Scale Megathread

I've have no further comment on the points you're linking to. We're just not going to agree.
However I will comment when there's something as provably false as "zoom level is irrelevant"

I would like to have much bigger units.. Voted for increase

well then allow me to reformulate, zoom level would be increased in accordance. that is the idea. the result would be an extra click (or none if the zoom in speed is increased by x1.0001) of the scroll wheel.

I voted "decreased" some months ago but i think it should be left as it is now because it wouldn't make any difference because:
- smaller units will have their speed proportionally reduced to their size
- these smaller and slower units would take more time to move from point A to point B on the planets we play on right now
- this would lead to smaller planets because the distance between players would be too long
- the doodads (mountains, crevices, plateaus) would be shrank down because they would be disproportionated to the size of the planet
- and now we are back to the exact same spot we were at the beginning

Guys, we are chasing out tail by wanting smaller units and buildings.

Not true

speed would not be reduced they move in the same speed just bicous the map now feels bigger it would take more time

( change map size fixed )

allot of people LIKE big huge planets where your not rushing the other in the 1st 5 min. and like to build multiple big bases.

( change map size fixed )

the doodads (mountains, crevices, plateaus) Would not be touched bicous then they would actualy look cool. right now our buildings are as big as a mountain. with smaller units building these mountains would basically be used as defense and chocke points way better. right now they are just small objects throwed around the map.

I kinda agree with this.. I think the scale of the units compared to their immediate surroundings is okay as it is now. However what I would love to see is bigger planets, radius >2000…but that seems unlikely at least atm.

they are too small and bicous of this useless for anything

Areawise yes I agree to an extent but this discussion seems to revolve around vertical scale which has only a visual effect.. also i do agree that larger planets areawise would be nice, but you dont need vertical scale for that.

I don't understand how people have so many arguments about what is said here. It is really simple. The comparison of Cliff:Unit or Mountain:Unit or Mesa:Unit should be bigger. It is really darn close to 1. This has NOTHING to do with planet size. This has NOTHING to do with unit speeds. This has NOTHING to do with zoom levels.

All it is, is allowing for more immersion in the terrain. Tactical capabilities right now consist of choosing whether to run through a choke-point or not. It would be infinitely better if there were terrain features that were conducive to strategy rather than simple road-blocks like they are now. A unit should be dwarfed by a mountain.

a million time this

THIS

you said everything that was in my mind about this.

The unit to terrain feature scale ratio has no effect on gameplay, only makes for bigger/smaller roadblocks which is basically just a visual effect..but larger areas and distances for units to travel do effect gameplay.

I think you are arguing we should be able to go up on the mesas etc, which i agree with. You dont need bigger (vertical) scale for this necessarily though.

biger hills roadblocks works like walls its basically add to the game its like an unbreakable wall.

like now they worth as much as a 1 block of wall that you can build and that's it.

Thats a bit unfair to the game..In most cases yes, but you can have planets right now with more extensive terrain features which actually block quite a bit.. Problem is the features dont seem too uniform/natural.

Like I said, you can have bigger roadblocks by area without increasing height.

It absolutely has an effect on gameplay. Think about units that are able to traverse cliffs (spiderbots). When you have a simulated game that isn't just a 3d representation of a 2d set of rules (like starcraft 2), you get this situation where terrain heights matter a ton.

A larger verticality would make the game much more robust in it's capabilities. Terrain features should be terrain, not just props.

Agreed. But wanting the terrain to be more than props has little to do with scale per se. You could retain the current scale and still have more robust terrain.

just look at it

right now a SINGLE building is as big or even bigger then that hill/mountain on the right side
would it be not better if it would be like this ?

This pic is a prime example of increased verticality being only a visual effect. It does look nice, but doesnt effect gameplay. Unless you count building on top of mesas, which is a different story.

only visuals ??

look closer

now you have ALLOT of choke points where you can defend better and your basically have walls around your base.

bicous the scale is reduced now these stuff also are WAAAAAY wider and act like walls.

it not just a vertical increase lol

You do get situations like that sometimes even now, the mesas just arent as high.

I have nothing against the game looking like this, but if changing the scale is a huge amount of work, like the devs have stated, I'd rather they focus on more important changes, like for example terrain being more than big/small props.