What I have been seeing is that they are simultaneously working on engine, graphics, A.I, balance (to some decree) and adding gameplay elements. Right now they are working on interplanetary, asteroid collisions and new units. They haven't been working with every possible gameplay element simultaneously all the time, true. I don't understand how my perception on what they have or have not been doing simultaneously can be considered "a fact" of any kind. Neither have I seen you provide me with a single unquestionable fact. Furthermore I have not even once during this thread said that my presumptions were based on facts. I believe I said before that they were strictly my presumption on how long I think it would take for my presumption of how they are going to make galactic warfare to make. There cannot be facts provided with those presumptions since Uber hasn't delivered any. I can't see the point of this conversation so I think it's high time we end it.
I've been with Uber since day 1 of the Kickstarter. They ability to deliver quick and amazing content does not worry me. Or their promise of continuous support after release. This is no EA here. This is Uber. They're shooting for awesome, not pricey DLC.
Curious what Uber's intention is here. From the sound of it, they are focusing on this next big patch which will take us into beta. The notion of giving this patch a 2-3 trial period just in case alpha testers uncover anything which Uber were unable to detect themselves, would be a good idea, surely?
Its seems like a good idea, I wish uber would give us some input on this. Its a idea that I wish would happen so I can get interplanetary sooner
Unfortunately I'll be overseas from the 20th till 12th/oct, so I guess I'll get the interplanetary with initial hotfixes when I get back. But even though I won't be around to try it, I agree - the alpha testers have a good history of the development and the correct expectations, so it's be really wise to give them an initial build before calling it beta.
God i hate the correcting terminology for tiers. What is being corrected is the name. So... I used to hate t2 mexes cuz they made t1 mexes a burden and were infinitely overpowered. There is no longer t2 trophy, its advanced. Great, so I obviously mean advanced mexes are ******* up the game then, because they are commiting the same ******* crime as t2 is hated for. Give it a different name, if it acts like an ******* still, then it's still trash. At least before, we used to explain t2 units aren't repeats of t1. T2 lacks aa units, and t1 lacks artillery. They are units with different attacks entirely. Now, we call it different and pretend that means something.
Trash is trash no matter what you call it. But at least, by calling it Advanced, rather than clinging to 'T2', a term that the developers have abandoned due to its loaded association with being an upgrade over what came before, we're being technically correct... And as you all know... That is the best kind of correct. --- If... IF the developers are unable to balance the Advanced Units in such a way during Beta as to make them fit the name, I will use the term 'T2' again. As long as they express an interest in not having upgrade tiers, I will respect that, and call it Advanced. By clinging to the term 'T2' you're showing very little respect to the developers.
By sticking to the term t2, I am saving myself, and look at the words in-line to see what I mean... Advanced t2 ...1/4th the keys it takes to type those. As I will be typing those a LOT throughout the course of the forums and game, lets give you an example here... I type t2 here 300 times in the forums among the upcoming months. I could have typed Advanced 300 times instead. By typing t2 instead, I save 1500 keystrokes. Arguably amongst more important keys too. 2 A's and an E. Vowels. As long as the t2 is NOT stronger duplicates of t1, I will still continue to use t2 but have the utmost respect and admiration for the devs nonetheless. The factory production they got pretty right on atm for this concept. The mexes and pgens they do not. As long as building t2 only and neglecting t1 will get you killed and lose the game, I will consider it mission accomplished. So far, building most t2 solo without t1 is stupid, you build at least bulky chunks of t1 with sometimes 2 t1 units in it before you blend some t2 with it. The mex and pgen is the exception, aside from epic rushdown snipes caused by the enemy's weakened economy during his attempt to upgrade to t2 quick as possible, they never get anyone killed and people build them solely as soon as they are able.
So you're lazy. Good to know. Also, the neglection of Basic units, favouring advanced units should be a strategic decision on the part of the player. You shouldn't be mandated to always use the basic units, just like you shouldn't be mandated to always use the advanced ones. Two way street.
Agreed 100%, if you are ever forced to use some units over others strictly because they are better, in my opinion is bad design
@trophy, I'd estimate you've used more than 1500 keystrokes to justify your use of the term 't2', which leaves your equation a little less neat
and he isn't even counting the number of keystrokes he will probably use to explain to some fresh newbie what the shortcuts t1 and t2 mean, while basic and advanced are pretty much self-explanatory.
That has got to be the most retarded line of reasoning to do something I've heard in a very long time. Unless his sense of humor is insanely dry. In which case, that's actually pretty funny.
Hey guys, lets stop arguing semantics and just agree that t2 and advanced are the same thing. Advanced IS the second tier of structures, after all. It's just when people begin to assume things that it becomes a problem. Also, by saying that t2 is bad because it implies there is something higher, then it would also be bad if there were a tier 3, and a tier 4... because they all imply there is something better. At that point why not call it basic, semi-basic, semi-advanced, and advanced to keep people from thinking (god forbid) that there's something higher? Because it's redundant, and it gets hard to make words that accurately describe the tech level. Obviously we don't have this problem because there are only 2 levels, but even then advanced is a bad descriptor. Nanolathe, you have said it yourself t2/advanced isn't necessarily better, it's just special. So why not make the tech levels standard and special? In any case, this is all just terminology and it all means the same thing. Who cares if the devs call it advanced and some people call it t2? There's no communication barrier, we all understand each other.
To bsc? So now instead of complaining about the number of keystrokes, you have decided to become racist against vowels? Squirrel!!!! Wait, what was the main thread topic about again?
