Destiny is promoting PA!

I bought this game because of destiny

Strange - because that statement makes him look like he is exactly that.

I'd be nice if people would at least bother to get the spelling right, it's LEGO.

And let's not forget that LEGO is awesome and you can make some pretty wicked stuff from it;






Mike

Time is kind of a resource. What you choose to build, land sea or air, what structures you build in what order, how far you spread compared to how much defense each point of yours has... time is either spent in one place or another.

I am surprised this went well enough to be interesting.

Time is always a resource in an strategy game, even in turnbased games. I'm not sure what Acer means by saying that PA doesn't have time...

Well I wouldn't say for turn-based because when acer says time, I think he means player attention.

That's a different story. Player attention is constant in PA atm because of lack of multi window and multiple planets. Player attention will be global at all times with abundant leisure time in the ideal state of this game.

This, theoretically, just removes human speed out of the game. Human speed is flawed by computer speed, familiarity with ui, and autokeymacros. The theory is adding all these tools just makes human speed all equally as close to instantaneous as possible. If nobody issues commands faster than anyone else, then the commands the players choose to issue and not the speed they are issued are all that is rewarded.

Honestly, the only games i like that human input speed and grinding human control familiarity are big in, are Street Fighter and Guitar Hero lol.

As long as the game isn't turn based there will be influence of the speed, no?
My problem is just, that i don't see any potential to get an advantage through micro/more attention to a specific task. All i saw till now (i can't play it before the weekend) is that macro is everything.
Also i don't see why removing mechanical skill is a good thing, all it does is making it harder to be the better player, maybe not from the beginning, but when the "good" strategies are figured out (i doubt that there is enough depth that this process will never happen..).
But yeah i have to wait till the weekend before i can say more about the actual gameplay, for now it seems a extremely weird for a starcraft player.

Because there's an RTS audience out there that isn't interested in better meaning mechanical skills. Games like PA don't remove this element, but they're less dependent on the kind of skills that RTSs like SC2 emphasise.

Give a whirl, it's not for everyone, but it's more my cup of tea.

An RTS inherently demands motorskill as well as multi-tasking.

Good SC2 players will probably have an advantage making better use of the Saved Views.
SupCom players never needed this at all with Strategic Zoom and a 2nd monitor.


Also, some of us are still waiting for the units to be a little more robust, so we don't have "paper units".
This should reward a little more micro.


Ditto with actual proper terrain... this is actually one of the big things holding back the RTS micro side of this game...


Once we're no longer playing on "flat maps" this game is going to get a HECK of a lot more interesting...
- multi-level battlefields
- choke points
- unit composition (because you can only fit so much in a confined space)
- turret placement
- elevation advantages
- Drops
- Fire bases on plateaus
- Timing attacks

These are all things the "flat maps" are holding back.
And once they come in, we will start getting to play with GOOD micro.
*(bad micro is one where the UI is intentionally crippled for "make-work")

How long did it take you to assemble the SC mecha units?
Also i love your commander unit , have you got a Digital Designer template for that ??
If you do would you PM me a copy or the parts list to assemble it , its DAMN AWESOME

Also @KNight ,,
Do you have a mindstorms ev3 kit or just tons of technic's ??
If you have a mindstorms kit i will see if i can make a walking Spider Mech or Commander Unit and i'll send you the template for Digital Designer too
I love LEGO Mecha .. lol

Depends how you define it, the raw time between the start of the design and actually building it is averaging out to about 7 months.

I have some, but not the mindstorms stuffs, that type of mechanical stuff isn't my forte, this is about as far as I've gotten with that kind of thing;


Or using the Technic beams and other assorted parts in other builds;




Otherwise I focus Mainly on Micro scale builds like all of these guys.

Mike

Wow man thats epic, i bow down to your awesome lego assembly skills.
I understand what you mean by from planning the desgin to full assembly <-- thats what i was asking so yeah 7 months is acutally pretty damn fast for that kind of a complex mech.
My first and only mecha i built out of lego was a free standing spider mech like the spider from "Wild Wild West" with Will smith in it.
I never took any photo's (i should have it looked fair awesome and now i can't remember how i assembled it .. lol).
I just invested in the mindstorms ev3 kit, i have seen some amazing stuff built with it,
I mainly just want to build a basic walking Alpha Commander and program it to walk and to raise its build arm and make nanolathing noises
When its complete i will put up a video of it ,, only downside is its going to take me a few months to plan out it's end design so it functions as a walking moving mech.

[DISCLAIMER]: Before you write an equally lengthy post, telling me why you think I'm wrong, carefully read what I said, quote the part that bothers you, and ask for clarification. After I explain myself further, and you are sure that I'm still wrong, then tell me why I'm wrong.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but reading your post, this came to mind, tell me if you agree:
Say you had a monitor that was large enough to fit into your entire field of view and had a high enough resolution to properly display everything.
Assume the computer behind that monitor could output 60 fps and an had an interface that could execute commands with you just thinking them. Wouldn't you be limited by your ability to switch your frame of reference quickly?

Yeah, definitely. I'm not sure what that guy was talking about, but that's why I play RTS instead of Civ or grand strategy. It makes you more tense and thrilled.

I guess that's a valid concern, but I don't see it that way. Maybe because I'm a TA native. SC just seems too restrictive for me. I still enjoy it, but I don't identify with it. Nobody in my life will appreciate my skills if I get good at SC or at PA, but for me, just to do it for myself, I want to get good at PA for the sake of it. If that makes sense. (I think this paragraph is a little unclear and maybe out of context, there thoughts come from my justification for quitting SC and picking up PA.)

What I wanted to say was that we think micro shouldn't have a very big effect on the game. Why should control that requires high dexterity decide who is the better strategist? (I know I overuse this point a lot)
I think the reason that this isn't a non-issue is because of a fundamental difference between the two games.
Here is why I think so.
In Starcraft, you work towards a unit advantage that is permanent and above a certain threshold (enough to kill workers and any static defenses, combined with the opponent's army), this allows you to destroy your opponents buildings, which satisfies the conditions for a win. Except most if not all players recognize a long time before it happens, that it's going to happen, and leave the game. So when one party sees that a fatal amount of their workers died, or the other party traded well enough in their favor long enough to just overrun them, they leave. This leaves an impression, such that, if you win a major battle, you are the better player, because battles are all about micro. See what I mean?

Let's examine the complimentary situation in PA:
This is only my humble noob opinion.
The objective in a TA-FA-PA type game is to destroy the opponents commander. It doesn't matter if he micros better, or macros better, or both, if you kill his commander, you win, and therefore, the better player. This creates the illusion that cheese is the best strategy and therefore more prevalent, because it's easier to execute a quick commander snipe that is hard to scout and counter, and win. I disagree. I won't go into it now, but it goes something like this. You want to kill the commander, so you try to snipe him. Armies kill snipes, and snipes can be avoided by scouting and hiding your commander, etc... w/e that's not the point.
(sorry these thoughts aren't as refined, as is evident due to my rambling.)
You want to focus on killing his commander, but at the same time balance your snipe plans with army plans, to make sure your army is big enough for him to not run you over.
So you want to expand to build a bigger army to contest more land to expand more to build a snipe and kill him with impunity instead of running head first into a turtle that makes your 200/200 turn into 60/200 and your win into a loss(I know, no supply or even supply cap in PA)
(I hope I'm being clear enough here, I typed the last 3 paragraphs after posting so I had to edit)

We agree that mechanical skill should not be such a big determinant of who is better, or who wins in a strategy game. As this was established earlier. Don't get me wrong, mechanics are important. As long as there is a "real time" aspect to the game, time will be an issue, and using your time more effectively is, pretty much, mechanics.
The problem I have with mechanics is this. Mechanics are so important, that I straight up lose if they are not impeccable. If you can't place those forcefields perfectly, you die.
(This is the real reason I quit SC, everything else is just a mild version of this, formulated as a justification. I lose the match because I can't block the ramp at the right second in the perfect spot? Real? What does that have to do with how good of a strategist I am?)

What do you mean by this?
I wouldn't say that PA-type-game players memorize good strategies, more like have good habits, or better yet, tendencies, I should say.
In SC, there are strategies(build orders) that depend on the race you're playing, your opponent's race, the map you're both playing on, etc. Then you can change the build order here and there based on what you scout or know about the other player. It can be as small as 4gating with 1 more probe than your opponent. Artosis and Tasteless noticed that and called it a strategy. I guess... Who am I to argue with them? That's one of my problems though, as small as it is, it's still strategy, but it's only available (relevant to) the top tier players that devote HUGE chunks of their life to the game. If I go on the platinum ladder and use 1 more probe when 4gating it will make exactly 0 difference in the outcome.

On the other hand, what I observed in FA were a much more mild version of build orders. BOs were defined for 2 minutes max, and they also depended on some maps due to reclaim distribution. You could argue that race played a large role in your decisions, but that's beside the point.
Build orders were like this, factory, pgen pgen, mex mex, and at this point it diverged too far to mention everything. There were some BOs that started with an air factory, some that made you walk you comm into the middle and reclaim, some that had your commander running around with your swarm of T1 tanks. Others, would call for Commander upgrades, is there a hydro? Are you going to build a hydro? Now that you've built a hydro, are you going to go air, or upgrade mexes?
See, it's a lot more vague than at 16/X stop building probes and save 400 minerals to drop 4 gates.
Some maps had so much reclaim that you pretty much had to contest it to be competitive, and that forced you to go down a certain number of paths.

This brings me to my next point.
With randomized maps and only one race, you can't have map centered strategies. You can only go as deep as map type. Like, map is mostly water, so I'm going naval.

Now, what I said about good habits or tendencies, I meant something along these lines:
Good players can asses where they are (what state the game is in), decide where they want to be (how to set up a win), know what tools they have (units they can build), what those tools do (what these units good at, and how to use them properly), and how to use those tools to get to where they decided they wanted to be. I hope that makes sense.

What do you mean by this?
Do you really think this game is that shallow? That we can exhaust all variations of viable plays?
You know that people still play Total Annihilation and Forged alliance competitively, right? I mean, I guess someone could say that, looking at the current unit roster(basic units that are made of paper), UI functionality (Less utility than SC2's UI), and lack of map diversity (flat maps).

Ofc speed will always stay important. I can't see why not. No matter how good the UI becomes you can just control bigger stuff with it. Currently it is near impossible to play on multiple planets with a higher speed. Given a super awesome way better UI players will be able to play on multiple planets at once, utilizing the same speed as before.
A better UI leads to a bigger game, not a slower one.

Ok i tried on this to quote you but this device does not work well with text walls. I did read it.

I know there will always be technological differences between players pc. However, i am even ok with this game letting players change the ui. Generally, templates, multi window, queueing, they all let you issue many commands in a moment and a few clicks. This is necessary in this game, on multiple planets it would be cruel to expect people to just "click faster".

As far as player input goes, it already matters some in the form of economy. Getting metal spots and armies to defend them already is a "whoever does it faster wins" game. This would make the game eco-is-everything, if it were any worse.

Right now the saving grace for that is exactly as you said. Snipes, big or small i am just referencing the execution. Big eco or little, a few units when used right can still do many times their cost in metal damage and construction time. A pelter dig in can completely screw someone up if they spent metal and time to build t2 just to lose their first t2 factory, using mere t1 tech. A holkins with advanced radar and a single scout can cost an enemy 90% progress torwards a complete nuke, moments from ready to be fired it gets shelled, and that sometimes is game because that holkins is going to slowly screw one thing up at a time.

So you are right, snipes and commander snipes are nothing more than the objective of the game and are simply the enemy using units in the best opportunity use for them. The economy gives you the edge, but player chosen methods are what decide the outcome.

As far as the mechanical speed of player orders however, in a game with multiple spread out structures and multiple planets, limiting ones ability to control it all anywhere quickly, means people click as fast as possible and then size ends up even more important to obtain and even harder to achieve and making any multiple bases or multiple planets just becomes a hazard of distracting you.

With the current lack of ui, i currently have very high risk associated with leaving planet, i hear a beep and I'm too late to react to an army kicking down my structures in bulk. This is currently even a problem with multiple small posts, which one is being attacked when i hear a beep.

I see... in other words he means high APM and lots and lots of micromanagement. Because even in a turnbased game, you are still placing your time into something, you still have an opportunity cost every time you make a decision.

For me, time means the concept of tempo - how much time you are ahead of/behind your opponent, or how much time you put into developing some aspect of your strategy. It's pretty much always unavoidable. Sure, in a turnbased game you can put an unlimited amount of time into deciding the very best move, but time is measured relative to your opponent.

Kinda, but that is not the whole point.
I just think the game is more rewarding if you have lot of different opportunities to shine as the better player.
i get the vibe right now that PA is "only" about macro, there is no gain for you to invest your apm into anything besides expanding/building stuff. As i said before maybe i am totally wrong but that is what the games i watched looked like.
But i think most of the TA guys want it like that? I see people arguing that rasing the mechanical (micro,macro, multitask) is bad cause they want the game to be about the strategy. I kinda can understand that, but in the end i feel that if strategies are figured out (i mean let's be real, people will discover "best" strategies, this game is no 2nd chess) it will take away a lot of fun (at least for me) if it is only about the "buildorders".

I don't think micro alone decides the winner at all. And i don't think micro being required takes anything away from the strategy. If anything it adds a lot of strategy (if units are designed in a good way) cause units can serve different purposes and be more than "one dimensional".
What do i mean by this? Well i think it is bad for units to be only "a click" cause it is all about the numbers then. 5Y will always beat 5X, no micro in the world will change that. The only chance for your strategy to work is now building 5Z cause your 5X are just useless.
What if micro can change that though? All of a sudden a really good (micro) player can use the 5X and be effiecient enough to make this strategy work (ofc he has to use a lot of his limited apm into doing so, so he will most likely lack in macro), so it ADDS a lot of strategies to him.

But yeah i think this concept isn't really appreciated here right? I mean i don't say that its bad per se, but i feel it limits players into a numbers game.

I guess you guys think i am too restricted into my sc(2) point of view and that is probably true, but i think it is fun to discuss such topics nonetheless.

Micro might add strategic options but it also takes away some of the relative importance of strategy. As long as the game is designed well and still leaves enough strategic options it will work out. The point is that by doing this you create a somewhat different genre of RTS, which Planetary Annihilation fans specifically desire. They don't like control-based solutions because it's simply not what they want. There is no one best RTS design and trying to fit all games into the Starcraft mold can damage the genre by reducing variety.

Many Starcraft 2 players are unhappy with the game though and they desperately want a next-gen RTS game to switch to, or at least give it some competition, especially now that C&C has been canceled. I just don't think that Planetary Annihilation will be that game, as it tries to occupy a different niche. It seems to me that PA and SC2 have less in common than SC2 and LoL, since the latter are both very action focused.