Confirmed features and suggestions

Totally agree with this one, nothing more distracting than having to go clicking on all the surrounding mass deposits at the start, then finding a little later on that you have to go do it all over again because you couldn't get defenses there in time. I'd be much happier to just select a bunch of engineers select and area and order them to go get me resources in that area and have them constantly patrolling around repairing/rebuilding/reclaiming so I can think about the fun stuff.

That's no problem. I've been finding all sorts of applicable threads lately, and have been trying to cut the ideas up without being repetitive.

Observers in games (while probably included, it's not explicitly stated, so thought I would add it).

Live Replays (from the supcom days. Might be extra work for the servers, though).

If there's ever a casting challenge, it's battles fought in multiple areas.

Has been marked as declined, but as far as i can see, the only awnser was rather diplomatic and the feature has neither been declined nor confirmed. Probably its still in discussion.

Another important suggestion:

Clan Support, because clans hold the community together and motivate people to play together for a long time. Best thing would something similar to GPGnet, or battlenet for the client, and also a possibility to toggle clantags ingame on or off

Clan ladders of some kind would be awesome, or even the possibility for clans to fight in the Galactic war (maybe like in EVE online where several clans form alliances).

Added a bunch of suggestions from the thread, and confirmations from Neutrino of gravity wells, that there won't be a tech tree, and probably no unit veterancy either.

Unitwise in Supreme Commander the Cybran had ships [destroyers etc] that could sprout legs and walk inland. If water gets added in, maybe those kind of units could make an appearance.

mines and mine fields as in my post here - http://forums.uberent.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=35007

suggestion - unit restrictions?

Collecting experience from battles and unlocking units in this way. Not the core units, but the ones that are more subtle and not always useful. This should:
-give players some long-term purpose;
-help to educate the new players;
-help finance the game (e.g. a premium account with 150% xp earning rate);
-help matchmaking algorithm to match the players of similar levels;
-help to keep the players in the game, rather than making it a hardcore-only elite production;

I think you are mistaking PA with another game.

Can we raise more $$$ for the PA than micropayments? Unlikely. And without money the game, unfortunately, will never realize everything it was intended for.
Can we draw more players into the game without a good base for matchmaking and a gentle learning curve? Unlikely. And I would love to have a vast multiplayer community rather than a small group of friends to constantly play with.

Just imagine: you have your level based on the xp. You click "Join" and the matchmaker connects you to an ongoing battle of many players whose level is similar to yours. Without metagame progress such as xp this may be botched, as the game will not be able to tell a pro and a rookie apart.

Seriously, you should re-read what you are writing here. You are saying, that there should be a matchmaking system based on 'XP', so that players of similar levels can battle each other in a fair match. That's all well and good of course.

But at the same time you are suggesting, that players should be able to increase their 'XP' earning rate with money, making the whole system pointless. You are truly making no sense at all.

What you want is a rating system, be it ELO or something else. This system has nothing to do with micropayments, unlocks, DLC, etc. No one will argue against such a system. In fact, it's pretty much a safe guess, that any ladder or match-making system of the game will definitely use something like that.

My bad. I simply assumed that xp could serve some other purpose, not only grading players. I would like to have some long-term purpose in the game, and xp seem to fit that goal.
For instance: unlocking additional units etc.

Which would be completely pointless. I am all for micro-transactions and generally ways of giving money to the devs for something additional in return. But only for meaningful things.

If anything, only cosmetics should be unlockable. Nothing that has any impact on actual gameplay.



LIKE HATS FOR THE COMMANDER

There, I said it :Þ (maybe someone else did too already)

I made a suggestion - let us see what happens.
And things that matter should be unlockable IMHO. Imagine a new player building a tier II vehicle factory. A tank, a heavier tank, artillery, radar, radar jammer and 9 other vehicles... An experienced player may know what to choose, the new ones could rather benefit from accessing only a part of those. This way when a rookie joins a game, they will not immediately become a dead weigh. Let all the general-purpose units be accessible from the very beginning, but leave some out. Give the players a long-term purpose and teach them how to use each of the units subsequently, not all of them at the same time.

Summing up my suggestion: I would like to see a long-term goal in the game. Something that cannot be won with the money alone, but what could be a possible source of additional income to the developers, e.g. units unlockable for xp earned in battles (also a learning mechanism helping out the new guys!), or an all-out epic, intergallactic Core vs Arm-style war.

And then the rookie will lose the game, because he was unable to build this or that unit. And then he will quit the game altogether, because it is making him pay to win.

I do not say: "Deprive rookies of Krogoths, Bulldogs and Brawlers!" I say that the weapons such as a "high energy mobile weapon platform" should not be accessible at first. This weapon is a good example of an expensive (both in production and use!) unit that should be built only when one has a good grasp of the other ones. A rookie cannot lose by not having it in the arsenal.

Suggestion: give us thorough unit descriptions in game.

How do you come to that conclusion? If it's worth building in order to win in a certain situation or way, then it's also a loss for he who cannot, isn't it? If a situation arises, where one player's most efficient strategic path to victory would involve building a yet still locked unit, he will be denied that path and victory and might subsequently lose.

If the unit is generally worthless, then it's of course pointless and not a meaningful unlock.

http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/planeta ... ith-moons/

Thank you!

Jon Mavor just knows what kind of RTS the real TA/SupCom-Fans want