This, is what PA will have to top.

Im lost, looked like an rush to air attacks by one side, against a side that didnt have air defences yet.

If this was an SMNC video, it would be a team of lvl4s stomping a team of lvl1s before they even level the whole game.

Dont get me wrong, both sides were good, but the 3 didnt have air defences ready in time and also just let bombers kill clusters. BTW, PA needs an "uncluster" command so they can step 2 spaces away from each other and not get all killed with the same bomb.

I would prefer PA to live up to the original intention of SupCom, a game with insanely powerful UI, minimal micro and a lot of automations, not to be a successor of SupCom, although I think it is a really great game.

To quote the article he sent (And a statement i wholeheartedly agree with):

It may be a decent game on its own, but its not TA/SupCom style game, and this game is supposed to be.

That just dosent make any sense, you start of by saying that the game isent about micro but end by saying that you do more micro in supcom 2?

That the games is or isent about micro is up for debate, personaly i think that strategy should be the focus and micro should be lessened to make it easier to do strategies. But the key is to try to do so without removing control from the player (again, thats my opinion).

Micro will unavoidably allways be a big part of a game like this, like it or not.

PA is made by the same people that did supcom, its going to be a spiritual successor to TA, as was supcom. There are some logic in making assumptions for PA based on Supcom.

If your playing competitive things usually don't end up that way (One side would have won long before that, people cant just turtle and buildup or tech). If your playing casual then theres nothing any game can do, it will allways end up like that (in any game).

The fact that you called it lack luster without explaining (in your previous post) can easily be considered trying to pick a fight and trolling. So calm down a notch.

If I could choose SupCom Vanilla or FA or FAF (2012) I would chose FAF. But tbh it isnt that much different to FA 2007. A pro gamer from then would have to learn some new build orders and some new tactics that now are viable and werent back then, but he'd pretty fast would be good again.

Vanilla was also good, but it was too much on mass fabs. If you play vanilla without the DLC units, its great though.

I would love to see some UI mods as standard though. lazyshare, hotbuild, mex manager and so on. But im pretty sure, if they are not ingame by uber, it will be modded.

SupCom 2 was good, but not great like FA. If neither TA nor FA/SupCom1 had been released earlier, supcom2 would have been like a bomb to RTS. But it wasnt. Im really glad that pathfinding will be like supcom2, maybe it will get even better (navy movement in SupCom 2 is sometimes annoying).

This is what I can agree with.

Its was about the idea that the flow field some how reduces micro, when it doesn't.

But it doesn't have to be, and on the scale of the game really shouldn't be IMHO.

Indeed but not to the point where an argument based on SupCom is superior to one based on TA, very similar games but in no way the same.

By competitive do you mean like how the pros play? Because that's a unrealistic comparison when compared to the average player, I have played many competitive games with friends where this could have happened, and a few where it did.

The fact that the game can lead that way (Checking the first example video shows that Experimental came in larger numbers then should be possible) is very disconcerting.

I will apologize for the implications, and my attitude. this forum seems to have a way of breeding that in people as most won't sit down and actually talk, and any that do just spew sarcasm and nonconstructive criticism.

So I personally and sincerely thank you for your patience and time.

Playing competitive means playing competitive. There shouldent be any need to explain it further.

I dont think there are any pro's in supcom. Pro's being short for professionals: people that play it for a living. But i assume your refearing to top rankers, and no, you dont have to be on the top of the ranking list to play competitive.

But we seem to be in a disagreement on this point, for me any attempt at playing competitive never devolved into a experimental spam fest as described. One player would allways get the upper hand before that, or the first (or first few) experimental ended the game, you shouldent be able to turtle much when playing competitive.

It might also be the choice of maps, with smaller ones this instance happening almost never, but being more present in the larger ones.

So I will agree to disagree on this point.

Looks like someone didn't watch the whole game...

I qouted something anybody would say about a random game.

The community specifics are things that differs per person. You can have a good or bad experience with something. Everything is opinion related. So why should gameplay elements remain in a game? It only restrains creativity. It seems to me you want a remake of a mix of TA/supcom1. Not everyone is after that. Look at all the space sim freaks on these forums.

While we think opinions have rational basis, it is however not. Everyone leans toward what they THINK is best. what they THINK is good/bad/fun. Shortly there are nog good or bad elements.

I do not want teamwork. and the teamwork you displayed in your video, is no teamwork at all. it's a (mix of) standard fabricated strategies from a couple of players.

that's your opinion. Don't write people off as "noob" because they have an opinion. Instead, learn to accept that people like other stuff than you do and stop being hostile.

I bet you can't even play supcom 2 on a level anywhere near good

PA does not have to top anything. The only thing PA has to top is the proud of their creators.

when people say things like this. it reminds me of when old people get upset about people using txt msgs. example" Why can't they just call any more. all this nonsense about the text messaging its just silly. I won't do it you can't make me txt msg!" you either call me the old fashioned why or thats it!!!"

thats what you sound like rejecting the new better technology for your fond memories of the good old days.

Okey, i know ta4life is kinda hostile so people lash out at him, but your logic is flawed.

The game is a spiritual successor of TA, as is supcom, it will unavoidably be of the same game type and contain elements and experiences learned from both games.

And if we have this basis of a game type you can use that together with experience from the other games to judge if a opinion is good or bad (or more or less important). Your logic that every opinion is just a opinion and not important (or all equally important) is just flawed.

If you or anyone else want a space sim game then you should put your hopes into modding.

Theres plenty of teamwork in that game.

PA has to top other games of the same category, or else it will fail, they arent making something completely new, they are making a spiritual successor. A spiritual successor is something even more limited then a successor, since a successor can stray quite a bit from the orginal concept (looks at supcom to supcom 2 for example) while a spiritual successor must stay as true to the concept as it can while still trying to improve stuff.

Please stop being so unrealistic.

My logic may be flawed by your opinion, but your logic is flawed on all points.

You cant judge opinions on whether they are good or bad. Pretend, Iraq would fight the US in a war. Who's good or bad? They both have the opinion they are good and the other bad. As a fact humans tend to believe there really is something as an opinion. Likewise they think one side is right and the other wrong. Claiming you can't tell whether a game is good or bad. You can measure it by counting the players playing the game, but is that a correct way of statistically saying, this game is better? NO, the only thing you can say about that is, this game is more popular. A game can be popular for other reasons than being "good". Because there is no such thing as good. You can say, this game has few/no bugs and therefore is good developed. Yes. But it's really your opinion if you or even the majority of the players lean toward the thought that's what a game makes good.

I don't think you get what I'm trying to say, It's like your not on my level of thinking, but in fact are thinking on a more zoomed in level. Try to open your mind and think more openly about this matter. It will make you feel relaxed and less anxious.

Spiritual successor? Just take a look at the maps, weapons of destruction, crossing planets. If they are more limited than a successor, how can they do these things? Your logic is FLAWED!

Actually I'm going to say it again, they don't have to TOP other games, they are creating a brand new game with only the setting being the same as TA/Supcom. Srsly, stop being unrealistic.

Nice argument sir.

The devs themselves told us space combat won't be done when the game releases, however, even though I think I would dislike that if it were to occur, they said they might do it in later stages. People can hold their hopes high. And modding will surely contribute as well. Shame your logic is flawed yet again.

I could go on for like forever, but if you don't get it by now, I wont try to make you understand something that simple anymore.

I think a lot of people agree with me.

One side says 10+10 is 20, the other says 10+10 is 5. Is one side wrong and one side right? If you use facts and normal math then yes.

As long as you have a basis that you can use to judge then you can say that something is wrong or right.

Becuse non of those things stray from the orginal concept of TA, just add new things to it. So no the argument is not flawed (atleast not on that point). If they completely revamp the economy system (supcom 2 anyone?), or change it to a few unit tactical game, then that would be straying.

Nothing more needs to be said, they give each other resource buildings, they give each other units and tech, they coordinate their efforts. No matter your definition of teamwork they are doing it.

Adding space combat wont make the game a space sim (or space simulator). A space simulator is:

So no, a space simulator isent just the orginal game + space combat, a space simulator is a completely different game that would require extensive modding.

Right back at ya.

its difficult to accept the things redarrow7216 is saying but the are 100% true. I hope the other parties included open there eyes and more importantly minds to accept these absolute truths.

The things hes saying is a bunch of unrealistic bull.

again its difficult for people who can't think on the same level to understand. I don't blame you for not being able to comprehend there are many people i'm sure who are unable to see and understand it.

A spiritual successor has the goal to do the things what the "prequel" did right, add things and remove flaws. An actual sequel is a perhaps totally different game, but within the same universe, containing the same characters, location, technology, etc.

A spiritual successor has more freedom in terms of lore or totally new content, but making big changes to fundamental parts of the game should be well-considered to not be too different from its prequel.

Also, a space simulator =\= space combat in a RTS, if that was what Garathg was implying

Third point, multiple strategies are perhaps not directly teamwork, but if one uses air and the other uses land forces then that looks pretty teamwork-ish to me.

And one game CAN be better than others, taken the fact that people who actually make reviews are neutral while writing one, they should write down both the good and bad points of the game, whether they generally like the game or not...

So I dont think your arguments and opinions are right, does that make me a ignorant fool?

Well this can continue endlessly. Il let you have the final word on that point since i dont want to make this a discussion of philosophy, il just quote two of your former posts as a basis and let the forum decide if they want to listen to your opinion on PA.

hey, web surfer here, couldn't help but notice these posts.

this seems like a very important argument, but i can't decide who is right, very frustrating.

=/


are you correct redarrow?