POLL: Environmental Effects - Engaging or Disruptive?

Thank you very much for this fine example! Might I say that this could even be toned down yet still be impactful: Instead of damaging aircraft they could be slowed down - this would lead to similar results (ground based anti-air is more effective causing more damage) but is more predictable and needs more effort to be exploited to maximum effect.

I'd blame the weather forecaster.
Random events that influence gameplay in a serious, competitive game -> NO!

Oh and the point of a competition is to see who is the best, not who's lucky that day.

And here I stand, having thought that there are people out there who play card games competitively. It seems they all play constructed decks as soon the game is played seriously?
In all earnest, though: Preference does truth not make. I do appreciate fairly balanced games. But as long as random elements are clearly identifiable and predictable in scope they can be incorporated into any decision made. If you choose not to weigh the costs and benefits and get screwed over because of that, who do you think the blame is on?

I support and agree with the statements above.
If the events were localized, the starting locations were not near any of the hazardous areas, the events were periodical, and could be influenced by the player, these mechanics would add a new tactical layer to the game.

If these were all true the events would not be random.
These type of mechanics would add risk/reword situations to the game increasing tactical gameplay.
Even in competitive gameplay (if the statement above is true) these events would help any player that is smart enough to take advantage of them, and punish any player dumb enough to ignore them.

It'd be interesting to see what UBER think of the community interest expressed in this thread, as 81% of votes have indicated they want at least 'Tier 2'?
Or just an acknowledgement that you guys have read this would be <not sarcasm!>genuinely awesome</not sarcasm!>.

If the hesitancy is over the extra work:
Obviously there are specifics to be decided, but behavioural/economic modifiers as general ideas? A lot of the Tier 2 ones would be movement speed/sight range modifiers, and the Tier 2 economic ones would be number-based too, modifying current elements of gameplay, rather than introducing entirely new elements like Teir 4 - which is still very popular but would be more of a task.

I feel Teir 2/3 would provide greater tactical opportunity and strategic diversification to both terrain/planets and unit types which would benefit competitive gaming. These aren't random events - they can be integrated well into macro gameplay, and add the necessary depth for complex play in which units don't have 'passive'/'active' abilities as in micro games.

Mmmmm, Shai Halud!

Yes it would be nice to see what they have to say about this.

I also find it almost shocking that tier 4 has the most votes. As long as they are localized, the starting locations are not near any of the hazardous areas, they periodical, and can be influenced by the player, I am good with them.

.. Just no meteor showers XD

None of your ideas. PA is not about micro its all about streams of units, strategic decissions nobody cares about those 20 bots on hill, they will get steamrolled with 400 of gunships no matter where they hide. Your ideas fit more apm games like starcraft 2, PA is a strategy, not even tactical level.

One meteor shower ^^ with engines.

1. My ideas? These are widely discussed general concepts, though I provide specific examples which have come up repeatedly in Environmental discussions.
2. I agree, PA is not primarily about micro. Unless you count using your Commander/Nukes/Holkins/KEWs and other individual yet valuable units.
3. These suggestions do not turn PA into micro, they simply acknowledge where your 20-2000 bots are.
4. Gunships are OP, but none of the concepts discussed in this thread would prevent 400 gunships steam-rolling 20 bots. Behavioural and Economic modifiers simply aim to acknowledge that an environment is more than a pretty backdrop. These may be robots, but a tree or scree is still a physical obstacle.
5. I have played Starcraft/Warcraft since their dawn. I played them alongside TA. I know what micro and macro are. If my suggestions were to give units player-triggered abilities, your post might make sense.

There is also space weather, which can cause orbital installations to malfunction.

In general, if you want to make the game more strategical, adding random events might be desirable, one definition of strategy being: making plans when faced with uncertainty.

I'm certainly in favor of a wide range of environmental effects, because you can always decide later on to not have them in the game.