Super Units Being In The Game

By that definition, nearly every unit in any game EVER is a gimmick.

I prefer defining "gimmick" as "feature that's set apart for the sake of making it interesting."

For example, TACC's Krogoth, which needed its own dedicated factory, or the SupCom experimentals which we're talking about. For the most part, they were just kind of needlessly set apart to make them more desirable.

Of course, this is just -my- opinion, and may have minimal basis in fact.

Point I'd like to make, though, PA was sold to the backers as an RTS on an interplanetary scale, not sold as having robots bigger than the nuke silo.

Yeah, because every player ever used Peewees in exactly the same manner. As opposed, to, say, the SupCom 2 Magnetron.

As usual you are on the money. Especially the part about making the game fun with small units first. I don't have a theoretical objection to big units. They are and can be cool but making a game is about tradeoffs.

Everyone here wants what they want, which is fine. However, I'm the one that has to balance the budget and make the actual hard tradeoffs that have to be made. If someone wants to show up with a million dollars to put into the game we can have that conversation

I have 50,000 people who all have their own vision for the game. People participating here are already getting a lot more of their opinions taken care of than regular players and if we aren't careful we will create something that's too niche to sustain itself.

If we gave you artwork for super units would they be included?

You are never going to agree with each other, because you have different reasons to play and things you appreciate.

But with a little empathy and some knowledge of Player Taxonomies you will come a long way to mutual understanding: Don't forget the casuals!

In short, consider these psychographic profiles for the card game Magic The Gathering:

"Spike" is a nickname used to describe a Magic player whose enjoyment of the game is derived primarily from competition and winning. Spike is used in contrast to Timmy, a nickname describing a player who enjoys impressive cards and crushing, decisive wins; and in contrast to Johnny, a nickname describing a creative player who likes to win in unexpected or interesting ways.

You may fit in one of more of the profiles. The take-away is that catering to all profiles is important for the game's ecosystem and its revenue.

Very well said.

Neutrino, would you happen to be at the point yet where you can comment on whether we will be able to place units on top of other units?

EG floating transport craft with open top, enormous controllable icebergs, flying aircraft carriers, large moving platforms on the metal planet, etc.

Agreed.

I would add the caveat that before profiles can be fully formed in such a manner, the core game must be solid (though able to cater to, and be informed by each separate profile as it emerges as a need of the system)

I am in this conversation only to make sure that the game is not a bunch of incongruous profiles with no base game to connect to. That is my biggest concern.

Instead of having giant super spider destructo units that take up half the screen why don't we have something more interesting? I was thinking something along the lines of units or buildings that have some sort of effect on the planets themselves. Some sort of ground Hammer that would cause earthquakes and damage anything nearby and even causing lava flows, Satellites that could cause forest fires. Shock units in the water that would electrify the water whenever enemy ships would come within range. Just a few ideas that I have.

As I said before, I prefer units that are interesting to use as opposed to just big and stompy. I'm pretty sure I fit into the 'Johnny' category in the above post.

I'd like to see experimentals in the game because it's a win/win for those who like them and those who don't. Those who don't like them don't have to use them and can ignore them, on their own side. You might even have an advantage if you think that they are actually a waste and your opponent uses them. And for those who like them, we get them. It should come out even. For those against you can spend those resources on making more of the traditional units. For those of us for them we can "waste" our time and resources on them.

I don't understand why those who are against them are so vehement that they not be in the game at all, depriving those of us who want them from having them. It seems childish, like "I don't like strawberry ice cream, therefore nobody can have strawberry ice cream at this party".

What I do understand is that Uber has X amount of dollars and man power to work with and that they have to decide how to make the most of their resources. If that means no experimentals for that reason I won't complain about the lack of crazy units. If it is only a creative decision then I will be disappointed that they aren't in the game.

Either way I'm very grateful that PlanA is being made and will play it regardless of experimentals.

Issue is that experimentals are a lot of work, and a big strain on computers. They usually use more polygons than their constituent smaller units would make up (unless you are the Harbinger IV and overdetailed as all ****), and they require a very detailed texture and good geometry to be believable. That all takes a lot of work.

However, I'm sure that so long as unit physics doesn't completely disallow it, either some free DLC or a mod will come out later that will most certainly add experimentals.

Though, I'm being a bit too open minded. The one thing I didn't mention is that Experimentals look REALLY cool in an opening trailer. Players (especially casuals) will look at them and think "Holy crap, HOW big is that giant robot?!" And the thing is about TA-like games is that we can back up their size. I mean, you see the Heart of the Swarm trailer for SCII and you think "Holy crap, HOW big are those giant tanks?" Then you see them in game and you're just like "Oh. Okay."

So, my conclusion is that while they aren't *necessary*, they do add a lot of character to a game like this, and there isn't any reason NOT to include them.

Except time, cost, and lack of creative originality.

Seriously. How many times do I have to parrot Neutrino?

Can we get this locked? There is no discussion here any more. It's an endless circle of
"I want Experimentals."
-->
"They cost too much money and are not in the scope of the base game."
-->
"But I WANT them real bad!"
-->
"Why not try something more original like Asteroid Bombardment?"
-->
return to start ad infinitum.

Why lock the thread? If people like big things, then it is definitely worth finding ways to put big things in the game.

We already know that some things don't work very well in the core game, and are simply not worth the time. But a lot of other ideas have some good potential. There's also no shortage of community service willing to fill in the blanks for super extreme overkill One-Eh beast mode killbots.

Land-able asteroids to create moving build able terrain!

mushroomars spent his entire post saying "we don't have to have them if they won't fit in the base game" -.-

Again, I'd figure interplanetary-scale warfare is hard enough, and on that scale, I'd figure your basic bot is bigger than, say, the Monkeylord or Krogoth. So, big-big bot/tank; not all that special.

Again, especially considering we'd get to try to drop meteors on opposing bases. How is this not cooler than a "mere" giant robot?

Off-topic, but interesting: when moons are present, would it be doable to drop them on the planet?

Any RTS, you can build a giant robot. This one, we're dropping freaking moons.

You're making big assumptions - that any unit in the game can be ignored without detriment (if so, no-one would use them, if not, you can't ignore them), and that including said units has no downside (even though they have a significant development cost). In other words, this is not a best of both worlds scenario.

Should we setup a stretch goal for super units?

We very seriously considered super units as a stretch goal but ultimately thought it wasn't interesting enough. Now I'm thinking maybe we were wrong about that.