I am aware that the alpha is intended to be about the engine, and about bugs and stability. However the gameplay displayed in the alpha is... abysmal. I perfectly understand that this is pre-alpha, with few units and systems implemented, with bugs and so on. But the alpha has made me realize how little we know about the way the devs want PA to play- and currently how the alpha plays is our best source of information. The PA devs have been very forthcoming about the engine's features, including spherical planets, texturing, pathing, and the chrono-cam, among other features. However it seems to me that we haven't heard word one about what the devs intend for the gameplay other than "like TA." I think now is the perfect time to have an abstract discussion about what kind of gameplay PA should have, while the bugs and basics are getting handled without gameplay being an issue. Will PA have a few large armies of units, or many small groups? Will players primarily be aggressive and mobile, or defensive and static? Are air units used as another type of army in large groups, or as air cover/strike support for ground forces? Long story short, the alpha makes me concerned. It currently looks like an extremely flat blob-centric game, with range and quantity overriding all strategy and tactics. The air warfare especially is going to be extremely pathological unless significant changes are made to the fundamentals- not just tweaking units' numbers and ironing out bugs. Just adding unit types, more planets, etc. to this foundation won't make for an interesting battlefield. I would be very interested to hear from the devs how they intend or envision the game to play, and how the units and other player tools will create interesting player interaction and gameplay. Even if there is presently no plan and the devs are focusing on the game's engine at the moment, that is something I would like to know.
In a good strategy game, none of these questions should be answered generally. It always depends on situation and playstyle. This is the early alpha and everything is supposed to be broken. We should just find and report the broken stuff and report it so it can be fixed. Within a few patches you will already have more information on "how the game play". But you can't really expect a metagame to evolve 2 days into the alpha.
I think the idea your suggesting is jumping to conclusions. As it stands they have implemented very VERY basic combat (most of which is just simple pew pew between basically the same units) , and a basic map. The alpha is about tweaking the engine and finding game breaking issues. They will be adding specialized units, adding cool features. Making it very interesting. We will have cross planet warfare, game modes, and more units. The whole blob thing does hold true right now but what about when we get the unit cannon. What good will a blob do if you just shoot past them to take out their base? Kill the commander? WE dont have any idea. The whole idea you know what PA will stand on play style is pretty hard to believe as they themselves most likely have not create a concrete idea themselves. And remember, the whole point of this experiment is for us to suggest improvements and changes that should be made to make it a overall better game. I think we all need to focus more on the core of the game before we start discussing what it is lacking. Maybe in a couple of months we can revisit this but until then this rather inappropriate.
Also We wont be having the run away economy that we are seeing right now. Remember there will be most likely points that we will have to hold which will create supply lines and of course create or break games. Making hit and run tactics very successful.
Gameplay is always a bit of a worry for me as I don't assume people know what they are doing. But it is still very early, we don't have any balance yet and the implemented units are probably those which only need the currently implemented mechanics in order to function. Although, my new game heuristic "the longest range unit is the most powerful" does seem to be holding.
I understand that tactical and strategic mechanics feeling a bit flat is always a concern, however, it may still be a little too early to make a judgement on how this would develop. The fundamental driver of "what adds strategy and tactics" is player choice. If players only have one type of unit, then the only option a player has is to mass up a big deathball, and throw it at the enemy. Biggest deathball wins. However, as more and more units and buildings are added, the space of available choices becomes much larger and more interesting. Should I overwhelm them with a hoard of basic units, raid with light mobile teams, or nuke them from orbit? We don't have nearly enough options as players at the moment, in order to broaden and diversify the strategic choice. If it looks like the final number of unit and building types is a little on the low side, then that would be cause for substantial concern. As it is, without a bare-bones unit list, then we are still left in the position of simply having to be patient.
I don't think the number of unit types is related to whether deathballs are a good idea. As in you can have games with one unit type which have no deathballing and you can have games with many unit types and dominate deathballing.
I agree that multiple unit types by itself does not necessarily remove the deathball. However it does provide more balance levers to operate on the deathball problem. However, one unit type, or a very limited choice of unit types is very conducive to deathballing. You say that it is possible to have one unit games with no deathballing. In all the RTS games I have ever played, I cannot think of a single example of this, unless there are a lot of other external factors that make the game very different from the conventional of TA RTS paradigm. Regardless, this is not a thread about deathballs. It is a thread about asking whether the strategic options of the game will be limited and flat, based upon what we have seen of the alpha. To this question, my answer remains unchanged: too early to tell.
Unit type is a poor way to punish deathballs. This is a round battlefield, delay the deathball with a small force, use the other force to destroy their base. Deathball . . . averted. Remember, the deathball isn't important, the commander is.
Sounds to me like this strategy would be helped if the delaying force and the raiding force had different characteristics. Say, if the delaying force was slower and had a lot of hit-points, while the raiders were fast and had high DPS. Seriously, is anybody here actually arguing that unit diversity doesn't improve strategic options? Because that's a very hard argument to sell.
I'll admit, I'm concerned by the gameplay I'm currently seeing in livestreams and such (I'm a beta backer). All that talk of "it's more fun to blow up robots than micromanage your economy" seems to be either not yet implemented or forgotten in the deluge of hardcore fans dropping suggestions to make the game harder and more competitive. I guess I'm glad I'm not in the alpha - I think it would have ruined my first impressions of the game. Right now I'm just not intuitively grasping the concept that the game's going to get better before beta (which is weird, because I'm a software developer by day). I've been in betas before and not much changed before the final release (beyond performance improvements and fixing some game-breaking bugs). Then again, this is super-early alpha so it's probably different... *shrug*
The issue is, most people have never been in such an early alpha. Just for a comparison. Let's take chess and remove all units besides the pawns. How would it play now? Probably a Deathball of them charging the other side's pawns. Pretty boring isn't it. But you can't make any extrapolation to the finished game from that. All the interesting tactics come later, when you have the advanced features implemented, the rooks, the queens, etc. Don't expect a fun game 'till Beta. Devs don't mention that its an unfinished game all the time just because they like to play coy.
I'm having trouble remembering where I left my commander LOL He keeps waltzing off to join my army which must be my fault or he's depressed. I do think even if it's chess with just the pawns you've still got to take the king and just running them in doesn't work that easily the defences are so op at the moment tier 1 units just shrivel up in front of them
I think we all know that unit types will have a lot of work done on them. Unit diversity is a keystone of good game design, I just don't think it's the sole solution to everything.
It is really early for judging the game play. But so far it is kind of fun and there are already really interesting things going on. The planet map is really something new (I know there are a few games that did it, but i never played one of them) and pretty exiting. The graphics are fun. I don't share this level of concern and I'm surprised how well this game works in such an early stage.
