Expectations (and managing them)

We need actual communication, not PR and marketing. For example with the Wreckage stuff, the decision has already been made and change applied, so why can't they actually discuss more behind the reasoning? Instead we got "It's not fun" and are told to discuss it amongst ourselves which is pointless when we don't have the context to actually have meaningful discussions.

Mike

That's untrue, dude. Go into the wreckage thread and tell us why you want it back in, why it was cool, and why you had fun with it. You don't need to know how expensive it was for us to tell us about your own experience.

What is the point in speaking our ideals if they're so far beyond what is feasible? I want The Community and Uber to be involved in discussions that actually can be productive.

Mike

I don't know, bro. Doesn't seem like you actually want to express why you liked the implementation of mobile wreckage. Instead, you're just choosing to poop up every thread you can talking around the fact that you maybe didn't like it? I can't tell. None of us can.

That seems to fly in the face of you telling me that I'm "pooping up every thread" doesn't it?

Heck, this thread isn't even about wreckage, it's just one of many possible examples which I chose simply because it was the most recent one that closely match the point I was making.

For the record, I feel Wreckage as a whole is a very important negative feedback mechanism and simply removing the most important portion(Mobile units) of it doesn't solve anything, Wreckage as a concept is fine, great even but it's execution along other aspects of the game results in Wreckage not being able to do it's job. I could elaborate on where the root issues are, but there isn't really any point, we don't even know why you guys made the decision you did outside of "Not Fun".

Plus guys like Ledarsi and MadSci covered hwo things should work pretty well in the Wreckage thread already and I wouldn't what this thread to go further off topic. We can continue this discussion there if you're really that interested.

Mike

No it doesn't. All I've been hearing is the same old, same old across like four different threads.

BUT. BUT! So, as I understand it, you didn't like wreckage in its implementation. You're cool with the concept, however. Glad we agree. And we'll be checking out that thread, of course.

No, Wreckage is fine(ort as fine asd it can be given that it wasn't refined all that much), the problem lies in other elements of the game that don't allow Wreckage to work as intended.

Think of it like owning a super fast sports car and only driving it in a parking garage and the drive calls the dealer to complain about not being able to reach the car's top speed.

It's not the car's fault it can't accelerate to it's top speed, it's the driver's fault for buying a super fast sports car to drive around a parking garage.

Mike

As I understand it, you are coming up on release and need to make some hard decisions. Parts of the game that can be polished to your standards within your time and money constraints are getting polished, but other features need to be removed so that they don't seem out of place or incomplete. Am I close? I don't even think many new players will notice the lack of mobile wreckage at all. It definitely feels more natural than what we had.

I think I can sum up peoples thoughts on this based on what I've read:

1: The implementation of wreckage wasn't actually that bad in of itself, however evidently it was causing problems with path finding and due to the balance of the game wasn't that important. On that basis I can understand why it was removed.

2: Wreckage was *integral* to the way TA was played. It blocked movement and weapons fire for lighter units, and provided an essential resource for better players. TA's balance (in terms of the comparatively limited resources vs unit cost) really made you consider wreckage and many feel that this *should* be part of PA even if it isn't now.

3: Although many may accept wreckage not being in the main game, a few of the modders have voiced concerns that now it's been removed things like the path finding problems will now never get addressed as it will become demoted to a 'thing for mods' and no longer be supported.

I think what may help people accept this change a bit more would be a conversation / statement from yourselves that sets out your longer term aims with regard to wreckage. I think many people feel it *is important* for the game to support fully one way or another, so knowing that it is still 'on the list' so to speak will allay many peoples concerns.

The Kickstarter campaign won't have been half as successful if people had realistic expectations. Multi-planetary RTS is a concept that can run into so many difficult problems that having a few veterans in the dev team is far from sufficient to guarantee the product would be a good one. Telling people to lower expectations is like kicking away the ladder.

I think I heard complaints about structure wreckage blocking shots giving defender advantage, naval wreckage blocking pathing and shots for the slowest moving units in the game, and wreckage not having a good application.

However, structural wreckage gave point to certain units like faster ones or arc ones, naval wreckage shouldn't exist if it blocks naval as it does, and wreckage does have a decent application if you are negative and have an energy-free combat fabber to collect it as free income where your economy is balanced to just-barely-negative-metal like it should.

That all being said, there are underlying problems to all 3.

1) Structural wreckage gives defender advantage, but defenders don't win in this game already so that is an arguement FOR wreckage, especially if combat fabs can reclaim for free.

2) Naval wreckage is a side effect of slow difficult to path naval, make naval leave no wreckage but more importantly have some naval that can move land-vehicle/bot speed.

3) Wreckage currently is free metal considering combat fabbers collect for free, but there being one or more larger mechanics to it would be nice. Just to list a few:
-Wreckage can be reclaimed more than your storage, so if you reclaim while full storage you can have 15k/10k or something.
-Wrecks can be directly built atop of, whatever was underneath slowly reclaims as the structure is built all simultaneously. This means the structure just drains less metal, possibly draining 0 metal, any excess metal the wreck was worth more than the new building is just destroyed or continued to be reclaimed after construction.
-Wreckage is just rubble-debris, so it looks like scant rocks across the ground, can still be reclaimed but units drive over it like clip-through terrain.

That is my opinion on wreckage, although I can support your decision that removal is a good short term solution, I think some of the above solutions might be slightly better even for the short term. As of now I would just remove unit wreckage and leave structural wreckage.

Oh, and as for expectations, this is a kickstarter game. As far as the "kickstarter" genre, this game has reached expectations 80% better than most others. Not even a whole year behind schedule and amazing progress for built-from-ground-up. Few features planned for release delayed past release, all so far still planned to ultimately be patched in. If anything, any shortcomings were lessons learned. Orbital and spherical map gameplay doesn't develop as expected, and some real-early concepts are just plain stupid in the future looking back. Not a big suprise that some things don't work out when planned two years in advance, no plan survives contact with the enemy I guess.

Damn this was a lengthy thing to read, but i'm glad i got through...

To clear my own opinion here, i'm going to put it down in a few steps. It will **** on some things people have said here, but thats the point of having a discussion right?

First of all: to all of you that are butthurt about the features. I wasn't in Alpha, but i heard that most of you that were had to settle for, say, a few units and a few planets. Engine was being tested and finetuned to actually make a core game. "Beta" is where everything opened up, and this is also the point where I myself joined in. We had more units than Alpha gave us, but we were still limited. Everything progressed quite rapidly then and brought us to the point of the game where we are now. They call it Gamma now, but in my opinion this still classifies as a Beta... This is actually the point in the game where the devs would invite the community to help them shape their game into the final stage!

Second: we actually have to commend UberEnt for bringing us what we have now in the timespan they did it. I don't know how much of you will be able to speak of a similar experience but bringing a game from zero to this in the time they did it is an actual feat! Most of you won't deny this, true, but we have to stop and think what we are asking from them here... Most of you seem to forget that games don't complete often in less then 3 years since the initial anouncement... This takes time people. As in everything in life, the saying: "Rome wasn't built in 1 day" applies here aswell. We have been promised a lot, but we can't expect everything to be ready in the time they used until now...

This brings me to the following point: UberDevs, i'm sorry to be "shitting" on your heads here, but there are some issues i did find with the approach you took on some things... You guys did a lot right, but since we are all but human, we are bound to make mistakes. I hope it comes over as constructive criticism and not as a harsh hate post, because that's really NOT what i'm hoping to accomplish here.

1. The kickstarter campaign, is what ultimately brought over all the buyers to support your game. Here you did promise us a lot of features. People paid for it (some with even a load of money!) and are now expecting to see it happen. Which is logical ofcourse. When i pay for a game, i expect it to be finished. Patches can happen, that's absolutely normal, but the core game HAS to deliver!

2. We know you are under a lot of stress, but i think most here would agree if you postpone release to a date where you guys can actually deliver (or at least 90%) of what was promised in version 1.0! It seems to me that you guys rushed some things to keep the community at ease, and now some things are backfiring, which is a shame. We paid for the stretch goals. All of us did. Now stretch the time that you guys need to deliver! We won't be mad, not at all! I think most here would say it is a bold, but right descision to postpone release to actually deliver! Hell, i like this game, it's one of the 2-3 RTS's that i pour time in (Besides SC2 and recently some CnC3 again), and i would love to see it grow! But again: you guys will need to walk the walk and not only talk the talk

3. PR could be handled a lot better, and i'm mostly referring to your website and even the site Steam has to offer. New, interested people see the information on there first. They won't come looking to your forums to find the latest buzz, no they will look at the pretty pictures and hyped up talk on the game's website and go like: "OH SHAIT, i NEED to have this!"

All i can conclude here, despite what others have said to agree or disagree:
Take your time that is needed, no-one is waiting for a game that won't be finished on release day sadly. Update your site asap!While it is too late to do that, Gamma should've been Beta. This was the stage where everyone should've gotten the game and given a year from now, this would've been the bomb, and the overall tension on this forum wouldn't have existed. I'm no developper, and i don't know what time schedule you're facing, but rushing is never good (except in-game maybe but that's another point... )

IF you guys decide to release anyway, make it clear to EVERYBODY (new buyers and kickstarter/beta/gamma participants alike) that all the extra promised content from the Kickstarter will be added WITHOUT any form of extra cost. Anything added above that will be at your goodwill and we'll see what and when that happens!

Here's a TL;DR:
We all need to give UberEnt the time to develop the game the way they intended. Postpone release and deliver when the stretch goals that where promised are also present! The core of the game is grosso-modo finished. Now comes the content creation!

postponing release isnt a question anymore they started polishing up and stated that they are on a feature freeze .. what more content do people actualy want? from here on future content is mostly for refining gameplay ... the base however is set ..
so realy i am only concerned about multiplayer matchmaking and offline ...

Offline play and server access.

i know i didnt particularly say that but thats what i also meant with offline

You know what? PA is good, put the unit cannons in, some big huge stompy krogoths in, and I'm sold.

Well, I was sold before when I saw PLANET SMASH but even more sold.

I do hope there's a PA 2. With shields, and unit veterancy and all that other stuff

I "know" that they are on a feature freeze, but doesn't it strike you odd that still a lot is missing. While i read a post from the devs in another thread that the Kickstarter was more of a "reach for the stars and lets get as much as possible in" (for the dev that i quoted, if i ripped this out of context, please adjust as necessary, i don't want to twist words here!!!). But a lot we were psyched about in the kickstarter is, for as far as we know now, left out. Offline play and server access to name 2 of the technical features, gas giants and the unit cannon as 2 examples of gameplay features.

At it's very core, there really is nothing wrong with the game. It needs some polish, but that is what the devs set out to do so now, so we can't say anything about that. I'm pretty sure that the game will be even smoother and most if not all of the current bugs will be out of the picture.

But features man... We were promised the heavens, yet we only got the sky so to say. While we get more than a lot of other games, you can't really blame people for feeling a bit let down after all that was promised for the stretch goals...

But i'll give them the credit. Release is planned around September-October right? I'll see if i have to alter my opinion by then

They have made some comments recently that gas giants, offline, and server access (the last two are pretty much the same) are getting a lot of work. We might not see them in 1.0 but we will definitely get those. They won't give us specifics but they say they plan to keep working on PA until it stops being profitable to do it.

Gameplay wise, things in PA that are not inhereted from TA or SupCom are mostly about map topology. Since Uber still haven't prove that playing RTS on multiple spheres is a good thing, the game do feel wrong on a foundational level.