Beta is childsplay compared to alpha

A little extreme, perhaps. But if you don't have multiple valid options in the earlygame, it's essentially true.

I honestly didn't read the entire thread, but I agree with the original post. The game is, as I understand, supposed to be about large scale armies and macro play. With less resources there is less to manage because you just can't plain build that much. Or at least really slowly

Energy is fine and actually seems quite good as it is, there needs to be at least twice as many mass points as of now. If I had to throw in another thing, nerfing Tier2 metal and energy would be nice as well. But still I think mass sliders are coming soon so I am not really complaining... just saying as it is now

The amount of mass is something that's easy to change, hence the sliders. If you want to play with more mass you will be able to do so. It's a sandbox game people, that's the whole idea. Also the balance, standard amount of mass etc. are all subject to massive changes between now and release.

You've spent too much time playing SupCom Neutrino.

I would appreciate if you mentioned the other side of everything.

I'm in favor of slower pacing. Before, the game was very much APM based, with tons of clicking everywhere. Now, to some extent, you can cue up buildings, and send troops into a base, sit back, and watch the carnage. Then you send some scouts, watch them, see what you can see. Then you cue up some more things, move armies, and watch and wait. I like that lull time, it means that you don't have to be at red alert for every waking minute of the game, and can make decisions at a more reasonable rate.

If you want a slower strategic game I recommend chess. This is rts, where your strategy is to see what opponent is doing and try and counter it before it kills you.

You can go into a game with an awesome 1 hr game plan but chances are stuff won't go to plan and you will have horrible crisis management.

Balance is a thing we're going to be constantly adjusting. We all really appreciate this feedback, though.

what clopse said

I like that the game is slower paced and less spam-based. The "huge armies" before were just a few hundred ants steamrolling the players who build slower due to not having such a high APM. Now it's more about strategy and what kind of units you want to invest your ressources into and players who perhaps think fast but click slower can also win matches easier now.

The funny thing is, the alpha was basically Starcraft (without diverse units, 3 races and different eco system, etc. but how you play, very similar). Replace unit ability micromanagement with economy micromanagement (calling it macro really doesn't describe it very well since it requires tons of clicking and detailed attention, ie. micro) and then lots of raiding.

APM requirements for both games were about the same. Build orders of course didn't exist but only because there wasn't even a choice in where to go as there was a simple path to victory.

But the game skills to play both of them well were the same. Kinda funny imo given the hate Starcraft garners on this forum.

Imo, it's kind of silly that there is such a thing in an unfinished, incomplete game. :/

I disagree. It should be leaning on macro, but not making micro and decisions entirely irrelevant. I feel a middle ground between mass now and mass then will be key.

The faster you build the better player you are, quick decisions, quick decisions. I personally apply a '2 second rule' you cannot be doing the same thing for more than 2 seconds kind of like a QB in football. Get the ball out or get sacked. That's was RTS is all about. It's all about strategy. being good and fast micro wins you games. the game was perfect how it was. With such low metal there's less strategy that can be involved it the game. How do you stop a few hundred ants? easy. build your own, air is more usable now, use it. lobbers. lobbers rape face. levelers/shellers will mow armies of ant's just keep moving backwards. with more things going on at once you need to be quick on your feet or your mind in this case and come up with the best strategy as fast as possible, you need to put thing's into priority. With the new metal armies are more than halved, bases are much more vulnerable to threats. Defense is not OP, ask any good player. If you need to build defense then you loose. Uber said it themselves, they want MASSIVE armies. Tanks arn't nearly as good anymore, I can just send bots everywhere and stop your expansions easy while avoiding tanks. This was really a step back.

Even with macro, micro is always involved. If you have the smaller numbers of tanks and have to engage you can still win that fight with good mirco. If they are running straight into your forces you can either move backwards, or you can split up on both sides of the enemy running parallel to him making his tanks have to shoot in 2 different directions.

Tanks aren't as good as they were, but they were overpowered before. They still deal nicely with badly microed bots or in an even engagement. The game was not perfect as it was. Strategy is proportional to thought, not click speed. I like micro, macro and decision making to each have seperate spins on how well the player plays in a game. Old game was all macro, no micro or decision making.

Anything that gets rid of the whole notion of APM is good. **** APM. It's a horrible concept that has no place whatsoever in a strategy game.

Here's what your APM should be to be competitive: mid 20s, low 30s on the high side. It's been done before, and if that's where PA is going so much the better.

20-30 is ridiculously slow. 300 is ridiculous admittedly, but can you only issue an order once every 2 seconds? How slow must a brain be to deliver things like that? I still see games crashing from intense macro on larger scale worlds, so I don't see how macro has been "ruined". There's just a greater emphasis on raiding.

Yea guys after reading ubers responses I think they are gonna cater to both the competitive crowd and casual crowd.

I also see its pretty obvious the competitive guys want big games fighting everywhere multi front games.

Where the casuals want slow easy to handle single front small army games that take a while to get going so they can try to plan things out all the way

Nothing wrong with either way to play

The game is in good hands, thx for the discussion and debate guys, without excessive trolling.

Thx for a bad *** game uber, u guys r doing phenomenal work!

I agree that the notion of APM = skill is detrimental to a strategy game, but as cybersunder already said, even as 200-300 is something I loathe, 30 is even worse of a deal.

You are so offensive it's ridiculous. Casuals sometimes like large games, and competitive guys sometimes like small games. You clearly don't understand the differentiation between what is competitive and what caters to your play style. Frankly, macro-only games cater to a low denominator of skill on their own; there should be strategies which introduce some level of decisions and micro. If you want to manage an economy, try starting a business or playing something like AI War. I'll reiterate; I am a competitive player, and I like smaller armies than the ridiculous 20+ facts in a single game that was being supported before.