Unit sizes, or planet sizes...

I feel from watching all the videos that either the unit siezes are too large, or that the planets themselves are too small. Now, being a hater of SupCom2 and lover of FA I fear this game is going to imitate SupCom 2 more than FA?

I may have missed information somewhere, but is this the way it's meant to be?

I also felt that the weapons animations are massive, missiles the size of half the units. Is this also something talked about?

I fear I got the impression that it's all very cartoony. Now, that can work too, depending on the game - not saying this is bad, not at all. But it's not what I expected.

Anyone able to shed some light on this?

(It's moddable right? So perhaps a mod will fix that right up anyway so it might be a non-issue)

As for the player and map size.
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=46393&hilit=map+size

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=45788&p=714514&hilit=supcom+2+fA#p714514

Didn't really talk about what I meant to talk about, but I found this in there:

This here, scared me to death and almost made me cry.

I would assume the "maximum" map size would depend on the server you are running the game on. As your servers get better, you will get bigger maps. Also, the end game will have the capability of multiple planets/asteroids. The alpha itself is recommended for 2-4 players with a maximum of 10 players. Most videos so far have only show two players, so I believe that it is reasonable to assume the the final product will be 5 times the playable area as the game play videos at least.

As the developers have said no plans to limit player or maps have been made so you could theoretically have 50+ players and a giant map if your server could support it upon realease.

First off the reasoning presented in that list isn't accurate.

Veterancy didn't do much in TA. Not sure why people would care about this feature.

Adjacency wasn't in TA.

Shields weren't in TA.

The "simplified" economy is a misnomer. It's fundamentally the same we are just trying to shave off the rough edges. In fact I think it's going to end up being a lot cool because we are trying to differentiate energy and metal more.

veterancy was a nice reward for using units exceptionally well - at least that was the intention. something in the same vein that would reward players for keeping units alive would be good. for example, a repair tower that repaired for only energy cost would reward players who keep units alive after a battle.

Not having your units die and drop resources for the enemy is reward enough.

I don't compare much to TA, but instead SupCom. Frankly, I hardly remember TA anymore.

Building adjacency is fun in that it gave you an extra layer of depth when it comes to the basebuilding. Basebuilding is fun, and was made more fun with this feature.

Veterancy, sure, that's not a biggie for me, not really. It's common in RTS games though, so I guess that's why it feels more of a big deal.

Shields, as you say, wasn't in TA, yet a very nice feature when it comes to building a base and making sure it can take some slight beating before the buildings take damage. This enabled you to try and rally some more units to the location if you so needed. Again, it adds another layer to the strategy.

And as for economy, as I said in another thread, I think I have to actually try the game before saying anything really significant about it.

All these points have been discussed in length in other threads. I suggest visiting those.

if you say so

I was just responding to neutrino. Using the same thread that he wrote in is more beneficial to the dialogue.

I know, and i would disagree with you on some of your points, but then i would just be repeating what many people have said in those other threads.

Doesn't this reward micro, though? That would be a mechanic that Uber has said they specifically want to avoid promoting. This game is about macro, besides, who wants to have to babysit a few units while having three bases on two different planets being attacked at once?

Repair rewards the proper management of a great deal of units as opposed to veterancy which rewards the proper management of individual units. That is to say repair or regeneration rewards proper battlefield management (flanking, pitching, skirmishing, assaulting, retreating, strafing, feigning, delay tactics, reinforcement, raiding, encirclement, ambush, etc.) which is distinctly different from engagement micro (dodging, zig-zaging, swarming, kiting, spell casting, etc.) A simple way to understand this is that engagement micro can improve the value of an individual unit while battlefield management can improve the value of a great deal of units at the same time. Battlefield management is what was great about TA, it should be encouraged while engagement micro should be discouraged. The latter is discussed at length in this thread.

Cheap/fast out of combat repair is employed in Zero-K to great effect. It takes no more than a glance at HP bars for you to decide to regroup. Although Zero-K also has automated retreat which facilitates non-tedious repair.

I completely agree. I hope future updates can bring this back for those like me who spend lots of (fun) time building a base

Until you realize there is only 1 optimal option.

You never build Pgens or Energy Storage around Mass Extractors do you?

You don't need updates for that, just start up a sandbox game and build to your heart's content.

Mikw

Of course not. But you still have the option to build something next to something else to enhance it. Take that away and you took away a layer of depth to the basebuilding.

Take Mass Storage, see you don't build those right away, do you? But you do build them later. Take that away and you took away a layer of depth to the basebuilding.

And I just happen to like that extra depth.

I think you're confusing depth with complexity. Complexity adds choices, depth is multiple meaningful viable choices.