Making the game competitive. Current and future problems.

Unit cap. That's pretty essential info, its pretty much always represented in any game that involves it, and if it is present, it isn't obviously present on SupComs UI.

While PA's UI isn't finished, it does give you all the information you need when and where you need it.

I am pretty sure FA has a unit cap display per default?

Correct. It did display unit cap.

I don't understand how a game becomes competitive and popular without it just being what the community wants the game to be.

Sure a proper UI is essential, but even for a casual game its important.

Balance can be a real kick in the teeth, one that I feel like Starcraft has either struck gold with or is digging its own grave by constantly changing it (I lean towards the gold as the changing meta keeps people interested, and makes the competitions very high stake) as unlike other sports or say board games changes how the game is played instead of having a defined set of rules that are constant.

So I am not sure what people really expect uber to do to make the game 'competitive' when that's the job of the people who play to actually put up a competitive game.

Correct. But that's FA, not vanilla supcom.

are you seriously using the vanilla argument? do you think PA's devs would like it if you judged PA by it's vanilla state when they stated over and over they're going to continue development on PA after realease as it pretty much will be unfinished?
in any case that really is the nitpickiest thing I have ever seen someone say. "it sucked because it didn't have a unit count".

Consider this : how much of PA is influenced not by sup com's but by Fa's final state with mods? well probably alot if you consider there's a mod for homeing and auto-firering Tactical Missile Launcher that someone on the dev team (sadly) must have taken a liking to. How about how that FA's GUI was inspired by a sup com GUI mod with tremendous success?

And to cap it all off I honestly think the E.T.As, click and dragable (and deletable) waypoints for actions and construction queues, the factory construction queues complete with nifty, convienient and accessible loop and pause buttons are lacking in PA.

for example "pause" in PA isn't a pause symbol, it's energy consumption and it's a drop-out menu. more clicks.
no templates. or template sharing, or template rotation.

(I'm going ahead and start also listing the things that are likely to be added) no map markers or pings. no togleable unit range rings. no assist factory to copy queues and rallies. ect ect ect.

so really I'm with you if you say "PA's UI is going to be better than SupCom's one day!" but if you say "The existing UI (for PA) is already substantially better than SupCom's" then I'll have a good laugh at you and tear your statement down.
One thing to admit though is that PA's UI is obviously very strongly inspired by FA's and other games, as update after update adds elements that we relish from supcom (or zero-K). I'm personally still waiting on the pings and the loop button, if not to mention a better access to pause.

Personally, it was the macro, UI and bind optimization that kept me playing WoW PvP for years. Still didn't achieve anything noteworthy, and good players were doing fine with just default UI. Keeping the game fair is important, but no matter how level you make it (and risk blandness), people still find ways to externalize losses.

Yesterday someone was worried that PA is not adhering to the tried and true formulas well enough; that it's rocking the boat too much. I think the boat should be rocked even more.

And concerning the e-sports. Maybe it would be better not to officially announce support (like Uber is doing?). But keeping in mind, that for the game to thrive, it needs hard- and softcore players both. Because those audiences feed off each other.

Yes.

Vanilla doesn't mean Version 1.0.

Vanilla means SupCom Version 1.Whateverthehellversionitreallyis, without expansions and without mods.

I am playing SupCom, without expansions, because Steam, for whatever reason, is not letting me upgrade to SupComFA.

Therefore my point is entirely valid.



Yes, Supcom does a whole load of more complex stuff on the UI. But there is no indication, whatsoever, that you are approaching the unit cap, until the lady tells you can build no more units.

I can't think of a single other game with a unit cap which doesn't make it HIGHLY obvious that every building you build contributes to the cap.

So far, PA's UI more or less gives you the basic information that you need. Personally I ensure I've covered the basics before I cover the advanced stuff.

Yes, rage all you like. Personally, for me, I do think that PA's very basic, Beta UI, has provided a very solid foundation to improve on, because it has already surpassed SupCom's level of providing basic information to the player. It is a compliment towards PA

Rage at me about SupCom on the SupCom:FAF forums

Wasn't there a score card in SupCom that had the unit count on it?

Yes, I think it was shows up after pressing F2.
Also it is your own fault for not playing FA. You can't really complain about missing features when you refuse to upgrade to a better version that is available since _years_
However I agree that the basic SupCom Vanilla UI indeed is not that much better than PA's UI.
It took up waaay too much screen space.

Hm, I'm pretty sure that the crappy UI was fixed in the latest patches too, up to something close to FA UI in the end.

For me to be interested in PA competitively, it would require a total revamp.

Ie. the initial spawn point.

The idea is nice. The execution is terrible.



Spawning in the water, or in the water, or in land, that's not a choice.

Also, even when you have 3 valid spawn points, some are obviously more viable than others.

That's something you can analyze when you know the game, but not when you are learning the game.

So, that system is actually making the game harder for less skilled players, and even more importantly, harder to learn (did you lose because of your BO, a decision in game, or just because you choose the wrong spawn point? That's a terrible new level of complexity when checking your replays).

That's not something you want if you want your game to be competitive. It will drive away new players just because they will be steamrolled by a player their level that just learned to choose the right spot.
That's like learning all the "cheese" in starcraft 2 before starting to learn the game, it's stupid.

Also the slow start with that stupid BO not starting with factory (yeah, the mythic egg, I know, the thing that nobody saw, nobody know what it's about, but that will make the game miraculously great and balanced).

I know it's being rework, but I highly doubt it will reach a point where every spawn point is equally viable, with only some pure strategic decision influencing your choices.

Even if the spawn area are equals, the mexes won't be.
Or at least have an option, default On on ladder, to get symmetric maps.

I won't go further in my list of flaws, it's too long and useless as I will have the usual "it's will be reworked!" answer (or the "but it's PA, so it's great" answer).

Wouldn't all your concerns disappear with some premade planets? With pre set systems, with pre set spawning points and through thought landscape? I don't se way the pre set system can't live together with the planet generator.

But it is all going to be reworked!
Which is an annoying answer, but it is true. Look at how SupCom Vanilla looked like in the few screenshots you can find via google that show it's prebeta state. Look at the gameplay of SupCom at that time. Compare it to how FA looks like today.

...

I can see it!

Wow. Way to touch a nerve in this thread.

It's rather a completely pointless argument to make. FA is not vanilla supcom. It isn't a patch that adds it in, I have to pay for a brand new copy of a different game.

I'm making a comment about a missing feature in SupCom. I don't care about Red Alert 3: Uprising, Earth 2150: Lost Souls or any other standalone expansion you care to name.

I'm not sure that citing Starcraft II for map design is the best idea. The game is notorious for each map being a near-clone of the other, with "base on high ground with single ramp choke and nearby expansion site" being ubiquitous across ALL MAPS. Even if the community wanted to rock the boat on this, the way the game's been balanced demands that this remain in place or racial tactics immediately throw fairness out the window.

1v1 balance is vastly different from team play balance. If you have a tiny Scale 1 moon, then fine, make it symmetrical. But random generation is still a big part of the game, and should remain so. Altering the planet generation algorithms - or having alternate modes for it - would be fine. For example, having set spawn points for players on a world and building out from there with fair resource distribution.

More than anything else, people keep forgetting about round planets. There are no corners to be backed into. Wherever your opponent is, you can go where he is not. This facet alone should make start locations and, with good strategic play, terrain features largely irrelevant.

I feel like maps are going to be inherently unbalanced.

So did you try looking for how to enable the score board? Cause that has a unit counter on it. I am pretty sure it has at least.