Should Build Speed be Reduced?

Neat. Will give it a try when/if it happens; I consider this a ray of hope. Hopefully Uber too is secretly planning a mega unit(s) somewhere down the line.

Complaining about "lack of unit depth and strategy" is about the same as complaining "the game is unfun to me". Totally generic and doesn't say a thing about what to improve.
What is unit depth? Does FA have unit depth? TA? Starcraft?
I can see why PAs rather simplistic units are supposed to lack "depth" in the sense of special abilities and I can see that PA has not as many unit options as FA. For special abilities: PA probably will never get that, just like TA and FA never had that as well. That is a different genre. Yes the "every unit has a special ability"-camp apparently is a few magnitudes larger than the "units automatically shoot and that's it"-camp, but TA, FA and now PA are part of that smaller camp. For more options in the unit roster: There are still a bunch of unused and rather boring units and Uber is currently reworking those bit by bit. They even added new units to the navy selection.

So under the definition of "depth" that I understand I certainly agree PA could have more, but Uber is clearly working towards that since weeks, no actually since month and the current version of PA shows already clear improvements towards that goal if you compare with the release version.
Thus I have no idea what exactly you even ask for or that mysterious "broader community" that apparently doesn't care enough to even state what they think is good. Probably because they have no clue what they even want and can only come up with generic criticism to the issues PA certainly has.

Basically what I don't like about that criticism is that it doesn't say anything at all about what should be done to improve the game.

Its not the lack of depth, the depth is more or less there it just isn't delivered in a way that is interesting; that is it can come across as stale or sterile, some units could be re-purposed or modified to provide a less boring feel.

And yes it is entirely subjective whether the game is fun or not, but like it or not, that is entirely the point, and the reason why polls in this forum seldom tell the whole picture, they are mostly canvasing the opinion of those who have stayed in the hope of driving uber's design decisions in their favor and to advertise their own various visions on how it should be when uber goes a different route. Most of you have good points but mostly in service to the pipe-dream of perfect balance and absolute zero units that are upgrades (and this is an interpretation IMO as a Leveler and an Ant/Bolo are entirely different just like a Scorpion light tank (yes real tank) is entirely different from t-90u heavy tank, ie not an upgrade merely a slight overlap where the heavier unit can do some of the stuff the other unit can), this is a direction i am opposed to because it is treating competitive play as the first citizen over general fun.

Problem with experimental units is that they will ruin the aesthetics because they will be half the size of the planet. And you can't make small experimental units. Hard to identify them, they don't look intimidating, etc.

Not exactly, the original megabot could fit in an advanced factory. Though it'd be hilarious to see one on a teeny tiny planet.

Second sentence. Isn't that what I said?

Why would you build one on a small planet? When I said teeny tiny I meant scale 100 - 200 or so. It's work fine on anything above that I'd say.

Ah, okay. I still think it would look somewhat silly, but I think it would be a great idea if the max planet size was about double what it is now.

I made a mod for megabots a while back; used Uber's original concept model to do so. This is what I ended up with.




Not that big compared to that factory.

This complaining about lack of depth is truly interesting, especially when it is not substituted with any other forms of arguments apart from "there's only x amount of units compared to y amount of units in a".

Truth is, this is not how depth works. You can have 40 different types of units but their actual depth is not defined by the amount of different units but rather, how they interact with each other and how much you, as a player, can actually do about the outcome of their interaction.

For example, naval units. Naval is cool and all, but if there are only small ponds where it can be employed, there is really no point (unless they are designed around this, which would be really odd design choice; having supposedly mobile units stationed in small ponds, sounds like structures on special surface to me). So if there are only small ponds, all of the naval units will bear nothing in terms of depth because they won't be interacting in any meaningful way with anything. And that's the reason why they won't be employed.

And this is the complaint. There's "lack of unit" or asymmetric factions that fool you with this sense of depth. Yes, casual players might find this as "lack of depth", but really, what's the point of asymmetric factions apart from this?

But let's explore the depth of PA in sort of mathematical / logical perspective. The goal for every match is to destroy your opponent. In order to solve this equation, you must add the proper constants around the variables. Each constant represents a choice you make, whereas variables are either static (for example, spherical map) or dynamic (for example, your opponent rushing towards space) conditions.

From the very beginning you must start factoring in these static variables with your constants. Are there other planets? Would their dominance grant your victory? How are the nodes spread out? How easy it is to defend them? Is there a lot of water? How the surface is spread out; should you emphasize on air or not regarding this? Should you dox raid or go tanks? How many nodes can you access from your starting point without expansion?

And then, as the game progresses, the dynamic variables come into play. The location of your enemy (though, asymmetric maps will make this variable static). What is he building? Dox or tanks? Is there air? Where is he expanding towards? Is he going to space (not in LSD sense!)? How well does he manage his units (eg. you can easily take out a group of poorly managed tanks with a bunch of well managed dox)? Are his fabbers rogue or protected?

These, as examples, give out the sense of these variables. They also interact with each other. For example, running out of metal gives pressure towards acquiring more MEX (dynamic variable) but on the other hand, the amount of this pressure is also affected by static condition of how the metal spots are spread across the globe.

The problem is not in lack of depth but rather, that unlike what devs envisioned, the games usually will not last so long to actually have significant amount of these dynamic variables to occur. Games are decided too early on. This is not because there is lack of depth but rather that the variables present mostly at the surface usually are most important for the equation.

Reducing building speed won't help here, because it won't change the fact that amount of MEX captured early on will usually solve the game between two players of equal skill. Therefor, to solve the equation, you must solve the equation of how to acquire more MEX early on while denying MEX from your opponent and protect what you already have. This, nearly in all cases, translates into winning the game. Adding experimental units will not add more depth because they will not change the outcome, because it's decided usually before T2 even comes to play. Adding asymmetric factions will also not add more depth, just the illusion of it, because by definition of asymmetric they have to fit in the same meta as it is right now. Adding research tree will add minimally to depth, because most of the researched tech will not have any significant impact in the outcome, just the early ones which tend to be predefined by static variables (so there's no more than illusion of depth).

Can you see where this is going? Exactly, there's right now a ton of depth that is not being used especially in 1vs1 matches. I think this is what PA devs should focus on - smoothing out the current situation so that nukes, halleys, interplanetary travel and the like will become more important variables than they currently are. Right now, you're unlikely to employ something as trivial as a nuke in a situation where a spectator can't tell the winner. Let alone use halleys or death ray. Heck, even T2 units are unlikely to come in before the game outcome is decided.

How to combat this? Well, balance updates, just what the devs have done so far. I just think the problem is not identified well enough to be dealt with. Balancing units is important, but if the ultimate problem is not identified, then the balance decisions aren't as likely to concern it but rather other issues.

I've given numerous examples of how the game lacks depth and unit divarsity throughout this thread. If you choose to ignore the examples that's on you.

Great post!

No, that's not what you have been doing. Giving examples of features that, in your opinion, add depth (and magically happen to be features that you want PA to have, right?) does not equal to examples of how the game lacks depth. At the very best, it equals to how PA does not match with your perception of depth.

For example, slower pacing is not the same as more depth. It's an adjustment that players will adapt to. Slower pace will have the effect of smaller fights occurring which will make emphasize micro further at the cost of less emphasis on strategic decisions. This is because microing your toys will have more significance for winning matches and you will be forced to spend more time on managing those toys whenever combat occurs. If, however, their movement speed is also relatively equally reduced, the rate of occurring fights will be smaller and thus there will be more time for strategic decisions. Building speed decrease will not likely result less fights of same volume because a small group of units can do great damage to economy if not dealt with. And if you add more health to units, again, this will prolong the duration of fights. So you essentially increase the importance of paying close attention to these fights while also increase their duration.

You claim this to increase strategic aspect of PA. How does that exactly work? All I see is that the tactical side of PA will yield more significance at the cost of strategic side. See, "personalizing" your soulless war machinery actually means that you will have to put more attention to them. Now tell me, when your attention is not focused to these soulless bots, where is it focused at? Exactly, strategic aspects such as your map awareness.

Proof that PA lacks depth? None. I can seriously handle your other suggestions in the same manner, but it would be lot simpler if you understood that your prefrontal cortex does not provide you with infinite attention span that you can spread evenly everywhere.

And by the way, I love tactical game play. But when I want that, I don't seek out for any game in RTS genre because they literally don't have the slightest amount of what I consider to be "tactical". When I crave for tactical game play, I go to steam & launch Men of War. Sounds like a perfect game to you; every soldier you have has his own inventory and soul. As well as every vehicle out there. They might run out of ammunition or other supplies such as oil. Tanks might lose their tracks - but you can fix it by assigning a soldier. But you also have to have a repair box - usually every vehicle comes with one or even two. Tanks have very detailed models; bullets might ricochet, penetrate, explode on surface without any damage (or penetrate without any damage to tank, but might kill a crew member). There's a ton of different tanks as well as other vehicles. Ever heard about Karl-Gerät? Me neither, until they destroyed my miserable defensive line I had to set up to protect evacuation process in Sevastopol, without me even knowing what the heck threw those huge shells. Best part of it? You can control any unit directly. In the newest game with the expansion that recently came, this can be done even in third person.

Fear not, there won't be no zergs, because that would be really stupid and lead to loss.

Get where this is going? PA is not that kind of game. And that kind of game is not PA, it has very elementary strategic aspects; you only want to think about your objectives which usually means "how to capture the next point / where can I breach the lines best", which might not even be defined as strategic problems. PA compromises much of the tactical game for strategy, like the original series in RTS-genre did. As RTS evolved, most of that was about introducing the tactical layer. Something that Total Annihilation, Dune, StarCraft & CnC had little to none. Only few exceptions occurred after that, such as RUSE or Achron and now PA. Could you, please, allow PA to be one of the exceptions or do you really think that we need more of what we already have en masse?

Unit depth is a term often thrown around here, and it seems some folks may be confused. This apparently foreign term (who knew) has a definition, albeit a *soft* definition that could be meant one way or the other.

Unit Depth is a measurement of the number of choices presented to you in the unit roster for a given situation. It can morph into unnecessary complexity by adding so many options that the player becomes swamped with possibilities, leading to confusion. A "good amount" of Unit Depth changes from game to game. For example, the interplay involved between bots, tanks, and air provides a lot of unit depth at the T1 level (excepting grenadiers, ofc) - but once you hit T2, you are given a lot of choices (about the same unit count as T1), but only a few viable units. This would fall under the category of unnecessary complexity. However, T2 also opens up a lot of options (nukes, halleys, annihilaser, super-turtle with defensive structures, etc etc.), which is great for unit depth. Unfortunately, orbital does not possess this advantage. Orbital's Unit Depth is absolutely abysmal, in that there is one layer of play. It's one dimensional. Anchors v. Avengers, all day, every day. SXX vs Umbrellas, Anchors vs Umbrellas, etc etc. It's binary. It's not even rock paper scissors - just rock v scissors. This is an example of an area in which the game has zero Unit Depth.


That said, most of the problems with the game's unit depth could be easily solved by assigning the left out units (such as the bluehawk, gunship, T2 Bomber, and vanguard) specifically vague roles to fill, and balance from there. Orbital is the only exception - it needs new units. I'd love to see the four that OWOM added (anti-heavy capital, anti-light capital, anti-ground capital, light scout with high speed). I've yet to find a solution that can provide as much depth to orbital without getting complex and confusing. It really works. If you are skeptical about the mod, we have a tourney next weekend. Join up! Maybe I'll host a training day or something to get everyone up to speed with how the units behave and interact.

Beyond that, there are some serious problems plaguing the balance between metal spent on expansion and metal spent on units. It's not a good idea to expand aggressively from your base - it can hurt your blob size, which is almost definitely a bad thing in a 1v1. Prolific dox use also seriously hampers expansion in the early game. The ability to put a unit that can kill an engineer on sight in all of your opponent's mex expansions within three minutes is a powerful tool. However, that tool really stunts the expansion game on both sides and encourages turtling (or, at the least, a defensive strategy. No one turtles who knows how to play well ).

Finally, there is no mechanic by which you can recoup your losses after a fight, in order to continue the battle. I'm talking about reclaiming, but I'm also talking about the flexibility having multiple proxy bases offers. Lost one? No big deal, I'll regroup my forces and attack somewhere else or try to take back the base before a rigid defense can be set up.

I agree. Units that exist but do not find any action at all (for no obvious reasons such as no naval in maps with no water!) should be dealt with so that there will be uses for them. Obviously, it's time consuming process. I also agree that interplanetary units as they are right now, aren't exactly amazing in their dynamics. To be honest here, I personally didn't expect interplanetary units to really have much to them, but it would be fun if there was more interaction involved with them. Just not entirely sure how to make it meaningful enough to make it worthwhile while at the same time keeping ground level of equal importance. Umbrellas especially seem to be right now too powerful, because SSX poses no real threats versus umbrellas.

The discussion of unit depth also brings to mind the current balance of Sniper Bots, Shellers, Bluehawks, and Leviathans. All four of these units have the advantage of massive range without any disadvantages whatsoever. Compared to their counterparts, they are equal in almost every way (and in most cases, slightly superior). This leads to a simple, predetermined outcome: they replace most units in the T2 (and even T1) roster easily, and with more range. The leveler in the PTE is a great unit, I think. The balance is really solid for the level T2 is currently at. Unfortunately, that still doesn't change my opinion about them vs Shellers or sniper bots. Either unit can kite levellers forever, taking their sweet time to DPS them down. They also can engage all T1 units from a range that the T1 units cannot strike back, unlike levellers. Levellers do have a slightly greater range than the Ant, but it is mostly superficial. Leviathans are also like this - stupidly long range, but can kite all day long.

In order to facilitate bringing Unit Depth to T2, those units need to be changed in some way so they don't invalidate other units completely.

Yeah, the T2 units lack speed vs. sheller whereas the snipers are blatant overkill with, indeed, no accompanied disadvantages. Sheller can be easily solved with increased speed (or decrease it's speed), but snipers? To be honest, I don't like how they were designed. Their moving speed & firing rate should be decreased.

All rts games should have some layer of tactics. Sounds like by your definition the perfect version of PA would have no unit roles, niches or otherwise interesting aspects. Why not remove all but one unit type to increase your level of strategy to the max. We can make the game into "who's blob is bigger". This will shift the focus on fab building and economy management Increasing strategy to the max! That's your great vision of PA right?! I mean, that's pretty close to how the current game plays already anyway.

I am sorry, but zerg vs zerg is not interesting from a gameplay perspective. It's simplistic and watered down combat. The other half of the issue is engagements are boring and unimaginative to look at visually.

You can agrue with me with this all you want, but the fact is the majority of negative reviews from the player base reflect on boring dull units and combat. You are the vocal minority. Maybe not on these forums, but overall. If Uber has any sense it will listen to the majority player base about this issue. You handful of die hard fans can keep believing uber can do no wrong if you wish. Keep turning a blind eye to a vast amount of criticism from user feedback and professionals reviewers, what do they know riiight?! Just don't complain when Uber isn't financially successful to make PA 2 or their next installment. Because failure to adress massive complaints will do so.

Lastly I disagree with you that asymmetrical balance can't add a interesting layer of depth. It just has to be done right but when it is, it really adds to the game.

Was TA dull? Was FA dull?

Anybody who answers that question with yes is wrong in even trying PA, as PA is the same genre. It's like trying a new simulation realistic racing game and saying "this is boring, we should add weapons to the cars", even though that would change the genre of the game and all the old fans of the previous versions of the racing game go "wtf" at you.

If you answer the question with "no", then you will find a lot of people in this forums who are with you and it is only a matter of finding out what exactly makes TA/FA different from PA so far and add those things. I think Uber is in the process of doing that and they show promising results so far.

For me it's a big no! We can argue back and forth about unit depth forever but I feel like neither side will agree. One element that I thought FA had that is purely subjective is "fun". FA has giant amphibious ships that transform into walking land batteries. There is a giant amphibious spider bot with a huge laser that just feels awesome and epic. Naval units are multigunned and often funcional. They are awesome and epic to behold and fun to watch in combat Because they are bigger and model real battleships. There are shielded tanks and huge bubble shields you can put up as defense. There is a huge mobile tank with a factory! Weapon effects in general are more varied and look better. There were commander upgrades to progress your commander and feel badass. The single player maybe didn't have the best story but it had some. It was semi interesting. You progressed through it slowly gaining new units and you really felt like a commander.

Then you have PA...literally nothing in PA has the same fun epic feel except maybe the death star and to a lesser extent planet crashing. The units have no personality, they lack orginallity. They often feel lifeless. Naval looks like small toy boats. They are not as multiguned, they are not as "fun". There are no shield tanks, when you make the jump into t2 they are marginally better. They don't feel epic. In FA and TA higher tiers were better. This was balanced by cost and slower build times. This game barely does. It casters to the boring and the zerg. There are no mobile factories, huge flying saucers with independence day style lasers. I can't even think of one interesting multi gun land unit. the only marginally interesting unit is the sniper bot. Oh, and another thing; what's with all the small units in PA? Is uber afraid of larger units or something?

TA also did a better job of not having flat feeling units. Yes it was slower paced but still faster then anything on the market at the time. I loved the narrative campaign when I was a kid. Units just had more personality. The slow moving high damage tank like "The Can" or later on the much better but slower building "Sumo". Even the battleship the "Warlord" is more interesting then any ship in PA for having both batteries and lasers. I could micro "Bulldogs" in and out to be repaired because they could soak. I could keep long range missile launchers and artillery safe in the back with micro while keeping them useful. Even TA had one expiramental robot And man was he fun once build. Missile racks, cannon hands and a purple laser head. The devolopers of even TA knew how to nail down "fun" and epic.

I am sure you will argue these things are all subjective, and try to argue that PA has all these things. But let's be honest, if it did it would have been critically acclaimed like the other two games were.