Air Stacking and Environmental Effects Questions Acknowledged :)

So after being basically blanked in livestream chat for three hours, I've concluded UBER really don't want to talk about Air Stacking and Environmental Effects.

This is a shame, as the community has come out vastly in favour of both of these and yet despite being as irritating as possible, I (and anybody else who asked about these things) have been ignored.

What's up Uber? Do you not agree? Is it too much extra work?
Just saying "We have/haven't discussed it" would be great to know that you guys have the same interests as the community for the game, or attune design to community interests.

I know Jon spoke about trees and LOS being a big undertaking in the previous livestream, but sight range need not be direct LOS - the radius of unit's sight could just be reduced if they're in particular biomes (like thick jungle). That would be an 'IF' scenario, as opposed to giving every single unit direct LOS.

I really don't mean to have a go, I love the game - it's my favourite game and I'm a RTS geek. You guys are doing awesome things.

I asked literally dozens of times about stacking air units. And then finally someone else asked and got a half answer. :-(

I'm opposed to most environmental effects. Particularly unit destroying environmental effects.

It's a bit worrying lol.

Me too, I was originally only in favour of environmental effects which modified behaviour, but the community is vastly in favour of this or above (economic modifiers/disasters).
80% wanted Environmental Effects, which was surprising to me.
I was worried about unit destroying environmental effects. In the thread, we basically agreed it would only be ok if they were predictable/timed, or player triggered (nuke a volcano). That way you don't randomly lose anything, and can use them strategically.

We're all idiots. If we got the game we wanted, we would kill the game.

That's not very Democratic! xD

I know, I agree, but removing Air Stacking is actually much better for gameplay in terms of being able to put a number on the amount of damage bombers can deal to any particular spot, and unit behaviours altering based on their surroundings would do no harm.

I don't tend to answer questions that I don't know a clear answer for. It's called work in progress. I don't know which way it's going to turn out.

This isn't a Democratic process.

So you've at meat been thinking about it? If so then I'm happy with that answer.

That's fine, I know it's a work in progress - an awesome work in progress that I cannot stop playing!
We just wanted to know whether that stuff was on the table or not.

Sorry if I came off as aggressive, I love you guys >.<

Speaking for yourself.

It is what will be, and modded what won't be.

Somebody who disagreed with what 80% of other people wanted might say that lol.
I'd call a crowd-funded project about as Democratic as a design process can get.

I have faith Uber know what they're doing. We can see that. I just don't want these issues getting buried, because (particularly Air Stacking) they have been a game-breaking issue since TA.

And besides, do you know how fast chat flies by? It's way less of ignoring people and much more just trying to work through the sheer amount of text flying by on the monitor.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'air stacking'.

And I would not expect environmental effects before launch. Environmental effects have been tested in about half the RTS games I've worked on and they often get pulled because they universally take away from the game experience, not enhance it.

When air unit occupy the same space they are considered 'Stacked' ontop of each other and can do massive amounts of damage in a short space of time.

By air stacking, he means AIRCRAFT STACKING IN ONE SPOT.

Bombers do this occasionally, and they all drop bombs at the same time, effectively making it a force multiplier..

@scathis these

All I want are giant sandworms on desert planets.

That's OK, I know at times it was practically impossible to read all the nonsense in the Twitch Chat.
I also completely get that you don't want to talk about stuff you haven't talked/considered together as a team.

Both those threads I linked to in my OP discuss both Stacking and Environmental Effects at length, but I'll give you the TL;DR:

• Air Stacking: When Air units can sit on top one of another because they don't have physical parameters like Land units do. This leads to Air units all 'stacking' one on top of the other as they attack a target. With bombers, this means you can have a potentially unlimited number of bombers (and thus potentially unlimited amount of damage) dealt on a single spot. Thus, a single 'Stacked' bomber pass can instantly kill anything from a Dox to a T2 Army Blob to a Commander.

• The Proposed Alternative:
  • Giving Air units physical dimensions would mean the damage they deal to the ground could be quantified, because only one bomber would be able to hit a target at a time.
  • To stop the Atmosphere becoming completely full, Air units would be able to fly over and under one another, and if they could not avoid an enemy Aircraft they would collide with it and explode.
    
  • This would not only prevent games aimed to "Spam more Fighters" in order to secure the skies - as after a certain point, hostile fighter swarms would collide if they could not avoid each other.
  • It would also mean that Bombers were used to carpet bomb areas, rather than to instantly kill Commanders by dropping 100+ bombs at once.

​

• Environmental Effects: As far as this goes, I agree some effects might detract from gameplay, but to say they 'universally detract from the game experience' is a broad statement. The Environment already impacts upon gameplay. In the Poll I split the Environmental Effects into different Tiers which I graded based upon how disruptive they would prove to gameplay:
  • Teir One: Obstructive Terrain - Valleys, mountains, mesas, forests, seas. This is where we are now.
    • Within this is the issue of whether forests should act as obstructive terrain, particularly for smaller units like bots. This is Teir 1.5 in the Poll.
  • Teir Two: Behaviour Modifiers (Based upon Terrain/Weather) - Atmospheric conditions such as fog and cloud affecting line of sight. Thick jungle slowing down units. Open plains being quicker for tanks to traverse whilst rocky red mesa terrain is quicker for bots to run around in.
  • Teir Three: Economic Modifiers - Bonuses for certain biomes or planets - e.g. a metal boost in metal/lava/mountainous biomes.
  • Teir Four: Natural Disasters - Volcanoes, Tornadoes, Acid Rain, Lava/Sea Flooding. Arguably the most disruptive to game-play and sure to be modded whatever happens. These could be player-triggered, predictable or timed in order to allow players to control them and work them into strategies.

I feel that Teir 2 and 3 in particular actually involve the player in these awesome, varied procedural worlds that you guys have created. They provide new strategic opportunities and character to different units in a natural and realistic way - of course Tanks are better at traversing a muddy wasteland; of course Bots can move better over mountainous scree than tracked vehicles can.
To lump these effects in with volcanoes and tornadoes is to deny these beautiful planets the chance for character.



Furthermore other RTS games do not ignore terrain's effects on units. Total War has different Terrains. Civilization V has terrain modifying unit behaviours. Even Starcraft has creep and pylon radius affecting unit behaviour. Why shouldn't PA have tanks move faster over a flat desert than over mountainous terrain? Or have jungles reducing unit's sight radius and being impassible to smaller units? These things add depth and variation to gameplay, and encourage players to adapt in different ways to different situations. They make procedurally generated maps actually impact on gameplay as more than a backdrop and a series of obstacles.

I love ground warfare. I feel it's where the heart of TA style RTS lies, as nothing beats being on the ground with your robots, burning down forests and interacting with alien worlds.


Anyway I hope that illustrates what these threads are about, sorry it was a lot longer than I planned it to be
Also I think the game is coming on brilliantly, and I am having a ton of fun playing it at the moment so...
Keep being awesome!

Indeed, it was fun. We asked the same question, how many times... seven times?

Even if they did seem to ignore us, I trust that will find a solution.

Air Stacking is indeed an issue.

Personally I would prefer if we could be encouraged to use Air more as Support for Land Units, specially in open fields. And less as a hammer for sniping a Commander.

In that regard, I feel that the T2 AA is still weak against big blob of T2 Bombers or Gunships.

I had a couple of games tonight where carpeting a base with T2 AA ended up being less effective than having a couple of Missile Ships nearby. Those ships are awesome, they chunk planes like *grissini* in pizzeria.

I understand that Uber didn't want to comment cause they hadn't thought about Air Stacking. The Balancing Air (Stacking) thread has over 2000 views, 130 votes on the Poll and is a month old, however
That said, I doubt anybody wants to read all the bollocks I come out with lol.
They know what they're doing, for sure.

I don't understand why you think this is such a big problem. If anything it would make it easier to snipe a commander. Formations fixed stacking a lot. How would you react differently to 20 or 50 bombers? How would your proposal change the game?