Basic Only Matches are Tons of Fun!

I just played a "Basic Only" match.

OH MAN IT WAS SO MUCH FUN.

Rules were, basic units only, no double laser defense towers, no walls, orbital allowed. It was a blast.

The gameplay was all about the things I want out of PA – scouting, tons of map control, and unit movement. Flanking, attacking, retreating, using the different types of units... bots vs vehicles... TONS of fun!

I HIGHLY recommend giving it a try. No tech race – the only thing that matters is how effectively you use your units.

Looking forward to when unit restrictions are introduced so we can play games like this more often (and against the AI!)

A pity that I got the bad spawn and had nowhere to run once you trapped me whereas if I had done the same you could have just expanded out of the back :-<

But yeah, these are tons of fun.

I've been meaning to try a match I've grown to call the "deaf dumb and blind" match, where the only structures you can make are the essentials (T1 factories and T1 eco)

This means no turrets/artillery, no walls, no orbital, and in spirit of deaf dumb and blind, no radar.
I'm probably nowhere near good enough to win a match like this, but nevertheless it seems like it'd be fun.

Edit: By the way, if that sounds like a time and a half, inbox me and if my internet isn't a total douche we could play a match.

wait what? the game can be fun without a tiered tech system? BLASPHEMY! Burn the witch!

Weird, right?

I do feel that the devs sometimes try to enforce a certain playstyle to be the absolute dominant...

Remember when the community was arguing over whether micro should be a factor? We're at least twice as bad!

I'm not feeling this, I mean, if you break it down, every game "enforces a certain playstyle" compared to other games. I feel it'd be more accurate to say something along the lines of there simply not being enough variety yet.

Mike

We're still arguing over whether micro should be a factor.

So, yes. Yes we are.

But here's the difference - there are many, many playstyles in the community. So even if we're twice as bad, one camp would make it so that micro wasn't a factor, one camp would make it so that micro was a factor, and equilibrium would be found.

Take the micro debate - I recently suggested adding individual unit AI, so the CPU handled micro for the player. Another player pointed out that the correct micro appropriate for the situation would not always be applied.

I think that's good. I'm fine - I don't have to micro my units for their "average" level of performance, I can deal with stuff on a larger scale. But the unit AI is only pseudo intelligent, so a human will still push the limits of its performance. I can live my dreams of being the ultimate general of a gigantic army, and someone else can fulfil their dreams of being the lieutenant of the elite squad that changed the fate of the war.

Ahh... Beautiful

Only read the following if you are wearing your tinfoil hat.

To put it another way, I feel that sometimes there has been a consistent tendency to remove diversity over subsequent patches, and the playstyle we end up with seems to be very consistent with the devs playstyle.

@OP
Pretty much.

Turrets and walls are biggest underlying problem right now obstructing varied and enjoyable gameplay. modest turret cost increases in experimental build don't even look like they begin to understand the issue.

Hmmm ... I have an odd feeling ... I'm worried that continued threads/posts like his one from brian... that they will start to "get into the head" of the devs. This may result in the balance that people like brian want, but that may not turn out to be a good thing.

Just a feeling....

Enjoy 'till you can. With the next build we'll have to say goodbye to the Dox, and the Anchor will wipe out stuffs shooting down the ground.

I guess "good" is relative. Honestly, the "no unit obsolescence" side has the kickstarter campaign backing us. The devs have been saying it since the beginning of the game. If they just grew some balls and actually stuck behind their statements, they would make a FANTASTIC game. I have noticed that the people who like tiered tech levels often like imbalance (maybe 60% of you) to which you will always be happy because there will always be something to abuse. The other 40% who like tech levels just like bigger units because it gives nerdgasms{I know this because I am guilty of it--the big units are awesome! balance, however, is more awesome for replayability}, and they will never be truly satisfied without mods that add super-units (which invalidates this unimportant balance nonsense).
I see it as an obvious choice to go with no tech levels. It was beaten to death with supcom; It is time to move on.

#NoUnitObsolescence2014

If we're going with tech levels, we need more than 2.

You need more units per tech level, not more levels.

May as well add a super-advanced and an epic-advanced level to each factory, each with it's own fab. Don't forget the new resource buildings: 80 metal income each for super and 320 for epic. This is totally balanced and I don't see what could possibly go wrong.

That's also true. That's just true in general. If we have tech level 1, we need all the roles that are present at tech level 2 so we can upgrade to them..


Nope. I come from Rise of Nations/Age of Empires/SupCom/Sins of a Solar Empire/Civilisation/Earth:21xx/StarCraft/Star Wars Empire at War stock. All of those games had more than 2 stages in the tech tree. Most of them have a wide variety of units available at any particular level.

Total Annihilation here. Two "tech levels" is fine.