Let's assume that Uber continues work on PA for many years...

My biggest fear is the esports community. They managed to dumb down WarCraft to DOTA (and all it took was a mod that simplified the original game), and they will try to do the same to PA if it ever becomes significantly successful. The bigger the mass of players, the lower the lowest common denominator will get, and the more they'll clamor for simplicity. I don't believe that Uber will dumb down the game considerably to appeal to their tastes, but I do believe they will stop complexifying it once they see that this acts as a break to financial success. So on the one hand I want more players to adopt the game so that it keeps being financially viable, and Uber keeps developing it, but on the other hand I don't want more players, since past a certain point they will undoubtedly have a negative impact on its evolution. I guess what I am trying to say is that I want QUALITY players to adopt the game, which is what it's already doing since most people have a natural distaste for complexity. It's just a question of how far Uber can keep pushing the complexity envelope while attracting players and remaining afloat. And esports is both an opportunity and a danger to this endeavor. For my part I plan to include an in-depth review of PA in a book I am writing about the greatest games of all time, as well as drag as many of my friends along with me in team-play-exclusive matches. For the rest, in Uber I trust, because I must.

Well, that about sums it up.

LoL is a fraction of the complexity of PA, which rather defeats your own argument to make PA more complex and therefore less accessible to players.

Actually I'd argue that overall, LoL has more complexity, just that the nature of the game is such that you're only ever exposed to a portion of it per match it it changes depending on the map, allied champions roles enemy champions, item builds and so on and so forth.

If we were talking about depth, I'd say that Pa certainly has more potential there.

Mike

I think we're in agreement. LoL manages the amount of complexity exposed to the player, as you've said, where PA exposes it all at once. I can't imagine how adding another strategic layer isn't going to make that complexity more difficult to manage.

I still don't think that's entirely fair, it's not like LoL's Complexity is purposely hidden to make things "easier". Not to mention that there are so many variables that the amount of total complexity is HUGE, think about it, How many Champions are there? How many Roles can each Champion reasonably do, How many Item Builds are there for each role for each champion? and you have to try and keep as much of that in mind and only in the period right before the game starts and the first 5-10 minutes of the match do all the variables get "Locked" in, ther are some choices you can end up making "Blind" to boot!

PA may still have most of it's complexity "up front" except for the whole "timing" based progression Uber is going with but there is still so much LESS complexity overall.

Mike

>comparing a F2P MOBA to a semi-tradtional RTS with a streamed economy
u wot m8?

I think you're talking about something different than icycalm and I are, then, and I don't see how it's relevant. We were never discussing total complexity; we're talking about the task & information overload involved in managing battles on multiple planets in in real time, which increases as the battle goes on.

Just because you have ten thousand units and a bunch of unit types doesn't make you more complex than a MOBA, it makes you more crowded. Dota and League have been refined so precisely and constantly over the years with the goal of adding depth and complexity to the smallest choices - whether that works on not and whether you enjoy it is debatable, but you can't say they're "dumbed down WC3" just because you only have one unit.
Not that it matters, unless you want to brag about "hue I play a smarter game than you do"

I'm sorry but *space would be useless* to them. There is *nothing there* to fight over.

If there is no strategic importance to something, why bother with it?

Space battles are a thing *if you need to use space vessels to reach something else*. This creates an opportunity of *intercepting and destroying said space vessels before they can threaten your important asset".

In PA- we have teleporters and commanders designed specifically to *negate the need for vessels entirely* ergo there is nothing to intercept, no reason to build the ships.

I'm not against the idea of a space based game using the PA engine, but PA itself- your argument is about as strong as the "we must have super units cause super units are cool".... Don't get me wrong, I love space games, but PA is focused on planets. Also the game is more than complex enough for team play as it is, it really doesn't need any more to focus on.

Warcraft had a very healthy vanilla eSports community for a long time. Mods such as DotA, popular as they are and were, have been a decidedly non-eSports affair. Up until the point they were elevated to standalone titles. Which then formed new eSports communities around those. But the old communities had dwindled at that point already.

Apart from that, Warcraft and DotA have the setting and the engine in common. Heck, you could even include World of Warcraft in that comparison and draw the same conclusions. The gameplay at their cores has been fundamentally different from the get go, and the difference has become even more pronounced over time. Complexity was shifted in the process but never reduced - quite the opposite actually.

I would definitely agree with this, yeah. About the only point in a space fleet is to control or deny access to resources, which in this game means planets. Teleporters already negate space travel almost entirely, so you're tying up masses of resources to build a space fleet to ... stop a fabber getting through?? Sounds like a strategic suicide to me. Plus if you want to blockade a planet, you can already use the orbital layer.

This changes if you allow your commander to board a ship in your fleet but that just encourages massive turtling, and turtle games are usually boring.

I've already said that every single argument against space can be made against air. What is space? It is a higher kind of air. Where does air end and space begin? Why do all of you discount space bombardment? It can already be done from the orbital layer, you will say. Well, the orbital layer IS the space layer -- only with units that cannot move, or can move in a very constrained manner. If you constrain the space layer, why not also the air layer? Force all air units to HOVER, because blah blah blah the game won't work otherwise.

You seem to think that it is physically impossible to make a good RTS that incorporates a fully featured space layer, and that the human species is genetically incapable of getting to grips with such a game.

It is becoming comical. Spaceophobia lol. In a game about planets. Unbelievable.

Open space and orbit are two very different concepts.
Orbit has a planet (or significantly sized planetoid) to fight over. Open space has... nothing.

If you want a space game, Homeworld and Homeworld 2 still exist and are apparently getting a re-release with HD-ification.

---

Besides, PA currently does Orbit about as well as it does Naval (ie, not well at all). I'd hate to see how it would butcher full 3D movement in open space.

Also Descent, Dead Space, and Star Citizen. You are right, I didn't think of those. They are perfect for me. I'll go play them now and stop whining about space units in a game about planets.

And since PA butchers orbital and naval, I think we should move to have them removed from the game. Should start a thread about that.

You've said that, but you've not presented any arguments compelling enough to convince people to agree with you. Whether you like it or not an atmosphere is tied to a celestial body, be it a moon, planet, star, whatever. So I disagree with you - there's plenty of arguments you can make against a space layer which definitely don't apply to the air layer (which is atmosphere).

With regards to space bombardment we already have SSX and Anchors; while that doesn't exclude other types of bombardment from space, it wouldn't really bring anything new or extra.

As to the orbital layer constraints, that applies to the Anchor and Orbital Factory only. Both are in a geostationary orbit - they didn't *have* to be, but that's how Uber's designed them. The Anchor's clearly designed to provide cover for a specific area; take that away and it might as well be another SSX.

As to why that stationary constraint can't be applied to the air layer, that's because a geostationary orbit's limited to a pretty specific altitude, which is significantly higher than the air layer.

YOU seem to think that if people disagree with you it's because we must all be morons. Our argument is nothing to do with it being impossible to build a good RTS with decent space combat; our argument is that IN THIS GAME, we don't feel that space combat adds anything new - it's just more of the same for the sake of adding space combat.

The following two posts are just sarcasm - guess you ran out of arguments.

You wouldn't hear a complaint from me about it.

Okay, so you agree that is is possible to built a good RTS with decent space combat. Great. And since no one else is making RTSes anymore, never mind with planets in them, that's precisely why I am asking that PA add them. And that is precisely why space battles are one of the most asked-for long-term features for this game. Your "our" is misleading. Plenty of people want space battles, and there was even a dude in the first page of this thread who is making a mod for them. I would just prefer it if it was official so that the art-style of the new units etc. would be done by the same person who did the rest, so everything would look consistent, etc.

What I am hoping is for space layer creep. I.e. for the space layer being slowly expanded, as with the coming gas giants, which will bring more space units and buildings into play. And as Uber continues to add more and more units to the game through updates and expansions, they will probably add more "orbital" units too (i.e. space units with limited movement capabilities). Eventually someone will ask for the capability to attack units in transit between planets, and this will bring us one step closer to the opening up of space. Finally, a few expansions or even a sequel down the road, Uber (and most players) will realise there's no other significant way to expand the game than by fully opening up space, and it will happen. As long, of course, as the game remains financially viable, which is the premise of this thread.

Come to think of it it's actually better if it happens in a sequel, so that people like you who have a problem handling space will still have a game to play, and everyone will be happy.

Compared to almost any other feature, not really--unit cannon, mega units, ladder, not very much about space battles. Not to mention that Uber has already stated this as a "No."