Poll: Do you feel that the commander we have seen since TA improves the game?

I have taken TA multiplayer very seriously at points in my life, and have always held the opinion that the commander (as it is in PA/TA/ TA: spring games) has never had a positive role in the game. It has contributed to *many* bitter endings for me - I'm curious how this community feels.

commander sniping is a bit annoying but im Sure there will be options to change Win conditions once the game is out so I don't realy worry about it.

what the hell guys? 3 votes to remove the nuke-death?

what will represent how much of a punch it packs otherwise? this is like 50% of what makes the genre.

I think commander sniping is a nice mechanic, keeps the player on his/her toes and differentiates the game from the competition. This way you can still win even when things might be looking bad otherwise.. keeps players hanging in the game.

The commander as it is, is the soul of the game, and it's core mechanic. To change it would be blasphemy

This. Even the strongest opponent should have a weakpoint. Otherwise it becomes predictable after one player gains noticeable advantage.

And the fact that you start with decent firepower protects the game from early rushes without any artificial limitations, which is nice.

Also, removing of the explosion death would only make probable negative commander impact worse. A lot of games will be just commander duels that way.

I am for tweaking the commander - The commander serves a very good purpose, but in many cases is too powerful. If I had it my way, he'd only have a cannon similar to the one he has now, but weaker, and his explosion on death would do about half the damage. Due to the randomness of spawns/maps, having a mobile defense that can actually defend your base early on is a must, but at the same time, seeing a commander rush my defenses or right into my base makes me cringe.

Back when I played TA: Spring 8v8 on a daily basis, it wasn't common for one player to rush out an air factory and a transport with the sole purpose of using their commander as an early game nuke. This was in games where comm death != loss. There was also a lot of value in walking your commander out of range and suiciding him, then reclaiming him for metal. Spring was all about metal starvation. Many of the worst aspects of the spring commander aren't with us in PA (thankfully), like a suiciding commander will not kill other commanders, so even if it is ever possible in PA, it won't benefit the player using it enough.

what do you mean? four levelers take care of him.

Kinda a pointless poll since there are waaaaay too many options to be covered in the poll. I'm guessing OP wants to remove the nuke death.

It's a bit early to start talking about some of this stuff. We don't even have air transports yet.

Some stuff we can start talking about long term goals. But this is pretty fine tuning stuff and we don't have enough of the game to start fine tuning.

That's kind of another problem, though. Pre-teir2, the commander is crazy strong, but post-tier2 it becomes a liability. Imagine if it was neither of these things. The current state of the game doesn't really handle this problem well, though. I'm sure everyone here has experienced games which appear to be un-endable - except for the weak point. It's like shadow of the colossus and your commander is that damn glowing emblem. I would much rather fight the monster than stab it in it's weak point.

This is all just for fun. I have no expectations that anything said in this thread could/would impact anything. I've never liked what the commander is, and I know most people disagree with me. It's just an interesting topic.

I wouldn't be surprised if tournaments actually used where you start off with a fabrication bot or something like that. Something mundane to gameplay.

That sounds like a setting I would have good feelings towards. I personally think the commander is legacy though and should stay in the game.

Plus, the commander works better than ever. He is fairly hard to snipe without having had the power to beat him outright already armywise. He is also fairly useable offensively as a filler. Lastly, his Uber-cannon is placeholder and will be modified to work more fluently with his attacks at some point, which will actually make him more unique and necessary to how the game works.

At any rate, he is legacy. Yeah, he is kind of necessary to be the game's default starting state, and player preference would remove him if it really is that big of a desire.

I doubt that a kid with a sword would ever say that. I think you are the monster and you don't like having a weak spot.

The commander is the heart of the game
He is what starts the game and ends it
In a kill the king kind of gamemode
He starts building an army and controls it
If he is destroyed the army is destroyed with him
This is the mainmechanik of the game
You ask if he improves the gameplay?
Well he IS the gameplay
asking to remove him is like asking
to remove the maingameplayaspect of this game
And what would you want the game to start with?
A couple fabbers? In this case depending on the setup of planets
The game could last needlessly longer
just to destroy any other enemy unit on the battlefield
The commander is a means to end a game pottentionaly early
He is your mainobjective both to destroy and defend
It also gives the opponent a possibilty to win with an last effort strike
That keeps you at your toes
It makes a match more intresting and tense

There might be a mode were losing him might not matter
but I personaly find that rather boring

I actually just registered to respond to this thread--I've been lurking around here for quite a while, but didn't want to register because 1) I have neither the funds nor the hardware to currently pre-order and contribute constructively to the dialogue by actually playing the game, and 2) My opinion (in my opinion) wouldn't be worth much since I suck at RTS games

But, for what it's worth, I decided I'd throw my hat into the ring. Would the commander be upgradeable a la Supreme Commander? I've played TA, Spring, SupCom, and am attempting to get into FAF, and I've noticed particularly in SupCom and FA, the commanders can be (and are) upgraded throughout the battle to remain relevant. That, coupled with their overcharge/D-gun I would say makes the commanders a relevant tool, either for economy boosting or war, depending on your playstyle. And, given the variety of upgrades previously available to commanders, it didn't shoe-horn anyone in to a particular direction of play.

So, I said all that to say this: The commander is a useful tool, and I would vote for keeping it in regardless. But if commander upgrades were available, that could be a way to keep the commander relevant into the T2 and T3 tiers. Again, just my two cents; take it or leave it.

If we're on a single planet, I've never seen an un-endable game. Orbital is broken, so multi planet is different – but simply due to missing features.

The Commander is the point of the game. Kill it, and you win.

Don't think of the Commander as a liability, think of it as an asset. It's the most efficient builder out there. So always have it building.

Even so. There will be multiple play options. So if you want to keep playing after the Commander dies, there will be a game mode for that.

This has been discussed many many times over. It's even answered in the FAQ – the Commander will not be upgradeable.

You don't want to fling your Commander into the fray. He's the general. You don't send the general into the thick of the battle. You protect it.

The commander is just what the name implies, a commander. One unit (that is very strong when compared to other units, 1v1) that is vital to your army. The unit that controls other units and structures as well as economy. An avatar of you, the player. It's the ultimate hero unit of any rts.

To remove it would be to remove the most central game mechanic of the game.
To reduce the nuke effect of death would be pointless unless you play team games with shared armies.
To give it upgrades would make a one man army, which is giving too much power to a single unit and possibly render other units and structures obsolete.

So yeah, I voted Let it be.

It is sad that someone's main reason to join the forums was to input this, and it is pretty much a confirmed no.

However, the commander has work to go. He won't be upgradeable, but he will have additional features that makes him more fun to use. There will also be different commanders to choose from, as far as appearances. So the commander will be somewhat of a player's signature of style or flair.

That being said, I use him in late-earlygame combats. If he is nearby, he doubles the firepower of an army and isn't killable by the same army if all focused-fire on. Also, if they all focus their fire, your other units won't die at all and you can just repair the commander. This is assuming you can't be sniped either and as such have anti air.

Either way, having no commander should be an optional thing. However, the default way the game starts and is played should be with the commander.

The commander is the exception that proves the rule in a game of stock machine fabrication based solely on efficiency and uniformity. He is the spark of uniqueness and multi-role and quirky holes. He symbolizes the individual that controls the army, the mortal who has weaknesses and no real power himself but is powerful in direct comparison to any single thing.

Remove Nuke Death... and Remove the possibilite of Drawns when you lose...