Unit sizes, or planet sizes...

I honestly don't feel I have to since the example I gave earlier is a system I felt work well. Building energy next to a mass extractor isn't something you do, but you do build storage, and that's enough of a "depth" system for me. I liked how that worked and I think it works well. You can take away building anything else next to it, because that's enough of an upgrade system.

Even just being able to upgrade it is enough, that's always an extra thing to do for you, but building yet another building next to it makes it even more exciting to build bases.

Obviously you don't agree so we can just stop the discussion here, neither of us are going to have a change of heart.

I think people forget that this game is not a sequel to the supcom series, more another direct branch from TA. As such game-play elements that were introduced in supcom & it's sequels won't necessarily feature in this series.

I actually really liked the fact that veterancy wasn't over done in TA, having the kill counter & knowing that unit was just a bit better than one that was fresh off the production line was nice. I would at least like to see the kill counter kept.

Adjacency & shields interesting game-play elements but they're not making a sequel to supcom so are not necessary. plus the way they worked in supcom had problems.

The "simplified economy" (it might be a good idea to make a more accurate name) seems to me to make metal & energy more focused. Rather than things costing arbitrary metal & energy values now metal will be more production based & energy will be used for powering things to perform functions, ie the idea with planes requiring energy to replenish their bomb load.
It seems interesting & i look forward to seeing how it's being implemented & testing in the alpha.

Wait. Restricting player to just one scenario instead of giving him choice of many is "deep"? I don't think you understand the meaning of this word. You still didn't watch that video, did you?

Nope I did not. And now, I will not. And quite frankly I don't care what you want to call it. It's a game feature I like in a game. Does that make you happy, when I call it feature? Is that also the wrong thing to call it?

If you want to argue what I called it you're not here for the discussion of the subject, are you?

This is a good thing. It only means that the costs will be more "exactly as read from the some assembly required label". What you read is the cost, no weird timing or speed of build that makes different things eat more economy up and crash your economy.

By simpler, it means IIRC, that units have a metal and energy cost, and the construction unit has a build rate, and that is exactly how the unit is built. The unit always takes the same cost, the cost also being it's build time, and the specific construction unit always builds at their set metal-per-second. Theoretically, tier 1 engis will use 20 metal and 20 energy a second to build, tier 2 engis at 30 a second, and the commander 60 a second, so you know exactly how much you need to be collecting per second to feed them continuously. If they assist one another in building, the engineers still spend at their set rate, just on the same unit, and that spending rate is combined, as if one unit with the combined build rate of the two units assisting each other was doing the building.

They won't suddenly take much more to build something relatively harmless in cost but has some background number that makes it suck much more resources at once.

Lastly, IIRC, they are in fact differenciating energy and metal, one thing I heard is vehicles and bots taking a 60-40 split to build, one more-energy-less-metal and the other less-energy-more-metal, and probably having different types of units to spend metal or energy in their use even. This way, you further control not-economically-crashing by building more from a resource you have.

hi, wintermist i don't mean this personally but responses like

and

don't lend you any credibility. if you're not willing to even try to understand where someone with an opposing view is coming from - after going through the effort of finding a specific portion of a specific video, specific to this discussion then why should anyone else try to understand your position. why even post on a forum?

Because it's not needed, is it? If I said Depth, Complexity or Height, it matters little. What I'm talking about is all there, no matter what I called it. But see you're only interested in that video, not what I'm discussing, that much is clear.

I'm seriously not going to repeat it all once again, if someone wanted to discuss it, they would have. You're interested in the definition of Depth and Complexity, then go discuss that, but what I'm discussing right here, regardless of what you want to call it, is the ability to enhance your mass extractors with buildings added next to it.

It is needed in this discussion. At least to clarify the terms. Depth and Complexity are completely different things. How can we discuss anything when we don't speak on the same language? You can't make your point clear when you constantly misuse words.

Are you so freaking daft that you can't understand the following?

It's all right there.

That's not fun at all. You have a terrible definition of fun... stop using it.

First off, no it's not, he was asking you to define the terms you're referring to, but you only provided an example.

Second, you're getting pretty darn aggressive and frankly whether you intend to or not, you are dodging questions and moving goalposts all over the darn place.

These are the Definitions we are(or at least all seem to be, please correct me if I'm wrong) using for Depth and Complexity. If you feel these definitions are inaccurate feel free to provide the definitions you are working with so we can better understand the context to the opinions.

Mike

You can call it what you like, look at what I wrote and define it, and I'll accept that definition. The definition is not important to me, only to you. For me it may as well be undefined, because all I've said is I enjoy a game where I can build more things more. So a game where I can build a building next to a building and enjoy some sort of bonus is more fun to me than a game where I can only build the one and same building to enhance mass income.

Why do you want me so badly to put a definition on that? That's all I wanted to say, and quite frankly I've had enough of this, it's getting ridiculous. It rather seems to me you're more out to agitate than to discuss it.

wintermist is unencumbered by petty dictionary definitions, we should all be so lucky

Well, that's me running out of patience with this. Not a big deal really anyway since I was just talking about my personal taste in games.