Creating vs Destruction in the game

From my experience with FA I think it the subject of creation vs destruction is quite important. I think FA already stimulates creation in many ways. e.g. it is really smart to spread out you base or build side bases at different locations. I think PA will put a even greater emphasis on this because of the scale of the playing field.

This will all make creation a important part of the game. The important thing is to be able to do it quickly and flexibly. From the game play trailer it looked like that will be exactly the case. Lifting off buildings (ripping it a bit from Starcraft2) may be an interesting option for some buildings in order to be able to evacuate planets.

Also I think the balance between is one of the most important aspects in FA. The more you create the more eco you can usually build. However destruct (also in defence) to little and you will get overrun by T1. This is probably why this topic got quite some discussion about complexity in it as well.

I really like the the complexity of FA, it is really a game that makes you work out strategy. However I also acknowledge that this is maybe not for the main public. I really loved FA but I think we can all agree that the multiplayer community quite quickly shrank. One of the main challenges for Uber is looking for a balance in this. SupCom2 really did not do it for me. However the added value of linking buildings could be debated.

I think it is the complex macro that should make the game difficult and less so the micromanagement of your units or buildings. However in this also a balance is required.

Im gonna stop cause im getting off topic.

I love how quickly you can build in FA. I've seen some crazy games where one side uses their air to grab the attention of the other side, then sneaking their commander through on a transport and landing, to make a base that is literally inside the other base. A lot more interesting than just having back-and-forth brawls with both sides too heavily defended to give in.

My main concern is about creating yes (sorry for not updating the OP clearly, but time is not my side these days).

I did 3 quick 1v1 games in FA this weekend, after a few months break, and I realized just how hard that game really is. Sure its easy WHEN you know it, but I am still a noob, and I've played a bit off an on since SupCom beta. The 3 games did not evolve to T2, hell, I was too busy to even remember that my T2 factory was ready, so I accidently upgraded it to T3, only to realize after 15% complete what I had done.

I remember a guide in SupCom vanilla, I think it was about 17 pages long (with pictures of course, as well as a lot of technical details) on how to rush a T3 strategic bomber rush on Isle os Isis. It was only 11-13 minute in the game. Do you guys really think its fun to micro 17 engineers from reclaiming some small rocks here and there, too being part of the air factory assist? Its way too much complexity, and I find myself prevented to scout my enemey, think of a plan that I want to adapt too, that this is no longer an RTS game, its a micro hell of doing stupid **** with engineers. I am a Supreme Commander, so why should I focus on doing these trivial tasks?
I want to scout, to drop ****, build a hidden base, or build the correct units, to even micro in the battle, or even build an artillery or PDs to hold an important position I had made advantage of.
Yes you can do all this in SupCom now, but at what cost? 5 hours a practise a day? Who is gonna study this game like that (or buy it)? Creating is very important, so why make it so hard and frustrating and unforgiving? If you listen to the "pros", they'll just make you another 17 pages long .pdf guide that you should follow, then you'll see how balanced it is, right? Balance should also take into consideration the amount of effort and practise it takes to execute something. Creating should be intutive and awesome, cause you want to destroy a well populated planet, not a planet with 3 resource structures on and a few critters.

What do you guys think?

Edit:
I realize, that I sound way too noobfriendly and just want to slaughter all the fun that any dedicated player have. I think, that a player who masters FA, can still have tons to do in PA even if it was noobfriendly, because of the epic scale it aims to be. This was not ment to be pro vs causual, but what could make a game fun for both. This still is a discussion on creating vs desctruction in the sense that creating would benefit to be made intutive and fun for both playerbases. If equal noobs meet in PA, they should also have lots to destroy.
I have no idea how to satisfy a good player, since I am not one, so your input is greatly appreciated.

That's just a function of the exponential growth in economic structures. If you spend a little effort in the beginning, you get a much bigger pay-off later on.

Reducing the output of T2 mexes and power, nerfing a little bit of every stat for T2 and T3 units will make the game much more to your liking.

Slighty off-topic:
Your right, and it got me thinking. The problem in FA right now, is that you have to know the maps pretty well. I just dive into 1v1, and often there is a new map, which means new ways to reclaim and send out engineers. So in a sense, part of the strategy, comes in knowing the map in FA. But I dont like studying 10 maps in a row, it makes my head explode ^^
I think maybe this could be solved with granting players achivement, in the sense that they got a new map in their pool to study. They can start with just 1 map, they after a set amount of matches there, they would be granted another one to study. Maybe this will not be as hard in PA as it is in FA right now.

In terms of "Creation", one of the games I found appealed to my sense of "creation", as such, was Earth 2150. I enjoyed this because you had an underground layer to battle with, but mostly because of what the construction vehicles could you. You could raise/lower etc the land, create walls and bridges and such which eliminated much of the "I'm on an unreachable plateaux" or "I'm across from a huge chasm" mentality that so many games have. No longer did you have to use air units to transport your troops, teleport them or even tunnel underneath- you could just bridge the gap, slap up a bridge or such (provided your constructor survived, that is).

Though I'd say this would be nice to see in PA, it's one of those mechanics that relies on several other things (including if it's compatible with the game engine) to be implemented in the first place. This is, however, appealing to my personal sense of "creation" within a game- I like being able to create buildings or alter terrain and such that isn't directly combat oriented- for example raising a defensive wall of earth and tank traps at a defensive position.

I'm confident that Uber will implement whatever they're comfortable with in PA- if they don't believe it's in the game's "spirit", then it won't happen. However if something a little "different" does appear, I'll be all the happier for it. It's not often you get to see those kinds of mechanics put in games these days, so it would be nice.

This is yet another example of people asking for something that already works just fine in FA. (Or at least that's what it's turned into. Damned it I know WTF the OP is on about.) If you're not looking for a hardcore, competitive, use-every-trick-the-game-allows murderfest then don't play 1v1 ranked! By definition, those games will often be one sided whitewashes. It is rare that two players are so well balanced that they'll be stalemated all the way up the tech tree to the most spectacular game enders. Don't get me wrong, occasionally it happens and when it does it is amazing. But most ranked games will be decided long before that, often at T1. If you want something more casual, play team games with your mates on larger maps. That set up is a lot more forgiving. Larger maps mean longer transit times - and that means that by the time the T1 horde reaches your base you already have a counter force on hand to deal with them. And if one player screws up? Their team mates have a chance to cover the mistake and give them a second chance. If even that is too rough then go co-op against the AI. Once you and your mates can reliably murder a team of the hardest AIs available you'll have achieved a basic level of competence that should make team vs team fun.

All the TA lineage games offer radically different experiences depending on the map, the number of players, and the game mode. If you don't like how certain maps/player counts/modes work then try something different!

Finally, these games really aren't hard to play - they're hard to play well. A long climb to mastery is exactly what I want from a multiplayer game. Strategic depth is a good thing, and that means that a good player will murder a noob every time. The noob should be playing against other noobs!

First, I love 1v1 more then teamgame, but the point that I want to focus on is the noob vs noob.

I did play noobs in FA just recently, and we managed barely to build anything interesting, cause it really does take a lot of skill to get your economy and build power up within an acceptable timeframe. I ended up just a-moving my army cause I caught his commander off-guard. I am so focused on building, rebuilding lost mexes, upgrading mexes (also with mass storage aroudn them), that I hardly have any time to scout, lay a plan, think strategic.
The noob vs noob game was rather boring, cause both of us did not have the luxury to see the awesomeness that is FA (I truly love this game). The destruction in FA is easy, but the creation is hard.

Is your advice to me to simply practise hours up hours more or give up 1v1 in favour of teamgames? Dont you want 1v1 ladder to be filled, not feared and abanded? Must I read another 17 pages guide on a 12 minute strategy? How on EARTH can I sell this to my friends? Take an FPS, so easy to get into, but very hard to master. This is only to illustrate that it's not needed to have an RTS game uberhard to learn to be able to master it.

Creation... I don't suppose anyone here remembers Enemy Nations (free download now http://www.enemynations.com/downloads/index.html, try it, you might like it)? You basically spent several hours building up a city and an army until you found the enemy, then spent either 15 minutes or 15 hours getting rid of them (depending on how many opponents you had, how big the map was etc.). The game was similar, in that it was a spherical map that didn't have an edge. One of the capabilities that i enjoyed (and spent most of my time doing) was the destruction of almost all of the enemy, then just covering the planet in factories and power stations, farms, mines, apartments and roads until the computer couldn't handle the number of units (unlimited, so in the order of thousands before i couldn't do anything). When i wanted to finish, i just sent a lowly soldier in to finish off the last cowering truck and apartment building.

TLDR, if continual expansion is an option, then just don't finish the enemy off. If the AI or multiplayer galactic opponent is any good, it will just run far far away and start again, leaving you to build in peace for a while, until they sneak back and vaporise your planet when you least expect it.

Ooh, another thought. If we do end up with a multiplayer galactic setting, with billions of stars, then why not have servers where you can create your commander in the outer rim and build up and army to challenge the reigning champions? The battle for supremacy would never end, though if it did the player would get to keep running the galaxy as they see fit, or end up on a leader board of conquerors.

Although this is moving more into mod territory, if you end up wresting control of the galaxy from your enemies, there could be a central nexus (server/forum) that would allow you to devote in game resources to research unique technologies, art and architecture. In a similar (but hopefully better looking) manner to Spore, you could develop your own cybernetic civilisation. Maybe you decide to modify your planets into works of art, develop genetic modifications to turn your army into a race of humanoids with free will, migrating consciousnesses, develop advanced technologies that will allow your civilisation to spread throughout the galaxy on its own. And so the cycle would begin again, as your people live and die and evolve, such that they request you build robots to automate their lives. And you do. Before long wars begin that you cannot control. You try to quell the unrest by building an advanced weapons system that can determine the enemy. One thing leads to another and all life is wiped out (with a bit more story to it, maybe a few challenges along the way). Once the robots take over, the server begins again, with you commanding one of many robotic armies, hell bent on destroying one another.

At the start of each cycle the technology would be reset, requiring everyone to start from scratch. However, as a part of an ever evolving game, remnants of the unique structures and research that were undertaken would remain to be discovered by the new players, with whomever reigns supreme developing the galaxy for future generations.

An interesting and, at the same time, very explosive topic. Around the thread, there are several opinions that pro-oriented balance is the game foundation. There are examples that can prove it, like Starcraft, and examples that disprove it, like Counter-Strike mod for Half-Life, so this statement cannot be considered universally true. Even more, nowadays casual playerbase is much more important, because in times of HL and Starcraft most of games were played in singleplayer, LAN parties and computer clubs, since Internet wasn't so common as it is now (except in USA, maybe), and players tend to know each other, thus being able to select opponents. That simple ability naturally separated fun players and pros, forming casual playerbase big enough to sustain itself, game modding and pro scene. But those days are gone. Now we have centralized online servers with all those matchmaking and lobby lists, and in most cases we dont'know people we're playing with. And so, the problem emerges: competitive and casual players, a lot of them for now, boiled in the same pot. If game balance is initially pro-oriented, casual players constantly gets beaten and soon leave, while a minority of them manage to pull out a set of restrictions that make game completely unsuitable for pros, like SCFA's Thermo matches. Note that since casual players are not tend to give a game significant proportion of their time, there are much less modders amongst them, and not every game even supports mod auto-management which is a must have for casual players to even be able to use a mod. If game balance is casual-oriented, pros start to siege forums and gaming resources with demands to "fix the imbalances". Because they are much more active on forums and motivated than casuals who don't see any problem at this stage, developers start to think they're right and balance problem really exist, usually forgetting that forum poll is not a referendum, because total vote number is 10-100 times less than total number of players. If that process continues for a long time enough, pro scene effectively alter overall game balance, and casual players start to leave. I believe that, while game itself should be oriented to casual player for time being to keep playerbase big enough, it should be moddable enough to satisfy needs of the pro scene. Both sides benefit from this - casual players have the game they can enjoy, and pro scene have complete control over balance of their modification and a constant flow of players from casual part who are looking for more challenge.

As to creative game aspect, I think it is one of the most important in casual RTS play. In order to survive and destroy, things are created, and the more majestic and powerful those things are, the more epic game is. You are building your base, strengthen economy, raising defence bastions to meet enemy at your gates. You are constructing huge armies and enormous war machines to take those bastions by the storm. You are establishing massive weapons to hear the symphony of artillery strikes and watch the world burn in a nuclear firestorm. That's the point of RTS for me - to create destruction. Game revolving around this idea should be totally awesome, and I have some concepts for it, but I don't think they will suit PA. To enjoy creating destruction in PA, rush/spam-terminating defences, terraforming, shields, good pathfinding for massive armies and a broad range of doomsday weaponry like experimentals, nukes, artilley and KEW, should be enough. After all, gaming itself based on locus of control illusion, when one feels like having powers and control far beyond his own without posessing individual properties, skills or knowledge required for that. And nothing sustains such an illusion better than ability to create and command an army capable to ruin entire worlds.

The nonsense is strong with this one.

So is the size of his paragraphs...

I think my biggest concern on this topic is that there should be advantages to both preserving a planet and destroying it. For example lets say that attacking a planet requires that you assault from a controlled planet within a certain range. This would add some strategic value to destroying planets to control directions an assault can come from. However preserving a planet and controlling it gives you some other big picture bonus, like just as an example maybe you get a small pool of additional resources when beginning an assault for every 10 planets you control.

Basically something that gives incentives to also preserve planets, not just destroy them. Perhaps the incentive to preserve a planet might be just to avoid the enormous cost of creating a new planet in the system to advance your assault on an enemy you can't reach otherwise. I don't know but it's something that needs examined carefully and balanced. Nobody wins if every system they're fighting over is destroyed unless there is a mechanic in place to make the system usable again.

Does counterstrike even have a "casual" group?

Well there already is, i mean in the announcement trailer where the asteroid collided with the planet, the player on the planet launched rockets to destroy the asteroid, meaning that perhaps if u have enough rockets to make the asteroid small enough, it could burn up in the atmosphere or just minimise the damage.

Maybe not a big one, I dont know. The point is, that CS is easy to get into and improve in a way that does not force you to study things in a boring classroom kind of way.
If building and the creation process is intuitive and not unnecessary complex, we will have an easier time to recruit and keep a good playerbase that also populates the 1v1 ladder (which I love the most).

The good players are afraid the game will lack depth, and yes, the old FA depth on the creation process would be left behind(reclaim these very important rocks here..), but this only means the competition on the strategy will be in more depth. From the interview we had with Uber, you get the impression that the game should focus on super destruction, awesome explosions, and strategy, and not how got damn hard it is to build an awesome base.

PS: I am not saying we should build like 3 structures, and from there units are being pumped and massed out, that would be boring and the base would not look very impressive. But having an easier time to get a good economy, and not so unforgiving as in FA.
Its way too easy to stall your economy in FA, a much bigger storage of electricity and mass would come a long way (I find lategame economy easier to handle due to mass-storage around upgraded mexes), including dropping the so important part on reclaiming rocks in the beginning. I still want economy to play an important role, as this has always been important in wars.