How is planets and interplanetary a gimmicks?

I don't think we need leading projectiles, they almost add nothing to the game beside making projectile dodging more complex and discourage in-combat movements. OTA doesn't have them and it works fine.

Why is projectile dodging a good thing? Would you rather battle it out with who can micro more units at once?

I like to think that target leading removes the simple/boring actions that everyone does. It makes flanking and attacking with the suitable units more important.

It's not like projectile dodging could only be impactful in micro. Without target leading, a moving army will dodge more projectiles as long as there are space between units. No need for micro, just a move command.
Flanking will actually be more effective without leading, since dodging will be much easier if your units are not directly moving towards enemy units.

jesus christ you're on the wrong game's forum so bad
(couldn't find a game called ota, perhaps you mean dota?)

you argue this by saying it brings nothing, just wow. please do document yourself for making opinionated statements like that. playing sup com fa would help you alot. the battles had so much life and where so dirrectly influencedby the terrain thanks to the sim projectile-leading target combo.

whitout leading target the ballance of hit miss lays completely on one side (10%-90% with micro) by adding leading targets you can achieve something more balanced (50%-50% with micro).

Wow. Holy off topic Batman.
But fine, I'll bite.


TLO (TheLittleOne) is a StarCraft 2 pro-gamer.
He used to play Forged Alliance competitively.
I think he can be quoted on how physics based shot calculation makes the game a lot more interesting and brings more depth.
It was fun with TA, it was fun with SupCom and it sure the hell isn't fun with StarCraft 2.


Remember guys,
Complicated = Inconsistent and isoteric behavior = Bad
Complexity = Depth and predictable behavior = Good

Physics is predicable and rather simple.
We've been living with it all our lives, it's already innate to our understanding of how the world works.
And no more complex than highschool math.






oh

and plus.
We've been playing with physics-based projectiles since DOS.

It is literally just Newtonian Mechanics.

It's not exactly rocket science people.



p.s.
Bubble shields are fun

OTA = Original TA, as in without mods or expansions.

I feel I need to point out that TA did have target tracking. However due to the speed and clunkyness of both the weapons and units, it was rarely needed. You can't compare TA's combat to PA's combat with the current balance.

If most projectiles are fast and hardly miss, a lot potential of stimulation based unit interactions and diversity are wasted.
With slow projectiles, target leading will encourage zigzag like movements, which is much more micro-ish than moving in straight lines.

Tested it with a laser tower and a zipper, lasers can miss the zipper when the zipper move in straight line, which is impossible if OTA use target leading in game.

I probably should have said that in TA they only get tracking when they reach veteran.

As for you other point. I think its more an issue of pinpoint accuracy. I would rather reduce units accuracy then remove tracking.

Yeah, I've mentioned that before.
In TA, not all weapons are 100% accurate, even for stationary target.
SupCom made them accurate for small weapons, but larger ones like T2 art, T3 arty and even destroyer ship fires shoot with a cone of fire.

It was something I proposed for the radar question.
To have a wider cone for units without LoS.

Tested with a Merl, after it killed 5 units it still try to hit moving enemy target's original position instead of possible future position, perhaps missile launchers are exceptions?
Anyway, projectile dodging in a game with target leading tend to be very unscalable unless the game have Zero-K like combat automations which Uber don't want, so it's much simpler if PA just don't have target leading.

What do you think scaling should be like?

Projectile dodging should continue being a important factor for unit interactions after the battle gone big and the player doesn't have enough apm and attention for zigzaging all his units.

It's an RTS, APM will always matter.
It's like your "3rd" resource. Where to focus your APM.

I think after the battle goes big, the player will need to decide where to spend his APM.
Micro the big battle?
Or micro the deep raid on another planet while the opponent isn't looking.

That make me think that it's the main problem I have with PA right now.

There is not much micro involved. The base building is a no brainer, no real decisions to make.
What's left is tedious clicking everything to overcome the interface. Hopefully that will go away.

Then you have the latest thing that should take most of your time : multitasking tasks over multiple planets.

It's sure complex and intensive, but on a small scale, it's only dull, repetitive tasks that doesn't require much brain power (like starcraft 2 actually).


And strategy? Well, I don't see much of that involved. It's not like you have a lot of different paths to go (once you've cleared the "dox or ant" question).
And tactics? The terrain is flat, the skirmishes are short ranged and short timed, so not really there too.

The situation you are describing, choosing between microing a battle or concentrate on expanding on another planet, just don't happen or is not relevant.

I don't know what is all the hate with "micro" and "upgrades" here, but it's surely hurt the gameplay a lot currently. Micro bring tactics. Tactics are good.

Going for the big, expensive heavy tank or a lot of small T1 tank and map control, depending of the map chokepoints and mass spots, is a strategic decision.
If all units are equivalents or if the map is flat and mass uniformly spread, you don't have that. And strategy is good in my book.

There is neither of that, actually nothing that make me want to launch the game except the depressing fact that I've payed for it and it's wasting some disk space.

This game is about strategic not tactical warfare though. About macro and not micro decisions. After the balancing is done and all the units are added it should be better. They will also add big macro orders like area commands so I bet you will be able to simply tell your fabbers "build a mex on alllll the metal spots on this planet" and they will happily go there way and do it.

And to rant a little more :

Seriously, selecting fabs and click on dozen of mass spots is fun for you? What about having to tediously build t2 mexes or T2 factories by selecting T2 fabbers first, instead of a single click on "Do a T2 upgrade"?

Is that REALLY more interesting??? Why??

Why on earth people on this forum prefer all that instead of making hundred of units and fight with them!?

Because TA was like that? Maybe it was like because it was made 12 years ago and the animation/tech needed to make upgrades wasn't there? Or maybe it was because the idea didn't come up at that time? It has now!

It's really make me sad. It's like starcraft 1 players whining over the fact that Starcraft 2 was allowing more than 12 units selected at the same time.

Err... Read this : http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2013/01/14/the-difference-between-strategy-and-tactics/

The aim of the game is toward full tactic. There is not a single strategic element so far (except choosing a planet give you any advantage over another, but it's a no-brainer, and not really a choice).

The level of control over these tactics is decided by the amount of micro, and some is needed or the skirmishes are dull (like they are now. Unless you ever got excited by a group of ants meeting a group of dox. I'm only talking for me .

I don't think the "fun" factor is lack of micro, I see it as decision making issue.
In FA, sometimes, I'm building a dummy bomber fleet which is actually scouts and executing a feint.
Or shoring up defenses at a choke point, how many more turrets are needed, of which type and how they cover the firing lanes.

But it's not micro in the sense of StarCraft 2 or how the pros play FAF.
I don't really kite that much. I do it sometimes and enjoy it.


I'd rather spend my time making tactical judgement on troop angles and composition and where to attack and from which direction.