What's your biggest worry about this game?

upgrade is fa => tier systems
research like supcom2.

Those arent the same

Poorly thought out mechanics.

I'm worrried that the hype surrounding it will mean I'm disappointed by the final product, even though nothing could compare with what I built it up to be in my head.
Also, I'm worried that destroying planets with asteroids would be an inneficient strategy, to the point that asteroids just became troop delivery systems.

That the game will be too competive, and the majority that does not like this, will be quiet as they usually are, and we end up with another RTS that will have a dead ladder cause nobody wants to play a stress of a game.

Poorly conceived mechanical design which fails to support both competitive and casual play. In a sense, all RTS struggle with this.

neddie!!! <3


Usually my biggest worry about a game is that the developers assume they always know better than the players about the balance and design, and ignore good feedback.

From the posts I've seen from neutrino, I think that they give a pretty good damn about what the players want, and that they listen to all the feedback.

I look forward to seeing the way this game evolves through the developers and community.

[/quote]This whole statement seems contradictory. Perhaps I have misunderstood your sentiment, but upgrade was the way SupCom2 operated and yet you just said that was a horrible game. Research and upgrades go hand in hand I'm afraid.

As for SC:FA, there was nothing wrong with that game apart from the moho engine IMO. I'm a big fan of tech levels too by the way.[/quote]

Well to begin with upgrade = upgrading a factory from one tier level to another
teach tree = unlock units
So ur insult is invalid. Also you didn't get what i was tryin to point out, in a very short sentence Supcom 2 is **** FA is awesome. And my question was what will PA be like FA or SupCom 2

Or TA.

Oddly my biggest worry is going to have to be multi-window / multi-monitor support. On one hand, this is an amazing feature that is unheard of in other games. On the other hand it could potentially cause a lot of problems.

I am concerned, that allowing multi-monitor support is going to create a pay to win scenario of epic proportions. Now we're not talking about slapping $100 down on e-content, we're talking about shelling out thousands of $$$ for two or more monitors, pimpin' video, and a pimpin' machine to run it all on. It could end up being a daunting barrier to entry for the average gamer.

Closely tied to this is the question of multi-window support. Obviously this is an attempt at sort of answering the first question by offering a lower cost solution to multitask multiple planets. But will it be good enough? Will it be easy to use?

I'm genuinely concerned that the direction they are going with the interface is going to drive people away from this game.

If the game is too complicated, and too expensive to play "properly" than who is really going to buy it? And if too few people are willing to buy it, who are we going to be able to play against?

This is by far my biggest worry from what I have heard so far.

I'd be rather happy if comet rockets were woefully inefficient. I hope the game focuses on combat with armies, and not super-weapon slinging matches.

Stop playing DSD.

On the other hand, given the scale of said battles, with thousands of units on each side IIRC, it'd just be a battle of economies and manufacturing bases without at least some focus on opening battles on multiple fronts, and the most logical way to have said multiple fronts to have an effect are asteroid murderballs.

Nothing just saying

I'm worried that if the emphasis is too much on battles with giant amounts of units the game turn out into a brawl of economies and streams of units bashing their heads together and not one of wits.

As long as the game provides effective area control and unit mechanics which makes things like flanking and otherwise good positioning worthwhile then I've got good hopes for the better strategies leading to the best results.

One of my biggest concerns is the ongoing war on micro on this forum. People are treating this game as if it should have no micro whatsoever. Hell, people are talking about AIs taking over the building of a new outpost...

Not to derail this thread, but I really do think micro should take a back seat to macro. You really don't have time to make one fight's outcome better by spamming commands when you need to manage 3+ planets and asteroids and whatnot.

That said, it may be a self-resolving solution given that if you're fighting a war that big then chances are your enemy is too and won't have time either.

Ironically the ones pushing for full micro are also the ones pushing for the assist AI's.

My response...

Its not so much an "attitude" as it is my extreme annoyance of people that expect everyone else to be held back (technologically speaking) just because they either can afford or be bothered to upgrade! For Christ sakes, the whole reason many of us play PC games is so we're not stuck with the limitations (hardware / licensing) imposed by consoles. Where not only do the games cater to the lowest common denominator but also serves to inhibit creativity and competition within the gaming market as a whole.

So go ahead and water down PA so some F-Tard can play it on his Commodore-64 but don't come whining and moaning when the game no longer lives up to your expectations. Just keep in mind its that very mind set that doomed SC2 and while I know we're at some point doom to repeat history, just for once I'd like to see a game released that breaks the mold becoming something truly great.

Resin

My biggest worry is limited strategic options due to over balancing.

A truly great game nobody can afford to play.

You sir are an example of the so called 'PC master race', and the fact that you believe people should keep up in spite of the costs is just so childish and unrealistic, and FYI I liked SupCom2.