Factions: How to create diversity within one unit list

I'm for the original idea of not having factions, as in Arm/Core, UEF/Cybran/Aeon, Terran/Protoss/Zerg.

Instead, I will propose for every single player or clan to be their own factions. We are a bunch of robots fighting to have the largest share of the galaxy, our final objective is 100% domination.

A faction identity would be decals and colors, maybe interchangeable parts like different heads and thicker limbs on robots, spikes on wheels(only visuals, no damage component), flags on ships, trailing smokes, etc.

For $1000 you also get the custom commander for you and your top clan officers/generals.

I don't mean Construction Workers, I mean things like T1/T2/T3/T4 resource generators, T1/T2/T3/T4 defenses, T1/T2/T3/T4 artillery etc.

So, in StarCraft, any match between two equal factions is not fun by default? Since there are only 46 units involved.

I have never seen anyone complain about that. And neither have I found it not fun myself.

That's at least a healther attitude, compared to being outright 'disappointed' .


But we are doing pointless arguing here anyway. I am in now way suggesting, that PA shouldn't have lots and lots of units ;P.

Is someone manipulation here or Planetary Annihilation (PA) community is extremely dumb? I am just asking because from the poll results I did see (on 2012/9/15 @ 23:50 GMT+1) most people want no diversity. I think PA is a great idea for spending time fun, but I think everyone having exactly the same faction would make the game boring. PA units on videos look like Supreme Commmander (SupCom) UEF units. I love this style and UEF was my favorite (or maybe even mavorite) side. I like style of PA units but, still, there should at least two factions or customisable factions (for example one set of 180 units and choose any 70 units you want to use and you can change your choice of units before and after the game). 180 units is not a lot. FA had about 380 (if you count engineers >12 times (because each side had >=4 engineers)) etc, and count wall sections and buildings as a units too, and I did not include civilians or "properties" like stones or trees).

The idea of giving each player access to a huge pool of units/parts and a set of slots or tech points to design a custom faction would be pretty cool too. It wouldn't be extreme, more like the following:

One slot you could have would be for light artillery. Several models would be available, such as one which fires cluster bombs, one which fires a direct shot, one which has a mobile mode which is fast but can't fire and a more powerful immobile mode where it fires etc. Available units would NOT be tied to an experience or payement scheme (ew...) so that the game would be "balanced" in the sense that every player has access to the optimal build.

It could be designed so that players pre-select before a game or select during a game, depending upon which was more fun.

One list, no diversity?

So what happens when it's 10 tanks vs 10 tanks and they have the same stats? I suppose the guy who brings 11 always wins?

One list no diversity is a sure-fire way to boring, shallow, numbers-based combat. I don't expect a big pool of units either, they have to focus alot of their resources on executing the new concepts this game brings to the table.

No, the better player wins. Of course that depends on WHICH tanks you bring.

Mike

You are certainly a healthy element of the community :roll:

This is not the only poll on this matter. Previous polls always had the vast majority towards one set of units.

Why? With enough units available, you are unlikely to use every unit in every match. And with enough diversity, you can choose your playstyle based on the units that are available to you. ARM and CORE weren't that different either, but you had lots of units available and you chose the units suitable to your style or strategy.

There would be no real purpose to that.

And why not simply let the player build every one of those units you described? Nothing wrong with having one type of artillery unit with such different properties. But why do you want to force restrictions again?

That does sound like a good addition to the "No-diversity" option. Player's would distinguish themselves with their clan colour/decal.

So you are assuming:

1) That people are going to bother microing battles that small in galatic, and solar-system wide maps.

2) That there will be more unit variety than: T1 tank, T2 Tank, T3 tank, Or simply: Light, Medium, Heavy.

I don't expect a big pool of units when there is so much else that needs dev time and funding.

Identical units with the same stats fighting eachother just reeks of a ugly numbers game

Many people play to win, don't they . And "bringing the right kind of tank" is more a macro decision.

Reportedly, there will only be two tech levels. But if it's going to be anything like TA, there will be different tanks with different properties, yes.

Then why do you expect different sets of units in the first place?

It's always a numbers game, naturally. Not just when units with the same stats attack each other :roll:

Being the "Better" player isn't just defined by Micro, if I am better at macro and can thusly build more tanks than you and overwhelm you that's a win via skill no?

Please, even FA had that, Compare the Obsidian to the Blaze, both are 'tanks', but are balanced differently, 10 Blazes VS 10 Obsidians plays out very different'y then 10 Obsidians VS 10 Obsidians.

Mike

"That poll" really only compared having one unit list, having 2 similar units lists, or having 2 different unit lists. Thus, for people that wanted one unit list, there was only one option.

This poll asks quite a few more things with fewer redundancies. There are multiple options for one unit list, which is why we now see a larger range of opinions.

Looking back, I could have grouped options 3 and 4. Oh well.

SupCom thing. TA had 2 tiers of resource generators (and some underwater stuff), but that's about it. It's defenses/artillery where very different between tiers, and both tiers remained useful through the game. TA has more units per faction than SupCom regardless.

A few things. One, of course it is still fun, that's not what I meant. It would get boring relatively fast if that's all you EVER play. I usually only play ARM in TA, and most people I play against only play ARM too. Doesn't mean I didn't find it fun.

Two, it's not 46 units. There are between 14-17 units and between 15-18 structures in each faction. there are 46 units in Starcraft with all factions combined. So there would only be 14, 15 or 17 units (depending on the faction. Actually, it would be less in one, since I included "infected terrains" as a unit from the Zerg).

No, I would still be disappointed (as well as surprised). However, being disappointed in one part of the game does not mean I wouldn't like the game, nor does it mean it would be a bad game. I would definitely still play it.

I think you meant "no". Agreed though, it really is pointless. Doesn't stop people from having them

But even here, only 27% want any kind of forced restriction of what you can build.

40%. The last 2 options have unit restrictions. One due to unit list, the other due to unit lists and factions.

Combined, this is more than those that want no diversity, but not entirely accurate.

If we compare no unit restrictions vs unit restrictions, the ratio is 60:40.

Split up into the base ideas:
38% No factions
22% Commander acts as faction
40% Unit availability acts as faction

Where the faction 40% is comprised of multiple varied opinions on how factions could be done.

Obviously, "No factions" will appear to have the most votes, but that's only because there are a variety of ways in which factions could be included in the game splitting the vote for factions.

So if we compare factions vs no factions, it's 62:38. The opposite of the unit restrictions ratio.

Thus, it appears that people want factions, but don't want unit restrictions. This is possible only through unique commander abilities and traits.

You're looking at it wrong. 61% of those who voted don't want you mucking around with restricting unit selection, and I question whether everyone who voted had the same thing in mind as you do.

....... read my above post..... I make it quite clear what the ratios are for unit restrictions and factions.

It's a good thing that the devs have already made their intentions clear - one unit list. Otherwise the stuff being pushed in this thread would make me angry.

Huh, I've generally been polite to everyone posting here, yet you seem intent on causing problems.

I'm expressing an idea, and have even stated my personal preference is not it (rather, a single unit list with custom commanders). This thread was made to explain an idea that hadn't been explained before.

If you dislike the idea, prove it wrong. Don't just throw emotions at the screen since that belittles your own intelligence.

"Causing problems"? By disagreeing vehemently with your proposal? You make a lengthy proposal, I argue against it, and you say I'm "causing problems"? You're not the arbiter of what's a good idea here, and I have as much right to speak as you do. And you would be far more polite if you'd refrain from snide remarks about intelligence while implying I haven't said anything in this thread. Please stop it.