Simplicity is key!

Just had a first few minutes experiene of PA. A first encounter. Thus some important impressions.

PA is very complex and will require some rethinking managing several armies on different planets etc will be challenging and it will be easy to lose overview. Thus the handling of the resources and forces must be as simple as possibe!

Major issues:
* BUILD MENU: the grey shades make it hard to identify different buildings, especially towers; I suggest adding symbols or more unique pics.
* Tech tree: OMG! Is it necessary to have individual builders from 4 war factories? Im my opinion that just complicates things unnecassarily. Builders, especially the commander, should be able to build everything (limited by unlocks and upgrades) and be universal. The simpler, the asier it will be to manage all the construction.
* having two types of ground factories appears redundant: suggestion: merge them to one
* simplfy towers: one type with potential upgrades, attacking e.g. all ground units
* economy: get rid of storage buildings (reduce complexity!) Income storage should be infinite or alternatively not stored at all but provide a limited income based on current production: the latter alternative would also create a key strategic element to capture and hold metal deposits to allow more production, but also to the need to focus on constructing strategically

* Walls - seriously? Its a space high-tech era and there are walls implemented, plus you need to build them one by one (using shift helps though). A game that comes to mind here is command and conquer 2. Why not get rid of them or have shields as in supreme commander?

I think a lot can be learnt from the changes that were introduced in the patches to supreme commander 1 and the more drastic ones comparing to supreme commander 2: this series is the reference standard and UBER can learn from their gameplay evolution (and other game's) to be a step ahead or innovative. A general principle should be: less is more!


Some additional things
OK its gamma. Things I would expect from an advanced vesrsion will be:
* unit health bars being displayed
* unit selections being displayed
* move order clicks being animated
* radar symbols
* [...] there will be more to follow...

You can draw lines of walls. No need to place them one by one.

good to know maybe it was a bit unintuitive to draw lines. In the final game this may be covered in a proper tutorial. However, I still feel unsure about this element.

In general, I think the construction and managing should be reduced to a minimum of absolutely required things.

click+Shift-> draging the mouse curser lets you build a line of walls.

The UI is still being worked on, and other people have complained about the build bars as well. After a bit of practice, you will be able to identify the buildings in the build bar though, so keep up the games!

That is partially the case, T2 can build any structure, other than the T2 factories they were NOT produced by. Otherwise, T2 and T1 are different because of A) balance and B) To allow for progression. There are different kinds of factories (bot, vehicle, naval, air and orbital) because the game needs variety, and T1 bots cannot build T2 vehicle factories because of the balance issues that would cause.

Bots and tanks are quite different, and should probably be kept separate, for gameplay reasons.

I think that some towers are redundant, but more tower types allow for more variety, also, upgrades are a huge NO for PA. Dev's orders!

Infinite resource storage would add a LOT of balance issues (uber cannon, and being able to build things at 100% efficiency for a looong time after your economy dies), I do not agree with this. Economy needs changes and balance, but not in that way.

Area commands are your freind!

already in, might need to fiddle with options though. Unit health bars only appear when the unit is damaged, otherwise there would be too many!

Interesting idea! I'm sure this could easily be implemented, if it's not already on the list of things to add!

Been suggested, and being looked into: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/differenciated-radar-blips.49424/

It is called gamma to remove people's preconceptions of what the different stages should be (alpha, beta, gamma, etc.) so gamma doesn't necessarily mean "advanced", though i'll admit, we are making huge progress!

EDIT: Yes! I beat stuart to it!

1: The UI is being constantly improved.

2: The various kinds of fabricators add to the strategic options. Each fabricator is required for the Advanced Version and each have their own drawbacks and benefits. Yes, simplicity is a good thing, but so is variety and increased strategic depth.

3: Again, two types of factories increases the strategy that is required. Do I want to use bots or vehicles? One factory that does everything (like one fabricator that does everything) results in less strategy being required.

4: Again, simplicity is a good thing but that removes strategic depth. Also, there will be no upgrading of buildings. Again, this increases the strategic depth. If there's one thing that does everything, then there's no thought that needs to go into any of your actions. That makes for a poor strategy game.

5: Get rid of storage buildings? How does that reduce complexity? That just again reduces the strategy and skill required. With infinite storage, there is no drawback to your decisions. You must be a skilled player in order to balance your economy building.

6: You can click and drag to build walls.

7: Unit health bars are already in the game. Check your settings.

8: Unit selections are already displayed. Check your settings.

9: Unit move orders are already visible in the game. Check your settings.

10: Radar symbols? Not sure what you're talking about with that one.

Innovate? Seriously? No other RTS game plays on spheres, let alone multiple spheres, let alone smashing planets, let alone all of the other innovations in this game. Uber is already innovating majorly with PA.

--

What you are advocating isn't simplicity. You're advocating that Uber dumb down the game and remove a ton of strategic elements to the game to make the game easier.

It's a strategy game. You must think about what your decisions. Dumbing down the game like what you're suggesting would be a mistake.

In my opionion some complexity is fine and nowadays the most games have too less, the so called casual games for casual gamers...

-You can draw lines of walls/buildings
-Unit health bars are displayed now when the unit is damaged
-Unit selection is displayed. Even you can see the different types and numbers at the bottom right
-There are radar symbols

I don't think PA is going to be for you based on your comments, things like having separate factories for bots and tanks, separate engineers are pretty central to the game and its overall design really.

Mike

I think there are far more things which define the game than this, which is something that even SupCom lacked. (Not saying its a good idea, but I don't think the central gameplay would be shattered if they were merged).

Overall I don't think the call for simplicity is unwarranted, at least the ones pertaining to the UI. Colored icons in the build menu would be nice, and something as simple as a green up arrow next to T2 factories on the build menu would quickly clarify that this is an "upgrade" over the standard factory and help define the tech tree for the user. I often have trouble distinguishing the T1/T2 factories in the build menu without scrolling over them.

I don't agree with simplifying the gameplay however. At its core it's already pretty simple once you get a grasp for it.

Well I agree to the comments partially. I just raise the issue of overwhelming complexity and the risk of losing overview. Thus, some streamlining wouldn't hurt. Some improvement may already exist or be worked on, but in that case they may be implemented as default.

Just to clarify: I am not suggesting to "dumb down" gameplay. Many comments e.g. missed the impact of not being able to store produced metal or energy.
Admittedly the big innovation of PA is the PA ;-) This is the both the biggest catch, but also biggets drawback. Maintaining overview in PA will be pivitol for the game's long term success.

I will need to spend more time in game to get used the some things, but I felt like sharing first impressions.

I've played both total annihilation and supreme commander(1&2) and playing a week on PA made me understand that it's kind of a merging of these two games.
Well in my opinion i agree with who suggested to add shields: walls are ok, i think they are useful anyway, but a very good shield can ad more difficulty in orbital bombing (really, its to easy to kill a commander with a few orbital lasers and fighters).
I would also add a tech tree maybe for some power ups ( tech tree in supcom 2 its just fantastic), for examples commanders could become real war machines. And cause there are no factions, a little bit of personalization in power ups for units would be great;
Last but not least its experimental level: i really really enjoyed exp in supcom, they just add a new way to end a match without using nukes or rushes, and they are so cool to see in action. These are some ideas for experimentals:
- Mobile Factory (as fatboy in supcom)
_flying fortress (CZAR from supcom could be an idea)
- orbital station (why not put a station in a planets orbit that can produce units?)
- orbital ground nuclear bomber (you know, nukes can also travel on a ship)
- Interplanetary artillery (would be nice, using same physics as other orbital stuff)
- wall-breaker tank( a very big tank, that can litterally smash most units)
- Experimental nukes (maybe a very strong nuke that can, in a huge number, smash half of a planet like hallleys do)
- experimental gunship (old but gold)
- experimental transporter/maybe orbital( if i need to move 50 or more units why should i move them one by one on a transporter)

Ok these are just my suggestions, let me know what you think, in the meanwhile i'll keep playing and thinking about other improvement that can be made

love you Uber,
michele

In reading the OP it sounds like its a call for the game to be scaled back. Honestly (And im not intending to offend here if it sounds like it) Id rather it not be simplified. Iv been playing this for a while now and at first, sure, it felt kinda complex, but as time goes on it feels simple. Alot of it is actually being able to play at your own pace to see how things work and what requires what.

The real suggestion I can make is giving us not only the ability to set how hard the AI is but also to tweak our own economy statistics, like the system used in beta to control how hard the AI was. I find that if you want to experience everything you either; 1) Play against a sandbox AI and get no feed back on how your units can survive versus X defenses/offenses. 2) Play against an easy AI and hope they dont go rouge and become a hard AI(Yes this does happen iv had games where 3 easy AI's turn into 1 Hard AI as it wipes out the others then starts creating massive armies while im just tryin to test out different things (Of course not the full definition of Hard AI but you get enough of my meaning to understand). 3) Get a Buddy to play you ingame and talk with them on a voice chat to be able to coordinate proper tests to see how reactions occur. (For me I have no friends playing this game as they all dont see the point in supporting games before there launch or there not willing to gamble the money that they will like it enough in the end.)

Of course this is just my view not exactly what was posted but helps to give some hints to practice learning what was once complex to me.

Now back on track:

I have to agree with other posters about how the UI is constantly being improved and that Its really hard to say that we will have all the issues of managing all these different armies across the systems, so im inclined to leave that to modders if its an issue at the end.

As for different ground factories, they are diffrent. One is based on faster moving Bot class units which should not be created by the same factory that creates a heavier tank like class of unit(do we have car factories creating tanks? Or for that matter even Semi's? I have yet to hear of them doing this unless they are re-purposed for one or the other... not both). If they merged and used one engineer to create them... then which one? A faster, weaker Bot to create it? Or a slower, stronger tanklike engineer? If we start merging we start losing the ability to define what the different class of units are and thus scale back the need to be able to understand why they are different. Thats not to say merging would be horrible, but would require trying to make a bridged engineer thats between both classes, and that is something I dont want to see.

Ah yes the build menu. Now im mentioning this separate from the UI as this one iv found a way for myself to handle my annoyance with grey structures, and its not that hard. I simply look to what unit im trying to build with. Understanding the limitations of what engineer your currently planning on using really helps to prevent some(not all of course) confusion with the different structures. For instance say I want to build a T2 Laser defense. Well first you need to remember only T2 bots/tanks/flyers/boats fabbers(aka engineers) can create it, thus this eliminates all the T1 and your commander from doing so and helps to make it clear you shouldn't be looking for it there. Now I may have mis understood the real issue and that may have been of having say, a mixed group of fabbers, T1 and T2. For this one I find its better to make the T1 units assist the T2 units. Infact its really handy to get into the habit of defining 1 Primary Fabber with a bunch of assist fabbers following. You can then Bind that Primary fabber to a key to come back to it when ever you need to start Queing up more structures to build. This helps to prevent confusion between buildings for me, and hopefully will help you(OP'er) or others who are finding it a bit tough.

Now I must Remind you(or anyone who is newish to PA) that you can Set up a build Que. AKA you can set up a list of structures and where you want them, built one after another, by holding down the left ****(for me and by default I believe) and clicking the structure and where you want it. This in effect can make it so your T1 fabber can make almost a full base with you focused else ware, aslong as you que'd them all up for the fabber.

Most of the other Posters have already said alot of the material I want to, and of course iv doubled back on some more important things to me.

Lastly id like to mention that your idea for radar icons, I take it, is from the Pip? (Picture in Picture, used as a radar?) If you want icons your going to have to have the Pip zoomed out enough for the icons to pop up and yes that does add some issues of them being to small however once your base grows large enough trust me its more then enough to tell where an enemy invasion is coming in from. The other option that iv been playing around with is enabling the icons to stay prominent even when zoomed in far enough. This seems to more or often then not with the Pip. I have had it bug sometimes and not show icons on the Pip but closing it and opening was fixing this issue for me. The only other thing I can tell by asking for radar icons is actually having say the Radar satellite giving up what type of unit it detects (using satellite just as an example to distinguish between the Pip(as some ppl call that a radar) and the actual Radar ability that units/structures have. If we did add this, I have a feeling it would be way to helpful in planning your attack. Imagen, if you will, that you could tell exactly where your opponents commander is inside his base. This would lead to the strategy of simply finding his icon... and nuking it multiple times to overwhelm any anti-nuke's and the commander all at once... which would not be fun at all.

Anyways I hope my view helps in some way and does not offend >< Id much rather help then hinder... even if its an issue that gets some heated debate.

EDIT: Made spelling corrections and to clarify some sentences.

Funny, I find this game a lot simpler than most other RTS's. It's a lot more microbased, sure, and it requires you to pay attention to different fronts. But it's still rather simple compared to SC2, Civ V and others.

Helps when I'm at school and it's impossible for me to post on the forums.

I think we are all mistaking depth with complexity soo i tought it might be handy to help with the disscusion using this video of extra credits, just soo we can improve this discussion a little once we know more about those two important mechanics

I remember reading that they weren't gonna pursue the experimentals thing from Supcom. So no Monkeylords for us this time. =P

As for orbital shipyards, I totally second that as a way to crack open super-entrenched planets. If it were me, it would produce a roster something like this:
-an advanced tier orbit-to-orbit warship
-an advanced tier orbit-to-air / orbit-to-surface warship
-an advanced tier unit carrier (with a big payload, like 20-30 units)
-standard orbital fabricators

I tend to agree with midspark, in reference to the OP's first post. PA seems fundamentally, like, REALLY simple. There's no upgrades or tech tree or anything, just units that build units that shoot units. None of it really feels like complexity to me, just raw depth. I find it very refreshing. ^^

This isn't really the place to put in those suggestions. It'd derail this thread from its original purpose. Also, you should do a search before posting on some of those topics. There's been tons and tons of discussions on every single point you made on there. Much of which isn't being implemented for very good reasons, or is already in the game, or is already confirmed.

I agree with most of what OP said. Merging bot and vehicle fac would be cool, but reducing the number of different engineers would really, really be awesome. It's just needlessly complicated and it's a pain to look for that advanced bot builder in the middle of everything.

PA is a game of depth. Depth should not be sacrificed for simplicity, which is what this thread is asking for. I'm all for simplifying needlessly complex things that don't add to the game's depth. This, however, is not one of those things.