implementing this realistic orbit machanics after the fact.
same goes for other ideas, most of wich he hasn't picked up on at all. all that you say about his reasoning is entirely speculation and 100% false speculation at that, you can't see that you're letting what you want to believe cloud your vision, this Jon Mavor you think you know and can read through so well, you've never met him.

I'm admittedly having trouble discerning a coherent thought out of this paragraph lol. I'm not speculating, I'm just reading between the lines like anyone who thinks for themselves and questions their surroundings might do. I just wanna have meaningful discussions and and treat everyone's ideas seriously. F me, right?