Next tiers?

i want the 30-unit interplanetary transport, I know there's the gate but this would be so cool! (we could put the gate at a later stage)

Adjacency, the simplified tier system, multiunit transports, super units, shields, commander upgrades, Pretty much everything supcom added they have ignored. Even the title is a thinly veiled nod to TA, it's not called "supreme planet smasher".

• Adjacency? ... lol,
• Simplified tiers? Ok you got me there, SupCom was toddlers play when it came to knowing that 2 was bigger and better than 1, 3 was bigger and better than 2,
• Multi-unit transports: TA had the Hulk & Envoy,
• Super unit: TA had the Krogoth,
• Title plays on the hopes of 16+ years of hope from TA players for TA2 (or similar): They'd be idiots not to.

Are you trying to deny that it is far more similar to TA by listing ways in which the game is similar to TA and ways in which you do not like supcom?

The tech tree is almost exactly like TA. They actively avoid creating units that are similar to anything that was unique to supcom. They create units that are similar to units from TA. They use the same name for the resources. That is clearly what they are going for. You can't deny it. They even have the same roam/manuever commands.

Almost everything is like TA, very few things were taken from supcom.

Not getting into semantics with you bmb, if you can't infer what I mean when I take your 'examples' of how SupCom was 'innovative' and dash them to the floor in a shattered mess and instead try to change the subject that's your lookout.

SupCom is the major influencing game on Planetary Annihilation so far. We have a trivially simplified energy generation system with zero options, we have tiers that cause the obsolescence of earlier tiers, we have 'upgrades' rather than specialisation across not only units but turrets and Eco structures, we have an ACU not a Commander, we have some pitiful fusion of all the worst things about the Overcharge cannon instead of the very simple D-Gun and we have Commander explosions that tickle other Commanders.

These are facts bmb. I deny nothing that you propose, merely point out that your arguments are dead-wrong on all counts.

I refuse to be drawn any further down your goalpost moving, subject changing mess of a debate technique unless you reform your arguments into something approaching rational debate. Stop making up 'truth' and then refusing to back it up with any kind of facts.

You must be delusional to think that T2 in TA wasn't more powerful than T1, T1 wasn't made useless but it was absolutely weaker.

The term ACU is nowhere to be found, that is an untruth. Supcom death nukes were deadly at release, another untruth. You apparently have nothing else. They took strategic zoom and left it at that, everything else is pretty much TA. Excepting the unit cannon from supcom2.

By simplified tiers I don't mean in terms of escalation. I mean instead of having bot factories and vehicle factories and hovercraft factories and basic and advanced versions of everything you just had the land factory for all tiers, and everything was made at this one factory. It is far easier to manage and thus superior. An innovation that was rejected in favour of the same kind of mess we had in TA.

Semantics, why should I have expected any different. The TA commander wasn't a tank. The ACU was and the PA Commander still is.

T1 units had some of the most powerful weapons in the game and mounted them on often cheaper (though not always cheaper) chassis. The Leveler for example, a basic CORE tank, had a weapon that did more damage than a majority of Adv. tanks.

SupCom Com'splosions didn't destroy factories and certainly didn't kill other ACUs. There's code that supports that claim by the way, they did reduced damage to factories and ACUs; hidden exceptions to the rule. I can link you to it if you like.

You also fail to address the other points I brought up. I'm not surprised; it's your usual MO when you're short on facts to back up anything you say.

1: adjacency is dumb as it forces one specific build and stifles options and diversity
2: simplified tier system? uh...
3: multi unit transports will be added later
4: super units make the game all about super units, which is not PA'g goal
5: bubble shields are OP and do not fit into PA's gameplay style. They would be a mistake to add.
6: commander upgrades are dumb. protect your commander. don't send it into the heat of battle.

You mean this code?

Code:

{
            CollideFriendly = false,
            Damage = 0,
            DamageFriendly = true,
            DamageRadius = 0,
            **DamageType = 'Normal',**
            DisplayName = 'Death Nuke',
            FireOnDeath = true,
            FireTargetLayerCapsTable = {
                Air = 'Air|Land|Orbit|Seabed|Sub|Water',
                Land = 'Air|Land|Orbit|Seabed|Sub|Water',
                Orbit = 'Air|Land|Orbit|Seabed|Sub|Water',
                Seabed = 'Air|Land|Orbit|Seabed|Sub|Water',
                Sub = 'Air|Land|Orbit|Seabed|Sub|Water',
                Water = 'Air|Land|Orbit|Seabed|Sub|Water',
            },
            FiringTolerance = 2,
            Label = 'DeathWeapon',
            MaxRadius = 1,
            MuzzleSalvoDelay = 0,
            MuzzleSalvoSize = 1,
            MuzzleVelocity = 0,
            **NukeInnerRingDamage = 70000,**
            NukeInnerRingRadius = 30,
            NukeInnerRingTicks = 24,
            NukeInnerRingTotalTime = 10,
            NukeOuterRingDamage = 500,
            NukeOuterRingRadius = 40,
            NukeOuterRingTicks = 20,
            NukeOuterRingTotalTime = 10,
            ProjectileId = '/effects/Entities/UEFNukeEffectController01/UEFNukeEffectController01_proj.bp',
            RackBones = {
                {
                    MuzzleBones = {
                        0,
                    },
                    RackBone = 0,
                },
            },
            RackRecoilDistance = 0,
            RateOfFire = 1,
            TargetCheckInterval = 9999999,
            TargetRestrictDisallow = 'UNTARGETABLE',
            Turreted = false,
            WeaponCategory = 'Direct Fire',
        },

*whoops posted the FA version by accident

The PA commander is far squishier than the supcom commander. In supcom an upgraded com could 1v1 an experimental and win. Which is also a good design decision as it strengthens your connection with the most important unit in the game, and keeps him relevant in combat and construction as armies and economies escalate around him. After a certain point in PA, your com is just something that should be put at the back and defended.

You didn't bring up any other points.

Are you even lucid right now? You are trying to justify why TA is better than supcom order to prove me wrong about how PA is more like TA than supcom.

Selective reading, hmm? Ok, let me just add that to the long list of problems you have with rational debate.

How does one relate to the other in any way?

That TA is better than SupCom has no bearing on which one PA is currently aping.

Also, the code you have is of the latest 'official' patch to SupCom? SupCom: FA? FAF? The Community Patch? Which one are you holding up as the defacto truth, may I ask?

Ahh, you edited your post. I see. That's the latest 'official' patch version and not the community v3603 patch, which is what I played.

When I bring up examples of features and design decisions that supcom had, that were unique to supcom, that PA does not, in order to support my point that PA is more like TA than supcom, all you do is argue about why those things are bad, you don't deny that they are not in fact in PA.

Do you think balance Is a feature unique to TA? And that PA is like supcom exclusively because you think it's currently imbalanced? TA was never balanced, not ever. Supcom was far more balanced, even if the tech escalation - something that doesn't feature in PA either - often left low tech units in the dust.

But as pointed out, half you examples aren't unique to SupCom. And the ones that are unique to SupCom are almost universally bad gameplay choices that undermine the initial premise and core gameplay parametres.

PA is repeating the same mistakes. Tiered unit levels / economic upgrades, Commanders built like tanks and a focus on scale over strategy.

More than half of my examples you haven't even addressed. Again you lie.

You'll have to point me to those examples bmb, because between myself and brianpurkiss, I think we've addressed every single one of your examples and torn them apart in short order.

You have not addressed that the tech tree is identical to TA, you have not really addressed anything. All you did was try to justify why the TA/PA way was better, you never denied that it was that way.

Just providing a retort in a bullet point is not the same as "tearing" anything apart.

Identical to TA? In what universe did you play TA in where Adv. units were universally better than basic?
Are you talking about there being separate bot and tank factories or something?

If so, that's a hilarious point to hang your argument on. If you're not satisfied with my addresses to your points I'd like you to point them out. Saying I've not addressed anything is a copout and makes me believe that you just don't like my answers, rather than there being anything factually wrong with them.

If I can take your example and provide counter-evidence in the form of a bullet-point then it just shows you how woefully flimsy your initial argument was. I have not lied once in my assessment of your examples, and I'm very displeased that you continue to say that I'm 'lying' when what I'm providing is facts. You're just bringing personal opinion into the argument rather than facts.

They were better, not better by as much, but they certainly were better. I'll copy paste my earlier post.

Do you think balance Is a feature unique to TA? And that PA is like supcom exclusively because you think it's currently imbalanced? TA was never balanced, not ever. Supcom was far more balanced, even if the tech escalation - something that doesn't feature in PA either - often left low tech units in the dust.

Do you even know what tech tree means? In supcom all factories were built by all constructors. In TA you built basic factories, which built basic constructors, which built only advanced factories of their specific type, which in turn built only advanced constructors of that type. This is also how it is in PA. This is one of the ways that PA chose to ignore supcom despite the benefits, as I've already explained earlier the supcom way is simpler and more manageable.

Hi bmb,

I can see points from both sides of this. I played TA and Spring for a long time and I've also played Supcom and FA.

I agree with you that structurally PA is more similar to TA. What I would say however if that factories in PA are *much* cheaper so where in TA you'd play with a single factory for most of the game very often, you'll usually have all the t1 factories up and running in the first few minutes in PA so it doesn't really restrict you in the same way. I'd also say there are lots of good things by having lots of independent factories rather than just a few as it gives you the ability to mix up your build queues and give you the bigger mix of units overall.

I think what Nanolathe is getting at though is more about *feel* than structure. Now this is a subjective thing so if you don't agree with me here I can't really say anything against you- it's just to me the way unit's work, the quantity you have and the general pace of the game feels allot more closely aligned to SupCom than TA. TA was quite a slow game to be honest- you played much of it with 1 lab, so the initial decision of what factory to start with was a big one. TA also had allot less resources in general- you could win TA games by scavenging for rocks to boost early metal- you started with enough metal to just about run 1 factory and that was all, it was a really scarce resource until much later on. PA on the other hand is much quicker, you simply can't sit with one factory for any length of time if you want a chance of winning, and assisting factories isn't really worth it (at least for t1) due to the load / unload times and so on (in TA units left immediately which meant assisting 1 factory was often better than making 2). The speed and way the factories operate is defiantly more aligned with SupCom than TA although I'd say PA is taking a slightly different approach to either and that's not something I'm against.

The unit interactions are also different- in TA units were very strong, you could have a battle for several minutes between groups of tanks and so on- and with repair it could go on indefinitely. Stuff simply took along time to kill (unless you d-gun it that is!). In PA the units are generally quite weak (with the exception of vanguards), so a tank battle is over very quickly, SupCom was in-between on this front I feel.

Now you are correct that they aren't including alot of the features that SupCom was sold on- and they're also missing quite a few things that made TA so popular and engaging. I do feel a bit sorry for Uber here as we have 2 very passionate fan bases and they're treading a very fine line between the 2 groups to try and please as many people as possible (but by definition this means upsetting quite a few as well). What I'd say is that PA has it's own unique features that are really quite something. The basic game is simpler than TA and SupCom, and that's to allow the scale to increase. In Uber's defence I think it would be unreasonable to have TA levels of unit micro and complex interactions in the scope of what their doing with PA. It's a similar case with some of the more complex set-ups in SupCom, players need to do something then forget about it and move onto something else- so that generally means no upgrades, no fine micro, no special abilities. They have made a bit of an exception with regards to the commander but even there he's been kept allot simpler than commanders or ACUs were in the past. What this has achieved though is mind blowing (to me at least), I mean this is the strategy game I used to dream of as a kid and though 'nah it's not possible'...

We have fully-leaded proper solar systems, with multiple, unique planets. We can travel between them, zoom in close and end up with a classic strategy map and start building and fighting on them, then zoom back out and start planning invasions of an entirely different world. We have gates to move quickly between them, we can move them, send nukes between them, I mean guys- this is awe inspiring stuff! PA is the first Sci-Fi RTS game to really give me the feeling of fighting a war in space, and it's fun! Ok Uber aren't able to follow allot of good things from previous games, I too would like to see some of my favourite things brought back, but lets be fair here what we are getting is something on another level!

Edit: I'd also say that PA doesn't need to be TA or SupCom- TA has pretty much died off now, however TA:Spring is still very much alive and kicking so fans can get their needed dose of classic micro D-Gun wielding fun there. Similarly SupComFA is still going strong on-line thanks to FAF.

Balance points don't define a game, mechanics do.

So the 'tech-tree' mimics TA, but the units that they build, and the fact that T2 is universally better than T1 mimics SupCom. The fact that the majority of the game is going to be revolving around the (presumed) multitude of units rather than the comparatively fewer factories, I'd say that this isn't much of a point to base an entire argument around.

The game plays like a mongrel hybrid between TA and SupCom, with none of the nuance of the former and all of the problems of the latter.