Building wishlist

This isn't starcraft 2 and never will be, so no weapon and armor upgrades. But how some people use the word complexity in a negative fashion is starting to annoy me.

I'm dealing with this all over the forum. some people should just buy a shape sorter toy instead of PA.

Some people need to watch more videos on the internet.

depth vs complexity

personally more depth.

ninja'd

Tell that to scrooge not me ....
complexity aswell as depth can be archived through various ways
one way would be the use of asteroids imo

What I wanted to say with my last post that this is complexity i dont want into a game like PA

I thought from the context you were speaking to me.

Yeah well i did .... as i assumed that was what he meant with starcrafts complexity when you asked him for explanation ... i could be wrong though

my post about complexety was related to Teods and Occusojs posts......


he discribed this game as pretty damn complex


and pretty damn complex it isnt yet

This game will have more emphasis on strategy meaning there will be greater degree of depth then complexity. Also all units are not in yet as far as I know. That should be taken into consideration about complexity.

Disagreed

Building wishlist:

-A planetary version of the Duke Nukem 3D shrinker weapon for shrink all the units on the game to properly scaled ones.
-A tectonic geo-engineering weapon that transform the current mush into realistic contients, large oceans, giant mountains, deep valleys and strategically interesting natural geological formations.

I know the difference between depth and complexity.
But you sometimes need complexity to create depth, don't you?

A rts that is too "simple" won't be much fun in the long term. There is only so much depth you can draw of the amount of complexity a game has.

Basically, adding more complexity is always a good tool to increase depth until a certain point, where more added complexity slows down the flow of the game. And we are far from reaching that point.

I want a game with lots of different ways to win, forcing to choose between many different strategic choices than only "build moar tanks than enemy and flood him to death".
I'd like to engage myself in a long term strategy, making choice, building and adapting it instead of "high frequency trading" tactics.
Problem is that the game is way too flat and homogeneous for that.

You don't need more tanks than the enemy, just more tanks where it hurts. Advantages are positional and economic.

I can't really imagine what a 'long term strategy' in PA would even constitute, other than a focus on obtaining superiority in a particular field of battle or on getting orbital early.

No it just adds a delay element to the game.
SupCom2 made it worse by basically adding a 3rd resource to gather points to spend on a tech tree. Homeworld made research simple but all it did was cause a wait time before you can build that tech. I much prefer a tiered or upgradeable setup that PA and SupCom1 has. So all you really need is the resources to build it.

Don't forget that in FA, time was the third resource.