Confirmed features and suggestions

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by xedi, August 17, 2012.

  1. xedi

    xedi Active Member

    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    25
    I'm creating this thread to collect confirmed features and so that everyone can contribute their ideas for what this game really should get right.
    Information provided on this thread is, of course, liable to change. The list is also biased, but do try to keep me honest. Items are not listed in order of importance, just alphabetically. You might also want to take a look at the wiki, which has a version of this list too (not maintained by me!).

    BLUE = Suggestion
    RED = Will not be present
    ORANGE = Acknowledged, but unconfirmed
    YELLOW = Stretch goal
    GREEN = Confirmed

    Paramount:

    • {G} Jon Mavor crunching for a solid year: #1
      {B} Scathis' head and "awesome" soundbite in-game

    Essential:

    • {G} Order queueing: #1
      {G} Planetary annihilation, KEW: #1 #2
      {G} Post-launch balance patches and long term support: #1
      {G} Zoom support (extensive strategic zoom, etc): #1 #2

    Important:

    • {G} AI for skirmishes, with different types: #1 #2
      {G} Assassination game mode: #1
      {G} Asynchronous network model: #1 #2 #3
      {G} Gravity wells, and modelled planet gravity: #1 #2 #3
      {G} Joining games mid-way (saves / mega-games / etc): #1
      {G} LAN play: #1
      {G} Mapmaking support (and saving procedurally generated planets): #1 #2 #3
      {G} Matchmaking: #1 #2
      {G} Mega-games (40 player event matches, etc): #1
      {G} Mod support: #1 #2
      {G} Multi-threading, multi-core support: #1
      {G} Offline play: #1
      {G} Rate based (streaming) resource system: #1 #2
      {G} Reconnection: #1
      {G} Spectator/replay UI: #1 #2
      {G} Teleportation and long distance travel: #1
      {Y} Galactic war: #1
      {O} Saving and loading in multiplayer games: #1
      {O} Transports: #1 #2
      {B} Chat lobbies in-game
      {B} Weight of fire (see here)

    Would be nice:

    • {G} Announcer (original Total Annihilation announcer): #1
      {G} D-Gun: #1 #2
      {G} Defensive structures: #1
      {G} Ice planets: #1
      {G} Large/huge planets: #1 #2
      {G} Linux support: #1 #2
      {G} Mac OS X support: #1
      {G} Multiple monitor support (with multiple viewports): #1
      {G} Pathfinding (advanced, flow based, etc): #1 #2
      {G} Procedural planet generation: #1
      {G} Realtime bullet simulation: #1
      {G} Scalability (huge maps and LOD depending on computer power): #1 #2 #3
      {G} Shared unit control: #1 #2
      {G} Starting units still useful in lategame: #1
      {G} Terrain deformation, burning trees: #1 #2 #3
      {G} Walls: #1
      {G} Wind generators: #1
      {G} Wreckage (reclaimable): #1
      {Y} Gas giants: #1
      {Y} Lava planets: #1
      {Y} Metal planets, with re-activatable technology: #1 #2
      {Y} Naval: #1 #2
      {Y} Orchestral soundtrack: #1 #2 #3
      {Y} Water planets: #1
      {O} Adding orders to the beginning of the order queue (see here): #1
      {O} Amphibious transports: #1
      {O} Area commands, e.g. per here and here: #1
      {O} Bridges: #1
      {O} Day/night cycle for solar power (depending on local stars) as per here: #1 #2
      {O} Mining/exploiting planets for resources: #1
      {O} Mouse-panning as per here: #1
      {O} No fly zones (see here): #1
      {O} Orbital simulation of planet motion (which can be affected by player): #1 #2 #3
      {O} Plans (reusable unit behaviour and waypointing): #1
      {O} Satellites (espionage, etc): #1
      {O} Steam support: #1
      {O} Templates for base-building (see also here for more automated construction): #1
      {O} Terraforming: #1
      {O} Tutorial: #1
      {R} Single player campaign: #1 #2 (replaced by Galactic War)
      {R} Water and lava fluid simulation (allowing for tsunamis, etc): #1
      {B} Adjustable keybindings
      {B} Astronomical formations (black holes, twin stars, even wormholes)
      {B} Automated unit behaviours, with icons, as per here
      {B} Clan support
      {B} Cinematic camera (for observing, replays, or making machinima)
      {B} Co-op campaign
      {B} Custom campaigns and missions
      {B} Custom formations, see e.g. here
      {B} Diplomacy and alliances (including donating units, etc, to sway enemies)
      {B} Exhausting planets by exploitation
      {B} Extra non-skirmish game-modes (e.g. survive AI waves, sandbox)
      {B} Ferrying controls for transports as in SupCom
      {B} FFA game-type with player discoverability as per here
      {B} Friends system, with tournaments and other events (e.g. planned mega-game events)
      {B} Fog of war done properly (no unit pop-in like SupCom)
      {B} Live TV/replay function (e.g. for tournaments)
      {B} Markers (pinging, drawing on the map for teammates, etc)
      {B} Orbital constructions
      {B} Production tab, as per here
      {B} Rotating buildings before construction
      {B} Rendering tools (to make max detail screenshots or high quality recordings of replays)
      {B} Unit selector in skirmishes
      {B} Underwater base construction
      {B} Water platforms for construction on sea (as per here)

    Debatable:

    • {G} Two unit tech tiers: #1 #2
      {O} Artillery warfare: #1
      {O} Auto-repair for damaged buildings: #1
      {O} Experimentals: #1
      {O} Rare resource types for specific uses: #1
      {R} Research tree/tech tree: #1
      {R} Shields: #1#2 #3
      {R} Space combat: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
      {R} Multiple factions: #1 #2
      {R} Unit veterancy: #1
      {B} Army painter (e.g. as in Dawn of War games, see this post)
      {B} Automated unit micro and focusing
      {B} Commander upgrades
      {B} Economy priority system
      {B} Limited unit fuel, ammo, energy, etc
      {B} Neutral, native civilizations (see here)
      {B} Non-global, per-planet economy (with possible resource transport)
      {B} Radar jamming
      {B} Stealth/cloak


    Colour me impressed so far!
    Please submit your own suggestions, which I'll add to this post.
    Last edited: November 2, 2012
    overwatch141 likes this.
  2. xedi

    xedi Active Member

    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    25
    Re: Getting it right - a list of essential features

    As an aside, I really hope they get the economy right: having a good amount of depth and options, but not ridiculously exponential like in Supreme Commander 1. That's going to be really tricky to get right though.
  3. knickles

    knickles Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    134
    Re: Getting it right - a list of essential features

    Shouldn't you have a color for suggested features?

    or is this only confirmed ideas?
  4. xedi

    xedi Active Member

    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    25
    Re: Getting it right — a list of essential features, with li

    Maybe, but then what's the point of orange?

    Edit: OK, I changed it now.
    Orange = acknowledged by developers, but not a confirmed feature
    Blue = suggestion, not (yet) acknowledged by developers
    Last edited: August 17, 2012
  5. knickles

    knickles Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    134
    Re: Getting it right — a list of essential features, with li

    I assumed it was things Neutrino/other devs hinted at, but haven't confirmed.
  6. ferigad

    ferigad Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Getting it right — a list of essential features, with li

    Somehow i miss the best feature? ^^

    I think Neutrino calls it KEW (and i guess he means Kinetic Energy Weapon???) , and i assume he refers to the Kinetic Bombardment?

    To Launch Asteroids at your enemy as the ultimate weapon. And from what i see the Transporter will be in the Game.

    Isnt there a Transporter in the Video? That can move your Engeneers through the Air? In there concept video its launched with a missil and undocks from it, and at a moon its able to fly a engeneer on its own to a asteroid.

    And i am pretty sure it looked like in the concept video that the idear is, to first order that transporter to grab a engeneer and then to fit it on the Rocket before it launches.
  7. teju__

    teju__ Active Member

    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    71
    Re: Getting it right — a list of essential features, with li

    Why didn't you like the economy in supcom1/Fa/(Ta pretty much had the same eco system right?) ? In my opinion it was one of the main reasons why the game was so good, and I hope the eco in Pa will be similar.
  8. xedi

    xedi Active Member

    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    25
    Re: Getting it right — a list of essential features, with li

    The basic idea of the economy, streaming etc, was absolutely fabulous, and I loved it.
    But, especially in Supreme Commander 1 (and in Forged Alliance to a lesser extent), it got truly ridiculous in late-game with massively exponential economy, and ridiculous spam of power plants and mass converters. I feel that, in the end, the economy worked out a lot better in Supreme Commander 2, despite the mechanics being way worse (with no stream based economy etc). So I hope they get it right, with the classic TA economy style with flowing resources (as confirmed), but in a sensible way that doesn't mean in the endgame everyone is building ten million power plants a second.
  9. ferigad

    ferigad Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Getting it right — a list of essential features, with li

    I agree with Xedi. The massiv engeneer supportstyle of SC1 could get a little bit anoying in the end-game. With hundreds of gens placed and builded in a instant. I think they solved that better in SC2, but it was in SC2 a little bit to simple for my taste. And i liked the engeneer upgrades in SC1 more then the technology research of SC2. I think there was in both games good things and things that made it a worse. I would prefer a Economy model made out of SC1 and 2, the upgrade unit possibitlys of 2, the Commander Style of 1 and the Strategic Weapons of 1. Because in 1 they was way better, more massiv and bigger explosions, like "woho, gimme more 20 megaton firecrackers!" . In 2 a Nuke was more like "mhm... okay that wasnt even a megaton..."

    What i hope is that we dont get again super-commander units with 1zillion updates so he becomes in the end a 1 man army that can even beat 4-5 experimentels at a time. There i liked the possibilitys of SC1 more, you can get stronger but you dont become "TITANIUS, SMASHER OF WORLDS" with your single Commander Unit.
  10. teju__

    teju__ Active Member

    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    71
    Re: Getting it right — a list of essential features, with li

    Oh well, ok then. I thought you didn't like the way constant income and storage were handled.
    But were mass converters really that common in gametypes other than "20minNR Double Eco Exp only noairnoartynoscopenopants Thermo 420" ? yes this slightly exaggerated I don't recall them being annoying in standard matches, when both sides were harassing each other.
  11. cola_colin

    cola_colin Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    12,074
    Likes Received:
    16,221
  12. ramcat

    ramcat New Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    5
    Multiplayer game save. The question has been asked if this is needed, YES ABSOLUTELY. We play SupCom every Friday at work but we often have to throw the game because we have to go home. Plenty of people have gaming groups were they could play long games. I do through work and personal. Yes, weed to be able to save all multiplayer games. Because we can restart those games - we have consistent groups.
  13. neutrino

    neutrino low mass particle Uber Employee

    Messages:
    3,123
    Likes Received:
    2,687
    Multiplayer save is being bumped up in priority.
  14. thechosenonenl

    thechosenonenl New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd like to suggest to change the "Coop campaign" suggestion to simply campaign/co-op campaign.

    Also I'd like to suggest a challenge mode. Perhaps in addition to a campaign or to replace it, all depends on funding/time/etc. ofcourse.

    As one backer said it could be/have a bossfight mode. It would be something unique in RTS games. It doens't have to drop items like Diablo ofcourse though you could make it a gamemode where you can get cosmetic items/skins.
    You can also have tons of different things besides bossfights ofcourse. Plenty of unique/cool campaign missions in other games.

    And a defense/horde mode would never hurt. *throws on the pile*
  15. coldboot

    coldboot Active Member

    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    112
    Don't forget multiple viewport windows:

    From: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/08/15/plane ... -interview
  16. cola_colin

    cola_colin Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    12,074
    Likes Received:
    16,221
    Could this thread be made sticky?
    I find myself searching it all the time.

    EDIT: also this list should mention that there will be only one faction
  17. thezj

    thezj New Member

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please let's not have engineers supporting factories again.
  18. roflking

    roflking New Member

    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's three thing's that I would really like in this game, (other than naval, I hope we can get that goal!) and form most important to least important are Experimental style units, I loved being able to turn the tide of a battle with huge units that can crush smaller ones, like in SupCom. The only problem I had was that some of the experimentals were too powerful.

    My second suggestion would be a research tree similar to supreme commander 2's, though some people hated the game, the research tree's were nicely done as it kept units relevant throughout the game, and depending on the research chosen would swing battles in your favour. This also, if done the supreme commander 2 way, encourages early game fighting to build research points, stopping the large set up periods at the start of the game, where it might all be about setting up economies.

    My Third suggestion is adding another kickstarter tier between $50 and $100 for Alpha access, as I'm sure there are a few people like me who are quiet keen on Alpha access yet aren't particularly bothered about the other things at $100, I know I'd jump on that in an instant :p
  19. william28

    william28 New Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    2
    1. I hope that the unit construction and train UI is the same as TA. I loved the large buttons that pictured the units and buildings.

    2. I Hope the graphite theme is maintained. It just gives off a more robotic feel. Colors should be limited.

    3. I hope they FIX the nano-lathing art work. I loved how in TA, first the green outline of the unit/building was laid, then the inside was slowing filled in.

    4. I hope the Devs avoid using stat bonuses for weapon vs. class. For example an archer will deal 5 more dmg points vs. armored infantry, Calvary deals bonus damage vs archers. Please, just as in TA, use the physics of the projectiles, the movement speed of the unit, and the physics of the unit its self to determine its effectiveness vs other units.

    6. Bring back the old economy system of metal and energy of TA! Its unique, separates it from other RTSs, and fits more into the total war which is TA.

    7. And please, graphics excluded. remember that a GOOD Game is 90% of the familiar and a cap of 10% of the new.
  20. cola_colin

    cola_colin Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    12,074
    Likes Received:
    16,221
    guys this thread is supposed to be a collection of known facts, not a place to post suggestions. Post them in other threads, please. When I saw "new posts" for this thread I already had my hopes up about any kind of new facts ;)

Share This Page