Some in-game policies that need debate :

alright just to clarify for everyone, as I realize I didn't go into detail enough :

what the problem is here is that when you're in the zoomed out view with strat icons (you know the view you use often if you play alot?) you can't tell the two apart and you might reassign your engies to something else before you're done. even if you are at 99%, something I've seen alot of casters do. even Zaphod.

I'm not sure you were there during the alpha days but before the unified camera view (which was my idea and something me and @Culverin campaigned for successfully), back when the solar system view was 2D and was a separate view from the planet view, with a long transition time between the two, the planet could be spin around without zooming in and out by scrolling on either sides, it was immediately instinctive! You could go anywhere using only the mouse movement and scrolling the scroll wheel! Sadly the devs believed this could not be associated with the unified system and planet view whereas I firmly believe it can be, with clever behavioral rules. I've been reminding the devs on a regular basis : https://forums.uberent.com/threads/official-camera-feedback-thread.54623/page-3#post-836495

yes, thank you.

I don't quite understand why you say that. I this isn't a question of difficulty to code but of cost, mostly in terms of internet bandwidth... I believe. So if you have the connection to run it, why not an option?

I can't believe what I'm hearing. confusing? it's more information, information that you should be looking for, wanting. information that I'd normally be expecting you to be trying to memorize so as to correctly fight your enemy, but this is not the counter-argument I was expecting. You don't want this information? you don't want to know? what?
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/differenciated-radar-blips.49424/page-2#post-764593

Here's a link to my personal host of Unconquerable's March 19, 2007 article about Strategy : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MJOvJ31cLWFGELJRIZ6X2irrskpI4ML5mIi3SxmEehk/edit?usp=sharing

other than that I agree with everything everyone answered. If the way to limit moving big planet is to have the number of halleys required to move it be more than what that planet have room for then problem solved. no random rule.

Confusing as in it would take a while for me to get used to, seeing the proper icons and it not necessarily meaning I have vision on the targets.

You have fow, radar and vision. Fow you don't show icons, vision you do. Radar you show blips if someone doesn't have vision but does have radar coverage. What you suggest is what they did plus a fair amount of additional tracking, on a per unit basis. That may or may not add up to a reasonable cost somewhere down the line with thousands of units but that's besides the point. I can see why they went for the way they did, namely it was (probably) at least a little less work.

I said I don't mind, either what we have now or what you suggested is fine. There is no need to be melodramatic, I have an opinion that doesn't precisely tally with yours. Italics and underlines are not going to change that.

Like the mechanics you learn when picking up a new game? this game isn't even out yet BTW /Sarcasm
No, seriously.
it's not confusing, it's everything but confusing. it's logical from A to Z.

tell me in the link I linked to what part you disagree with.

that's not true, you really haven't been looking at this game closely have you? everytime a unit is within FOW but also radar range you don't see it's model but you do see an icon. the radar blip icon.

the thing that sparks me up is that you don't grasp that this wounds the game in a severe manner.

Trying to mimic Starcraft by introducing handicaps that force the gameplay towards Micro is a terrible choice that will ultimately result in the game not meeting it's expected public.

In the video game industry we have hundreds of examples of this. Square Enix with the Final Fantasy 11 and 12 catastrophe and Gaz Powered Games with their Supreme Commander 2 are the most flagrant examples I can think of.

Trying to be like what's hip, what's in, is deliberately deciding that your target audience must be switched from Geeky Glasses Guy 1, Nerdy Nimble Newt 2 and Actually Faithfull Fabulous Fellow 3, towards Chimera A, Phantom B, and Apparition C. And what do you know... no sales. No duh Sherlock! Not one person on earth fit the description of the target audience. People who got the game were only partially satisfied with it and it doesn't matter if it was a long time fanboy of the franchise and company expecting Z, or someone who would've never had been interested by their older game, a whole new customer expecting Y : they were both disappointed!

This is the main reason why I think the intel policy is a terrible move, but really it's only for the sake of playability, of fun, of practicality ....of sane logic for crying out loud.

This is not to be brushed aside as a lightweight issue. this is why I answer you on this matter.

Could have the icons display a under construction icon, while being built.

Shade them differently or make them "fill up". Problem solved.

you need to have in on this debate.

I'm sure as a first measure I need to properly make sure you've understood my idea.

the thing is the thread was long and in it I had alot of people misinterpret the OP so I know it's a possibility. Go ahead and give the thread a proofread.

I slightly abused the term fow. It seems obvious that I was defining three areas; vision, radar with no vision, and neither. Maybe it wasn't obvious. Being passive aggressive isn't helping you get your point across, neither are dubious assertions or representing opinions as fact. I'm not being aggressive saying these things. I'm saying you might as well put those tools back in the belt, because they don't contribute to us having a reasonable discussion.

That said, there's not much left to discuss. My opinion is not strong. The only reason I rendered it at all was because I thought about your opinion and posted something tangential.

Some nice suggestion out there and I could not agree with all of them more.

​

The intel thing is one of my pet little bugbears too Tatsu, the radar contact feedback is super-limited right now and while it is possible (eventually) to differentiate radar blips by observing their characteristics fairly consistently, it would however be rather nice to have the blips themselves conform to unit-class types (Land/Air/Naval/Structure) at a basic level, I.E sans strat' icons. But like Trial I do not consider this part of it in-particular to be a very pressing issue. I tend towards fondness for the way PA in particular, places more weight on scouting manually or automatically in order to gain the upper hand. That said, your suggestions in this area seem sensible enough and fairly reasonable.

My biggest problem with the intel system so far, is the lack of useful positive feedback on the location of enemy structures. It's close to impossible rediscover enemy structure and/or base locations with any degree of accuracy on larger planets and I tend not to play on them for precisely this reason. Once scouted, these structures should be adequately and positively represented in way that makes them considerably easier to spot after the fact. In the end , it doesn't even matter if Uber use strategic icons or not to indicate their position, as long as I know where in particular and precisely which player the structures belong to. I could probably live with utilizing the zoom for some Mk.1 Eyeball analysis. This has after all benefited some rather tricksy strat's in the past and boy! do I love the tricksy strats.

In short while I agree more macro is good thing, this doesn't mean I want eliminate all micro, that's just a turn based strategy.

​

Would like to avoid click a button or two every five minutes kind of gameplay if I could.

But if you had a vision on a unit and maintained radar contact - shouldn't game remember the unit for you? Because currently if you want to do that you have to open a PiP window and follow it manually instead - that's horrible, horrible micro. It's like removing ghost-buildings after you scouted. There's no gameplay excuse for that.
Same goes for general unit types: If you've seen radar blip fly - you already know it's an air unit, there is no point for the game to hide that information, even after it lands.

It's not information gathering, it's information maintaining. And it's already possible, just with tedious amounts of micro. We need to cut the micro and leave the info.

yeah, thank you for that reply, my point being as I very well exposed in another post that there is never any need for developers to "add Micro" to any game. The players at a competitive level are always going to do that themselves and come up with buckets of it no matter even if you are trying to circumvent it as best you can.

there is nothing you can do to stop at least a little bit coming into being out of thin air.

But if you attempt to "add Micro" not only will you end up with heaps more then what you intended but the competitive scene will add it's own on top of that.

that's because when you're a dev, you're not the number one player for your own game. You can never understand or be as good at your own game as the ones who play it day in day out. So you can't expect to be fine tuning micro and macro, you never will be, it's not exactly something with a fine dial.

oh you will ^^ don't tell me that's how you play now ??

i´m on the fence with naval, i definitively don´t want any gates for air and orbital ... having gates to every layer would be just soooo cheap ...

imo it should be possible to at least transport any type of fabber inculing naval fabbers with the austreuses
and i´m almost convinced when hovercrafts get implemented being transportable as well there will be better ways to put planet to planet aggression of almost any type except gas giants ...
as for transfering naval units .... if i had a gun pointed to my head choosing weither to transport ships or to get them through gates ... i think i would choose gates ... i´m still not keen on it though ...

Right now we have a gaping hole when it comes to naval. There's a bunch of issues with it, but one of them is invading all/mostly water planets.

We need to be able to transport naval and/or air units.

I vote that teleporters be able to be built on the surface of the water and send ships through.

Simple, no new mechanics, no new balance.

Thought it probably needs a new model- a larger gate that sits partially underwater for the hull of the boat (which would look awesome btw)...

no new content, no new functions ...

100% no to air teleportation .... seriously it´s just lazy and boring to use the same gate strategy for every layer ...

what says it's the best strategy? what if the planet is well defended and you can't keep a gate up for more than 10 seconds?

in that case other strategies must be employed. like the unit cannon, smashing, nukes, multi-unit orbital transports.... something else.

not only this but allowing to gate more units would lay the pressure on Uber to balance naval air and land correctly.

hence why TRANSPORTS AND CARRIERS should be in the game in the first place!
so you don´t have to build beacheads all the time

also who said it´s the best strategy? that´s not even the point at all ...

gates are there to get a foothold on a planet, and you get that with land or naval units, those are your main firepoweroptions so those are what make more sence to be able to gate in
if you want extra airsupport, then either get that in with carriers or built it on the planet
and if the player managed to defend himself well then you just need to simply be more aggresive or should have been aggresive in the first place ...

transports should be generaly an ALL TIME option ... unitcannons would be a turtlersoption
a Player himself should be flexible and use every option given to him, if you are so stubborn and insist to keep your playstyle while failing then you deserve to lose ...

as said before hovercrafts would likely be (assuming uber implements it as i currently think they would) THE all arround unit for general aggression for any planet (except gas giants) as they are almost as mobile as planes but would have the drawback of being not as safe ... planes wouldn´t be even as neccesary ... and gating imho should be focused on the ground and naval ...
having ground with bots tanks and hover craft and having naval with ships, subs and hovercraft would give you already A TON of options so that air would be just the tip of the iceberg ... ballancing however has nothing to do with the gates ... those units need to be generaly balanced weither you use gates, carriers and transports, unitcannons or non of them ... those are just means of transfering units ...

that's... predjudiced and your own opinion.

now that's contradictory to what you said just before. I too believe escalation of commitment is the strategist's bane (it's the forum goer's bane for that matter as well ^^) I never said I insist on keeping my playstyle, quite to the contrary, you must've misread my post. Re-read what I said.

of course its my opinion ... but prejudiced ?
building unitcannons is the savest option for transfering units ... you don´t need an exit point nor a beachhead
just a save landingzone and differently then gates you might be able to send units everywhere you want on a planet while gates are fixed ... and similar how you do with gates you just build an armyproductionbase have 2 or 3 unitcannons maybe even more and then black out the sun with the ammount of units launched, be it from a orbiting or maybe even nonorbiting planet ...
gates however require you to get on other planets, unitcannons don´t ... the only question would be if your units will be vulnerable during transit ...

now transports and carriers are what may require extra protection but differently than the other 2 options you will be able to send any ammount of units you want at the same time ...
the unitcannon and the teleporter only send unit after unit so you need more gates/unitcannons to send more units at the same time ...
and while you obviosly need more transports for more units to transport you may not need to wait as much until your whole army arived at the planet unlike the unit cannon ... and you would be able to land anywere you want and even able to correct your landingzone ... again gates are fixed ... units launched with the unitcannon may not be able to change their landingdestination once launched ...

w/ the Commander Balance, we can take FA as example and do 2 things
Buff the Commander Health by double: 12,5k -> 25k
Buff the Commander Health by nerfing everyone damage: Inferno 400->200(for example)