3-Dimensional Strategy

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

You're still not being clear on what this enriched gameplay is. Why is it better? What is the objective of not shooting down units or shooting down units?

You're not being reasonable you're just saying "gameplay" as if it means something and leaving it at that. That's my objection.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

You're replying pretty fast there bmb and you edited your post as I was posting mine, so I have now addressed your concern.

Good Gameplay = Something that makes the Game... that you Play... Good.
m'kay?

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

That's not what gameplay is. Gameplay is just how the game plays, not whether that is good or bad.

You need to reason why a certain desicion is good or bad for gameplay.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Pfffft hahahahah!!!!!

Good Gameplay is not about being good or bad? Ok bmb, I think you need a timeout.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Can someone please just change this title? This hurt me when I saw it. Not to mention the title and the post don't even spell "Dimensional" the same way.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

So tell me.

Why is it good or why is it bad?

You still refuse to do this.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Is it fun?

That is the ONLY thing that matters.

The Definition of GOOD gameplay, as compared to BAD gameplay, is decided by how much fun the players are having playing the game.

Good. Game. Play. It really is not that difficult bmb.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

What is fun? Why is it fun? What if there is something that is fun that doesn't fit? Tetris is fun. Do we need a tetris minigame in PA? Would that make PA better?

Don't just say "fun" and "gameplay". It doesn't mean anything.

Not all games need to be fun either. You could certainly make a very good case that PA needs to be fun. But not all games. What makes good gameplay in a game that isn't fun?

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Give me an example of a game you or I or any number of people would willingly play, that ACTIVELY makes you feel worse for playing it.

Don't worry... take your time, I'll wait.

Are you honestly trying to get me to DEFINE fun for you? Do you not know what fun is? That's a little sad...

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

I certainly don't play amnesia for fun.

Fun is not just feeling good either. Skyrim isn't the most fun game in the world but it makes me feel good anyway. It has different qualities.

Nobody has yet explained why shooting down units would be bad for gameplay.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

yes you DO. You DO play Amnesia: The Dark Descent for fun.

I refute your claim sir, that "Horror" games are not "Fun"

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

You're telling me what I feel when I play games and why I want to feel like that? Oh boy.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Yes. Yes I sodding-well am bmb.

You are trying to argue the point that Horror games are not Fun. You fail sir... on so many levels that it's not even fun to poke fun at you anymore. You just make me feel sorry for you.

You have decreased my level of enjoyment in conversing with you bmb. Congratz

Edit: I honestly cannot believe you are serious bmb. What you're doing here? This? This is flamebait. Cut it out.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

You're not really teasing me but you certainly are annoying me.

Especially since you still haven't answered the original question and gone this far off topic.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Most RTS games are 2-and-a-bit dimensional. They are played on a bounded plane with layers which some units can move and fire between. PA sounds like it will have at least 3 layers and maybe there will be units which can move between them. Maybe there will be movement within layers for much finer 3d (eg near and far orbits).

Because it is very easy to send fighters to swarm an area with an incoming orbital drop.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

I took the liberty of going back and picking out every question (sentences punctuated with a Question Mark) you asked in this thread (adding in context with [x] markers where appropriate). Now, this is not my style. I really, really dislike quote sniping (or omni-slashing as some call it) but I find that I am unable to really grasp what your problem is bmb... so I'll just go through every single question you posted in this topic and answer them all in a single post.

Let's begin...

Well, we're off to a flying start. This is a quote from you replying to knight trying to deconstruct his argument and asking for context. However the context for your question was already laid out in knight's post; we are talking about the potential allowance for anti-aircraft weapons to target falling drop-pods. Now, the reason this would be "good" is that it would give the defending player an option to defend himself. Options are generally considered a good thing. The only reason I can think of that could make this potentially "bad" is that if there are too many options for the defending player he might undergo analysis paralysis. This is the phenomenon that, given enough choices, all of which seem useful, a person may over analysis his options for so long that he or she will make no choice at all.
Seeing as, so far, there don't seem to be many other options presented for defending against an Orbital Drop this is probably a moot point.

As to whether this it "Good Gameplay" or "Bad Gameplay" that rests entirely on whether the system of attack and defence is one that you desire the defender to be allowed to influence, and at what point you wish that influence to take place. Inherently it is a good idea in a GAME to see if both players are having FUN during this exchange. If one player is having significantly less fun than the other we would probably cite a balance issue. If neither player is having fun then it is "Bad Gameplay". We play GAMES for fun bmb, despite anything you may claim to the contrary, but I'll get back to this point again shortly. If both players are having fun during this exchange we should consider the exchange between attacker and defender in this case to be an example of "Good Gameplay".

This one is pretty obvious, but since you asked; Allowing the defender to attack the falling Drop Pods is empirically empowering the defender. To what extent a defender is able to disable or otherwise destroy the attacker's Drop Pods is a concern, naturally. Creating a scenario where NO drop, no matter how extensive, is destroyed with minimal effort from the defender is "Bad Gameplay". I guarantee that the attacker will feel like his resources were "wasted effort" and he wont have fun watching all his units die to a handful of AA defence. Similarly, though reversed, the Defender does not want to be unable to defend himself against a Drop but also, subconsciously doesn't want to beat it off to easily either. It is generally not fun to win without effort in a game that revolves around strategy.

Planetary Annihilation. Funny I could have sworn we were on the PA forums.

Enriched Gameplay is better than stale gameplay. If the Attacker has a disproportionate amount of power compared to a defender of equal skill then you have stale, predictable gameplay. Allowing the Defender a chance to actually defend himself, and if he is skilled enough, beat off his attacker would constitute enriched gameplay. A player should be rewarded for the skill he or she invests in their play.

As for the "not shooting down units or shooting down units" goal I would say that the objective here is to promote good gameplay. My second paragraph deals with what "Good" and "Bad" Gameplay is, so feel free to revisit that paragraph any time you need a refresher.

See above. Good Gameplay is usually designed to promote a feeling of "Fun".

Oh boy... Ok, what is fun? well, For our purposes let's limit this to Gaming, shall we? A "fun" piece of gameplay is when a person feels enjoyment within their current gaming activity. Now, within the RTS genre, generally a player will have fun when his or her strategic and tactical decisions feel validated. Stip a player of their perceived ability to affect an outcome and you find the general point at which a person would claim to not be having fun. This is different between different games however. An RTS does not stimulate "fun" in the same way as a FPS, Horror or Puzzler themed game might. I'll come back to this point later.

That depends on the vision with which the game is crafted. If an incongruous element is supposed to give the player a sense of "Hey, wait... why is this here?" feeling, and remains fun within the game, then it is entirely appropriate for the game to include it. If however the game is designed to not include such "Hey, wait... why is this here?" elements then the game designer should try to remove these elements where appropriate, even if they are "fun" they detract from the overall vision that the game developer is trying to realise.

Ok, firstly Tetris is subjectively fun. Do we need a tetris mini-game within Planetary Annihilation? I would argue not because it would not be congruous with the overall vision for PA. You're asking this as a rhetorical question, but I thought I'd answer it... just in case you weren't being flippant.

And finally, yes. If you're curious as to why humans enjoy and find fun and pleasure in Horror games I suggest you do a little research.

---

Phew... that was a biggy. I hope I cleared up a few points for you bmb, and if you have further questions, please don't hesitate. I'll gladly point out the obvious answers to your questions all day long.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

your brackets are not my questions

Well I don't see why fighters would do major damage, or even be fast enough assuming you even have intel on the drop. What would happen is that you can't as easily drop into heavily defended areas which is probably just as well. I see this as a positive.

As far as layers I gather PA will the same layers as supcom. Seabed, sub, water, land, air and orbit.
Except orbit will be more extensive than just "higher air".

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Wait bmb, I'm confused. If every single time you've posted a sentence with a question mark you have in fact NOT been asking questions, then I'm afraid you may have a problem with how punctuation works.

If my bracketed context is incorrect, perhaps you would like to rephrase your questions so I can answer them for you, hmm?

Though I must say I find your 6 word rebuttal to my 1,100 word post to be amusing.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

bmb, stop being deliberately daft and get to the point. Good gameplay is a subject thing. Things that some find fun, aren't fun for everyone.

Truth be told, I think you're looking for a fight more than anything else on here.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

I'm sure the AA could work similar to how it works in Supcom2. If you use the jump jets in Supcom2 your units become air units and can be targeted by AA. This is also true for the unit cannon. However ... AA is not as effective against bots / tanks as it is against Air (obviously) so your units don't take as much damage unless there is a lot of flack / AA (well they did, but they were stronger then air units so it appeared as though they took less damage).

With the unit cannon, AFAIK the AA only fired on them at a certain height range. The same could be true here. The orbital cannon fires a pod full of bots, they break off from the pod (watch the video again) and have jet packs technically making them air units (watch the video again). Once they have broken off the from the pod, I see no reason why flack/AA couldn't start shooting them. While in the pod however, they should be classed as out of range and un-targetable by anything other then orbital defences (if present in this game).

Again referring to the video, it appeared that only bots could be fired from the cannon. Unsure as to wether tanks can also make this trip. This would also, to an extent, allow AA to hurt the units as bots are less armoured then tanks.

Finally, as to how realistic AA firing at ground units is, go play Supcom FA. One of the factions (cybran?) had a AA mobile unit that could face its AA down and fire those missiles at ground units. Not to mention this is a game ... with robots the size of cities ... etc. etc.

As to 3d fighting, the way you described, that was my whole Supcom2 experience. Units teleporting / jetting into my base to murder my commander and death on all of the front lines. Go magnetron / Bomb Bouncer combo though.

Closing note: I lost the game