Commanders and what we know so far.

Neutrino said(thought I can't remember where) that there will be a selection of different skeletons for Commanders and that they wouldn't all have 2 legs.

Mike

Now that is interesting. I like the sound of that!

Indeed, I forsee it being tied into the Abilities as well as passives.

Mike

PA without this feature will have perfect balance. For the first time there's a major RTS where nothing determines who wins or loses but skill.

With it, not so much.

I think a lot of competitive games will be played on randomly generated, symmetrical maps. Such maps will not just be refreshing each time, they will be more fair than the most polished Starcraft map since they will actually be symmetrical. (I assume you can even set the symmetry to have as many sides as there are players.) It would be a waste of the engine not to, right?

Well here's the thing, even if you could somehow balance commander abilities across a small number of premade maps (although even that would be a ludicrous effort for what you get, and would needlessly limit the available competitive maps), on random maps it can't be done. Cloaking might be better on some planets. Jump jets are better if you have lots of mountains. A cheaper U-Gun is great if you're close to your enemy but near useless if you're far away. There's just no way to account for all this and make all the commanders balanced across all maps. I'm sure Uber are some of the best at balancing but it simply can't be done.

So you've taken the first RTS with guaranteed, out of the box, no questions asked, ultimate, perfect balance across all maps for all players, and you've tweaked this tiny insignificant little thing and you've totally fucked that up - for what? No offense, but I'm the one who should be asking that! What's so important about this that you want the devs to trash one of their main USPs and spend lots of time and effort trying to balance something that will never be perfect - as it would be, if they had just spent their time on something else?

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Look at my comparison to cars in racing games: No player in their right mind is going to choose a slower, better cornering car on a long, straight track. You pick the fast car that doesn't turn so good. It's a no-brainer.

The same goes for your commander. You're choosing the right tool for the job - or in MP you might be picking a commander that compliments your team mates commander choice. Either way, you have options and it's not like you're locked into the first commander choice you make forever. Sure some people will choose a commander that they like the look of rather than compliments their play style, but that's choice and it's their prerogative.

I really think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. We don’t even know what the abilities are or how they are going to play out. There is a lot of assumption and what I think is a vast overestimation of the influence a commander has over a battle which is going to be taking place across multiple battlefields. If anything a commander’s influence I think will be greatly reduced over the likes of TA and SupCom simply because of this fact.

I think this is prematurely jumping down Ubers throat on the whims of thought experiments. Sure I can acknowledge that as the community which funded this game we should be asking questions and expressing our opinions. However after repeated posts from Neutrino assuring us we are overthinking this, as well as insufficient information to make truly informed opinions on the matter I really think people should probably step back and wait for some more information. I for one really don’t want Uber to regret being so open with us on early concepts.

[Edit]: On the note of competitive play, you mentioned a situation where there would be a small number of pre-made maps that are perfectly symmetrical rather than the randomly generated maps that will be the norm. That is probably a reasonable expectation as otherwise people are liable to complain that the map didn’t generate in their favour. Now if you are going to take a situation where an aspect of the normal game is going to be altered for the sake of fairness, Is it not reasonable to expect the same for commander choices as well? Certainly if it is such an issue to people perhaps a select few commanders, or the stock commander will be available? Maybe players will be locked into picking the same commander as eachother, there are a lot of ways it could be done. It certainly isn’t a unique concept, for instance there are units in the Starcraft single player mode that aren’t available for people playing multiplayer because of the balance issues.

I don’t think the car analogy really adds up. You are taking a situation with only one good solution and then trying to compare it to a battle for which there is rarely a single solution or “right” way to do things. There are too many variables. Your enemy will play differently each time and with the maps being randomly generated, they are going to be different each time.

You are not going to be able to predict the “right” commander for a given battle because I don’t think there is going to be one. You are going to pick the commander that suits the style of play you feel like leaning towards for that match (or as you say, purely on appearances). All things being equal, more than one commander type could be the ‘right’ one for the job depending on the player’s style and strategy, as well as the enemy.

That only means the core, strategic aspects of a commander should remain pure. A Comm's basic role is to enter a system, begin infrastructure, and conquer the world from there. It's not made to really go out and fight. It is built to be a survivor, which means having the best tools to handle pressure and stay out of trouble. Some tools are essential for the job, and some simply aren't.

For example, the TotalA commander had an integrated radar/sonar system. Was it handy? Yes. It allowed the Comm to see rush tactics and helped him stay out of trouble in the early game. Did it need one? Not really. It was trumped by the first radar, which was crazy cheap.

As an example, an ability might allow the commander full vision when he's cloaked. Is it necessary? Nope. Your comm should really be protected by other units, and they already provide vision. Is it handy for a lone Comm? Sure thing. It makes risky expeditions just a bit safer.

Hmm did i miss something?

When did they ever say that the "competitive" maps would be symmetrical?

Or even non random?

How would you even go about making a 3d sphere map symmetrical without it looking weird?

And doing non starter worlds symmetrical would be pointless since you wouldent be able to predict were someone would land and start building.

Link please. (Sorry for going a bit offtopic).

lophiaspis, how strong do you think the commanders are? Althought at this point we don't have a full picture of the commanders role, based on what we do know I'm thinking it's going to be much more defensive, focusing more on base building and expanding. So as I've said before, as long as the relevant aspects, Build Speed, Resource Generation, What can be Built are all the same and if Commanders all start with the same base stats(possibly with minor changes via Abilities[Passives?]) that already takes care of many/all of the Major Balance concerns. On top of the idea that it's not the commander itself that wins games(outside of some awkward situations) but the bases and armies it indirectly builds.

I mean sure, the first implementation could be unbalanced, lets face uit, it's hard to balance something without testing it, but the shear idea that a secondary piece of equipment and a Passive ability will unbalance the entire game is pretty ridiculous.

Also worth mentioning that just because there is only one unit pool, does not make things perfectly balanced, it just means you have the same access to units as your opponent, if AA is OP, and you want to play air, you're still outta luck.

Gonna start re-writing the first post now.

EDIT: First post updated.

Mike

I can only agree with what you are saying - it's true I have made it out to seem black and white when it is clearly not. I was trying to make it simpler to get my point across. Sure there are always other options - even in a racing game. For example, you might not pick the fastest car when a slightly slower one might well be faster around the entire track if it corners significantly better. SO without going off on a tangent; I'm saying that in certain situations some combinations of abilities may well be better suited. Given that there aren't going to be that many abilities then it might just be that simple. The truth is we just don't know yet.

It's also worth baring in mind that if you take my comment out of context then it really doesn't make sense. I was specifically talking about 1v1 small maps here. It's a small but important part of the game. TBH I think that really enough has been said on the matter already.

EDITED: Just thought I'd mention that due to the posts from Neutrino on the subject pretty much all the concerns I had relating to it have evaporated.

I really see the commander more like a kind of hindrance for the player than an actual benefit, just look at the fights in SupCom1-2, etc.. where they just get targeted and someone losses, if you center too much abilities on it you will give this unit too much weight in the game, thing, that from my point of view, shouldnt have, i basically think the same as neutrino here, i dont like a commander doing anything else than things to protect itself (cloak, shields, hardened position, etc...) and being the pioneer of the foward bases (make it the only unit that can build the teleportation gates for mass/energy through your bases in diferent orbital bodies.

Ofc you should also be able to send packs of raw materials/energy multiple times on the same rocket you use to get there so you can build it with probes and when the base is secure go finish it with the commander.

apart from that (to make him usefull through the game) it shouldnt do anything more, in my opinión.

Fair enough points, and I agree it makes a lot more sense when looking at 1v1 specifically. It looks as though we are on the same page in any case, and no analogy is perfect, especially if taken out of context.

I’ve always seen the Commander as a fusion of the roles that a Queen and King serve on a chessboard. You are absolutely right, the commander is a liability, particularly in the later game as it is the representation of you on the battlefield and the game ends if you are destroyed.

That said I wouldn’t mind it if the commanders utility was expanded upon from what it had in SupCom and it was possible for a careful player to use a commander more actively. In most games of SupCom I played, players eventually turtle up a position where they stuck their commander after t1 - 2 and they were never used again beyond assisting a factory. I think that was a shame. Don’t get me wrong I definitely don’t want the Commander to be some super un-killable unit or have abilities which affect units (which Neutrino has said won’t be happening). I guess I would just like to see it used more actively. Perhaps having multiple planets will help ensure that on its own if players are sending it around the solar system to found bases like we saw in the gameplay visualisation.

I like you.

If you only had ONE unit to conquer a world, you pick the Commander because it's the best unit for the job. It's better than a factory, better than a monkeylord(d-gun lol), and better than any engineer could possibly manage. That's why the Commander exists! It is the de facto ultimate unit for galactic invasion.

The best way to protect against Comm hunting is to simply not be a target at all. Make the Commander's role synonymous with staying away from danger, and make sure he's difficult(but still possible) to find. More advanced defenses might be needed as various carpet bombing and wholescale destruction strategies emerge, but that's a distant issue for a later time.

We certainly don't know how resources are going to work across worlds. There are advantages to having global, strategic resources and local, tactical resources. These choices will play a HUGE role with how expansion, abilities, and invasions work. You'll find more info in the topic index.

I agree that the commander should not be a frontal unit used in battlefield.
But I still think it should be capable of.
Once in a slippery slope situation, players should be able to make a very risky move with their commander to try to get back into the game. Something like 50% risk to lose, 50% to get back into the game.
In TA, once T2 is reached it's just 95% risk to lose, 5% to even the situation.

It's not the same. If everyone plays the same faction, it's always balanced for competitive play no matter the intra-faction balance between units. Nobody can ever say "you beat me 'cos you're Zerg, their rush is OP" or "you beat me 'cos I'm Illuminate, they suck".

This out of the box balance is a selling point which it would be a big mistake to upset even in the smallest way. For instance, there's an RTS vacuum in Korea now that BW has sort of fizzled out and Starcraft 2 failed to catch on. PA has the chance to fill at least some of that vacuum. It would help if you could tell the influential competitive players that they will all be perfectly balanced against each other from the start. They would see the added value right away - instant enthusiasm. But if every player doesn't actually play the same faction then it muddies the whole picture, weakens the pitch. Again, for what? Nobody's explained that yet.

If the base multiplayer game is not supposed to be balanced for competitive play why even bother with balance at all. Just leave it up to the players to find their own balance. You might as well say "it's no problem that air is overpowered - just play on a server with no air."

I can see your point, but I'm not sure it's the most healthy attitude. I mean it's not like we're some publisher board with actual power to mess up the game. All we can do is consult. The best thing is to state our frank opinion, point out every possible design flaw no matter how small - in a respectful tone of course, if my tone was out of line I do apologize - and then it's entirely up to Uber whether they want to take it into account.

That's the best way for us to contribute to the game, and the best way to keep the forums actually useful for the team, so they don't become either a flaming cesspit or a fanboy echo chamber. If we hold back for fear of hurting people's feelings or something, or if Uber stops being open with early concepts (I don't see why they would, honestly - what have they got to lose? Isn't the whole point of airing concepts to get criticism?) then the game might end up being less awesome than the theoretical maximum level of awesome. That wouldn't be very awesome at all!

I feel delighted that such a minor issue is my biggest gripe with the game so far.

Well, every player can choose to play Zerg at the beginning of the game.
"You beat me because you started as Zerg" is no better balance wise than "You beat me because you started Air"

I think it is worth mentioning that Uber aren’t necessarily aiming to be the next StarCraft or are driving hard for e-sports. TA didn’t push for it (admittedly e sports were in their infancy, but StarCraft was around the same time) and neither did SupCom.

I am all for looking at balance but I don’t think the “Because E Sports” argument is one that holds a lot of weight. Short competitive games will exist, but I really don’t believe that is the focus.

Massive battles stretching across multiple planets, Galactic War Metagame, Uber aiming to have 40 player games with massive unit caps, these are all massively macro goals which are more the focus of PA and its spiritual predecessors. The E Sports focused StarCrafts of the world are small scale short duration APM and micro heavy matches, and PA shouldn’t be trying to compete on that ground because it just isn’t that kind of game. On top of this the kind of money required to push for e sports properly would be far too high. Advertising, competitions, prizes - it all adds up and Uber are better to focus on making PA the kind of game that macro RTS fans like.

In the same way as you are suggesting that competitive play not use the regular procedurally generated maps and use perfectly symmetrical maps? You are polarising the situation. Nobody is suggesting that balance be ignored and left to the players, all I am suggesting is to hold off on “differentiated commanders are going to be the death of balance” type comments until we hear more about it. Hell the first and second Starcrafts are probably the most successful e sport games to date and they had three factions with totally different units. That if nothing else should show that the “impossible balance” arguments are overstated (at the very least).

It is the best thing we can do to give honest and considered opinions which are as objective as possible. However when we have heard the response to our criticisms from the devs, and we know that more information is coming, continuing to drive plug the same concerns in different forms isn’t helping.

It is not about hurting the devs feelings, that is not what I was suggesting. It is about listening to Uber when they say we have the wrong end of the stick, and waiting patiently for further info. The situation is static until new information arrives, and with that will come the ability to discuss and critique the concept. As it stands it seems a lot of the discussion on this subject is repeating itself. At its worst, some of the comments I have seen in the threads read like people working themselves up into a lather, talking about how this concept is going to destroy all hopes at balance and that is not constructive.

Although a lot of my post is looking largely at the gloomiest things, I do think this is pretty indicative of a good community. That people are discussing the finer points as intensely as they are shows that the community cares quite a bit.

I guess at the heart of my reasoning is this: I see this discussion as something which has become circular until we have more information to go on. Prior examples of such discussions include universal verses local economies, Single or multiple factions, Experimental units and super-weapons, Orbits (none, simple, simulation), and so on.

lophiaspis, I think you're missing my point.

In actuality just because there is only 1 faction doesn't mean there aren't any balance issues, it just means that there is no inter-factional balance issues. Within the one faction there is still the potential for unbalanced. Just like in my example, if AA happens to be OP, yes it's true that both players still have the same OP units but it still means that the player who wants to play air gets the short end of the stick.

Mike

Goodness it's hard to follow what's what with these Commanders.

I was curious as to if anything had been decided for customs ones yet and kind of just CTRL+F'd 'custom', and it seems like at this point the 'customization' is totally aesthetic, with picking ability sets more of a 'maybe'? Or did I misread?

If you're talking about the Custom Commanders for the 1K Backers in Kickstarter, check the first post again;

I think it's laid out very well.

Mike