Basic Only Matches are Tons of Fun!

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by brianpurkiss, April 22, 2014.

  1. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    Except most gamers aren't still playing a game from the year they were born. They're used to a deeper tech tree system. Which isn't "one gigantic leap for mankind" but a series of "smaller steps for man"
  2. nanolathe

    nanolathe Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,839
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Then again some gamers are, and they're still having a lot of fun with it... And Planetary Annihilation is capitalising greatly on the nostalgia for such decade-and-a-half old games, going so far as having a title that is very reminiscent of the founding game in the subgenre.

    Besides, TA's tech level wasn't a "leap" it was a shuffle-sideways.
    stuart98, corruptai and cdrkf like this.
  3. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    Yes. Evolution, rather than an example.

    Sorry for lack of clarity - it's still up for debate whether Planetary Annihilation does have tech leaps, or tech shuffles. If we were to have tech leaps, we would need a sum of smaller steps, rather than less large leaps, if you follow me?
  4. ozonexo3

    ozonexo3 Active Member

    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    196
    this is not about tech levels. This is about investing in something, like tanks. When there is no investment you never think "build bigger army, or try to upgrade?", you will always build more units.
    With 2 techlevel its only one (or max 4 per units type) investment in your strategy. In every stage you have quite good access to all units. You can add to this upgrading Mexes and we have total of 2 stages.

    In Starcraft you have base buildings like baracks, and addons for them. Then they are unity-specific building like ghoust academy and after thay you can build ghost. This is at leas 2 steps. With more heavy units (thor, battlecrusier) you need more investment depend on your strategy. You will get 4-5 steps

    In SupCom you have t2, t3 and exps + upgrading mex after every step. Its 5 Also Exp units cost so much that they are an investment. This is 6 in total. And here if someone is going hard to air he will have only good air etc.

    In TA you have only base units and advanced. This is 2 steps with a lot of units in every step. This is more about spaming units, than teching, investing, calculating costs. You can go hard for air and quite fast change your strategy and start building mainly other kind of units becouse cost of this is not that high, especially in late-game.

    Real question here is how much investment should be in PA to be a good and fun game.
    hearmyvoice and stormingkiwi like this.
  5. brianpurkiss

    brianpurkiss Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    7,438
    I'm really excited about the Anchor, and all of the Orbital changes.

    I'm not looking forward to losing the Dox. I think it is a HUGE mistake to lose the Dox.

    I'm halfway predicting the following scenario: Remember back during the good 'ol days of early beta where groups of 2 and 3 doxes would run around raiding during the opening 2 to 7 minutes? Well now imagine that same thing – except none of the Doxes can hit each other – instead they'll only be hitting buildings. So when properly microed, Doxes will not be able to hit other Doxes.

    That prediction is based on what I've seen from the Doxes where they can't hit moving units to save the world.
    stormingkiwi likes this.
  6. ozonexo3

    ozonexo3 Active Member

    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    196
    for me there should be like in TA
    There should be like in TA: AA bot, Direct fire bot (rocket), Artylery bot, fast scaut bot (low dmg, big speed)
  7. drz1

    drz1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    860
    Is there a reason why doxes couldn't be capable of shooting both moving targets and stationary ones? Like, two types of fire, or something? That, or just make the dos and grenadier separate units, surely?
    Unless of course, the intention is to have another existing unit fit the role of raider, like a skitter or something?
  8. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    Brian, I agree with you on this.

    The way I see it, if you want numbers or mobility for cost, you for for Bots. If you want DPS or Health for cost, you go for Vehicles.

    For your land army, you either maximise mobility/numbers (100% Bots), maximise DPS/Health (100% vehicles) or any hybrid combination of that.

    I don't really see why Bot roles and Vehicle roles can't be very similar under that system, because you're not making your army based on role, but on characteristics (do you prefer highly mobile assault units, or highly armoured ones?)

    I absolutely think that you shouldn't be forced to build vehicles for the main anti-unit units, and bots for the main anti-structure units.

    And has anyone noticed that simplification turns on its head the bots vs vehicles part of the Uber tutorial? You now have Bots being used to steamroll defences, instead of tanks.

    Ozone, I apologise, you're right, that was off-topic. Thank you for the refocus.

    The question regards the balance between expansion and consolidation, correct?

    Personally, I believe it should be so that you flip a coin at the beginning of the match. You decide whether to eco boom and rush t1 units early, or eco boom and tech quickly, based on the coinflip.

    (Technically, if you were really committed to a rush, you wouldn't eco boom first. But the numbers of troops you end up with are basically just harassment)

    From then on, every decision you make is based on the strategic position of the game.
    Last edited: April 22, 2014
    thelordofthenoobs likes this.
  9. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    1,818
    being flexible and mobile is what is the most important
    the system in supcom 2 for example didnt allow you to be flexible once you followed a techpath and just realised that your enemy got a propper counter to it ... you had to gain points first in order to correct your tech
    being able to make transitions between unittypes shouldn't be too hard a thing to do
  10. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    Scouting helps.
  11. ozonexo3

    ozonexo3 Active Member

    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    196
    SupCom2 system is just bad :p in strategic map when you see unit, you need exacly know how powerfull it is. Changing units parameters in that scale as SupCom2 did makes it unclean, because one time your tanks will win, and in next battle they will lose. Its hard to make strategic decisions with that.

    Yes, scauts are good in this, to know if you can tech up or spaming. Also this is what the strategy in this game is. Meta game. You want to harass with bots and in that time invest to better air and attack enemy with adv air units when he is not building AA.
    If you can always change your production, then there is no risk, no strategy over all, just tactic and spaming good mix of units.

    But these cases are extreme (flexible and investment-based), we need to find something between. I think that will be good if you will be able to build 1 and sometimes 2 types of adv fabs in game, and orbital in late game. Wining with only one, no matter what type, should be passible. (don't count to it navy on no-water maps).
    Also should be passible be win with adv tech player by no tech player by spaming good mix of t1 units and map control.
    This is how I want to PA be like.
    Last edited: April 22, 2014
  12. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
  13. bradburning

    bradburning Active Member

    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    102
    Love the rule set, the play that it encourages is pretty much a mouth before gamma. Which was the time I get the most enjoyment out of the game.

    It really feels like the game I want it to be making huge armies and looking to out flank the flank the enemy, needing to command several armies at once rather than microing small armies and fighting for overall planet control.

    Looking forward to playing a game with these rules in place and hope to see this style of game play come back into the main style of the game again.
    brianpurkiss and stormingkiwi like this.
  14. brianpurkiss

    brianpurkiss Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    7,438
    I think the investment of the game shouldn't be whether you construct Building X. If you successfully build it, you have a huge leg up on your opponent and probably will win. If your opponent destroys it, then you're probably dead.

    I want the investment in the game to be how/where/when you use your armies.

    The game becomes all about unit movement, not a tech race.

    Agreed. I miss early Beta.
  15. brianpurkiss

    brianpurkiss Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    7,438
    Here's the gameplay video of basic only!

    stormingkiwi likes this.
  16. arthursalim

    arthursalim Active Member

    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    136
    Nice voice btw
  17. brianpurkiss

    brianpurkiss Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    7,438
    That's a compliment I've never heard before. 0.o

    lol

    Thanks. :)
  18. thepilot

    thepilot Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    347
    I fully agree.

    The game was really fun on alpha stage, all that was added since then is complexy for the user.

    I often said that I don't think multi-planet games are compatible with an higher level of strategy (because of too much complexy, too much micro management), and so far I'm not proven wrong.
    fajitas23 and brianpurkiss like this.
  19. brianpurkiss

    brianpurkiss Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    7,438
    Uber is giving us lots of tools to cut back on the needed micro management for multi planet management. So I don't think that'll be an issue. Don't get me wrong, multi planet management will be a challenge, but very viable.

    I'm also really excited about the upcoming changes to Orbital.

    The Space Station, Avenger, and Anchor changes are great.

    I also think the changing of the Astraeus so it can be used as a drop pod for invasions is awesome.
  20. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    I actually love brians videos in general. I like how the commentary is, for whatever reason, explaining tons of stuff, and doing it sensibly.

    Brian - quick hint -Rebind infinite queue :)

    I also can't believe you hadn't figured out by 7 minutes where his base was. Ah well. At least the penny dropped when you got radar.

    I think this video makes it abundantly clear that Naval needs to be so much more manoeuvrable.
    Yes, and I agree with your idea.

    That is exactly what I'm talking about. As a broad generalisation, most strategy games have a balance between "teching", "eco booming", "turtling" and "military".

    The current balance heavily favours "teching" and "eco booming". "Military" should be the counter to teching or eco booming. And it isn't, because of how insanely easy it is to turtle (rather than build military in response).

    My point is that all four options, teching, eco booming, military and turtling should be equally viable from the beginning.

    To put the argument another way

    every personality that the "random" AI has should be equally viable. And every personality that the AI has should come from the playstyle of a community member (within reason)
    Last edited: April 23, 2014
    brianpurkiss likes this.

Share This Page