Searched with Google for screenshots...

...and came across this.

--- Nevermind. It won't let me post an image, lol. ---
It was a picture depicting PA with a tad more realistic, or rather less cartoony graphics.

I already backed the game and all but I was just wondering: is there anybody, besides me, who would actually prefer to see the game head in the artistic direction portrayed in the above picture? Don't get me wrong, I like cartoony art styles. If not else, they tend to age better.

It's just that there are a few things that, coupled with the cartoony graphics, make the game look and feel (at least to me)... well, weird. It feels and looks like everything is out of place, or made out of paper... it's so hard to describe.

A few things that I find lacking most:

-The absence of building "clicking" to one-another when in placement phase a-la Supreme Commander, which was due to adjacency bonus, which brings me to

-Adjacency bonuses. These might be planned but if not, why? I think it was a pretty cool thing that added complexity in the early game in SupCom

-Lack of any sort of terrain effect upon construction. Usually when you place a building in strategy games there will be some sort of effect visible on the designated area, making it feel like you have an impact on the surroundings.

-Building rotation. Does this really have a place in a strategy game like this? I mean I guess it's nice to have the option, but I can't help but feel as if it only makes everything look more disorganized and in turn, uglier. It may be due to me being used to SupCom but it worked perfectly there, no building rotation required.

That's it for now. Please spare me your rage if these things have been explained/ addressed before and/ or are just due to the game being in Beta phase. I just wanted to put this out and see your reaction. To see if I'm the only one who feels this way. I love(d) SupCom and PA is the next big thing.

To the best of my knowledge, adjaceny bonus is not planned. It was a bad system in SupCom, as there was only one optimal way of setting things up. It gave the false impression of choice, but wound up being a noob-trap.

There are concrete textures when buildings are placed. I don't know what you're talking about there.

Oh. You're not in the beta. Building rotation has been in PA since day one. [EDIT:] Just re-read the post. I misinterpreted what you said. There are plans to make building rotation relevant. I'm pretty damn keen to see if turrets can only fire in a cone in the direction they were built.



Also, post the link to the image but break it up with spaces so it doesn't count as a link.

what did you google search exactly? (wording) sounds interesting I wanna see it

It might have been the canyon concept art.

Wait you can rotate buildings?

I keep on placing factories too close to one another, so about 25% of the units produced get stuck inside the factory complex... Lol. I'd better look at the keyboard shortcuts again.

Click and drag!

Specific builds relied on adjacency bonus to make them more efficient. People found ways to shave off seconds from their production in order to beat their opponents. That's one of the things that made SupCom so popular and why it's still alive to this day. But that's just my opinion based on experience.

I haven't seen these concrete textures yet other than the ones left when a building is destroyed. It is really hard to describe what I mean. Maybe it is just a general feeling that I get from the whole vibe that the cartoony graphics convey.

And yes, I'm not in the Beta (sadly) but I watch(ed) my share of YouTube videos.

As for the building rotation even if it is in from day one, my point was that I'm not sure it has a place in a grand strategy game like this. When comparing calculated, precise and neat base building in SupCom (again, one of the things that it excels at and makes it stand out in a good way) to seemingly random building placement in PA... I just prefer the former and thought I'm not the only one.

As for the image: I tried. I wrestled with the Forum. It's just not worth the hassle.

edit: vackiller: "Planetary Annihilation" and search for images on Google. You might get different results since Google tends to adjust results to the market/ device/ target audience.

Yeah, that's the exact problem - do it or lose to someone who does. All builds relied on it.

I'd have loved it if there were consequences of using adjacency, which would actually make it strategy. In the end, the only thing adjacency did was force everyone into mindlessly clicking the same pattern.

OP, I find the building rotation quite valuable consider a line of factories (which do snap together after the first assuming the buildings are capable of being built there), lined up with planning allows the units built in them to get out and to the battlefront faster rather than forcing them into arbitrary N/S/E/W (or even just S as is common). naturally as the pathing continues to improve the advantage gained by this will diminish because most of the advantage is stopping bots and tanks getting stuck on inanimate objects, but at the moment i find it very valuable.

This gets brought up every few weeks.

The way things look is 100% personal preference. Uber cannot please everyone.

1: The general consensus is that people like where it currently is.

2: There are also tons of graphical improvements to be made.

3: Uber is trying to make it very close to the Kickstarter video.

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/scale-megathread.48650/

I've seen the adjacency bonus used in ingenious ways after countless matches. I mean literally after somebody has played more than a thousand matches, they came up with a new build which was an innovation and improvement. A lot of those times adjacency bonuses were employed. Thus I think that there will always be most efficient ways of building things -- most efficient builds. The adjacency bonuses added a complex layer that made a difference when used properly and learning to do so was one of the things players enjoyed. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they were the deciding factor in matches. They were a tool for good players to gain an advantage.

I for one liked the style of graphics they chose.

I'd like to see matches where adjacency was used in an economically inefficient manner as part of a strategic plan.

not to mention faf's version where you have mexpoint adjacency changes, changes to the values for energy storage adjacecy and you can't use adjancency on the aeon t3 arty for ex.

makes you have a choice with exact same value of benefits, in different categories for all adjacencies... so... do I put a energy, a mass storage or a factory there?