Experimental Units

There are loads of reasons why experimental-type units are a bad idea, and only one reason why they are a good idea.

They limit the available tactics, they create a one-dimensional goal to rush towards, there is little skill in controlling them, and lots of other reasons.

The only argument in their favour is WOW BIG ROBOT BOOM COOL YAY, and whilst that can be a persuasive argument, I think in a game of this sort, and this game particularly, there is more shock and awe to be had in smaller units engaging in big battles.

I agree, but I know a lot of players want experimentals. I thought different types (or chassis) of sub commanders, built for battle might be a substitute for experimentals.
thoughts :ugeek:

If they are that game breaking then create a server without them.

Or mod them in for the people naively craving game breaking mechanics. TA escalation anyone?

Yea I'd say at this point the people who don't want them are the vast minority. FA had options to turn off experimentals as well as nukes, shields, artillery etc. Just let these guys play their own games with unit restrictions and everyone will be happy. The playing field will be even so if you can't fight off an experimental maybe you're just not a competitive player...

Your not a competitive player so don't pretend you know what your talking about. The fact your asking for experiments shows you complete lack of understanding of how this game flows. SupCom GPGnet 1v1 rank #251 at launch. That was when there were over 10,000 players.

I am neutral on this topic, but, really? Woooh, I have a high rank, this makes me superior to everyone and makes your point irrelevant.

This is a game. Games are played for fun. If more people have more fun with this game if it has experimentals, add them.

Actually in a debate about what does or does not break game play. Yes, mastery of the game is a valid claim, and does prove you know what you are talking about.

Looks like the poll is more favored towards big ol mighty units. I'm leaning towards that way also I think it would add to the epic ness of the game. Then again I want to the game to have hundreds of different ways to fight and different units to employ.

Not achieving such a rank doesn't prove he doesn't know what he's talking about. Or she.

Further, this is Planetary Annihilation.

Heres the thing, if your aiming for competitive play casual players can still have fun, but if you aim for casual gaming competitive players cant have fun (theres no way a game that aims for casual gameplay will end up being competitive).

Thus competitive gaming = the goal (To clarify: Casual gaming is still as important as competitive gaming, but you can still have fun while playing casually in a competitive game while the reverse isent true).


So if you dont see the game from a competitive perspective he/she "doesn't know what he's talking about".

Offcourse "not having a certain rank" and "not seeing the game from a competitive perspective" isent the same thing, but you can see how someone would draw that analogy, right?

---------------------------------------------------------

In my humble opinion: Experimentals, while awsome, isent realy that good for competitive game style (as much as i hate to admit it, i love experimentals).

This is a really good remak !

And garatgh points are sadly very true...

But Experimentals !

Well, maybe first seeing what can be done with Asteroïds could be a good start.
The rest can folow later

Am I the only one who wants to see the fatboy return with PA inspired artwork involved? The factory part with the green nano lathe stuff would look awesome!

Ok, but why can't a game designed for 'casuals' be fun for everyone? Because, in my opinion - although this is just me saying words based on nothing - every game should be designed for casuals. Not for the tiny few that play competitively.

Perhaps we're using different definitions of 'casual' (plays the game, has fun) and 'competitively' (plays the game, tries to get high on a ladder, cares about K ratios and whatever - some have less fun than a 'casual' because of all this caring, so to say).

Nobody likes overpowered stuff, and if something is implemented purely 'because it's cool', but nobody actually uses it, then again, it doesn't add to the fun. Experimentals shouldn't be in this game, and then never used. Neither should they be unbalanced. That isn't what I meant; that isn't fun for the large majority.

Well i think there should be super game changing units as well as structure type experimental like FA. Like aeons unit conversion ray, that was my favorite structure in the game

What I'm about to say will make me look like a bigger **** than it should; the bar set for casual fun is significantly lower than competitive fun.

Competitive people have fun by competing. It's the action that's important, not the result. While competitive people do care about their position/rank on ladders, the ladders themselves really aren't important in comparison. Wins/loss ratios are useless if you have a crap game to start with.

A casual game wont ever be competitive (just slapping on a ladder dosent make a game good competition), so theres no way a casual game will "be fun for everyone".

But a competitive game can still be aloot of fun for casuals.

Thats why it should be designed as a competitive game first, becuse everyone can have fun in one of those (unless it FORCES you to be competitive, but i havent seen a game that stupid yet). Casual game concerns should still be addressed, but they should be secondary to making the game competitive.

While the majority of gamers play casually at the release of a game, the competitive player base tend to stay more loyal and stay with the game when most casuals have moved on (many casual players jump from game to game very fast, while competitive gamers that has invested time and is on a ladder tend to stay far longer).

Basically, aiming for a competitive game will make the playerbase larger and make the game live longer.


Do note that this is a "general rule" of game design, and like most "general rules" theres bound too be one or two exceptions (not that i can think of one, but there usually is).

But it would be foolish to count on PA becoming one of the few exceptions.

I think it is possible to have massive units that don't break the game, but they have to have glaring weaknesses to make them counterable. In Forged Alliance, the only mobile experimentals that partly fit in this category are the UEF ones: the Fatboy and the Atlantis.

The Fatboy can be absolutely devastating if kept at range and defended, but it is slow, relatively low-HP, extremely vulnerable to air and TMLs, and it's pretty helpless to defend against close-range attacks.

The Atlantis is a great big submarine that can make planes underwater. Great to augment a navy, but has to be used in tandem with other units.

So I guess what I'm saying is that an experimental that has to be supported closely (and not just by a swarm of fighter planes) is the only experimental that enriches the game.

This is pretty simple. Everyone rushes experimentals in the late game as they are superior. There is no diversity in the game. For there are not many types of experimentals.
Planetary defences become useless when rushed by experimental units. While turrets and defences where oryginali ment to be superior in Ta.

This is the main reason for why Supcom becomes unplayable. In Ta there were no experimental units and the gameplay was very good.

Thought experimental structures like interplanetary unit launchers or surface to orbit guns will not trim the diversity of the game.

Wooohaaa, wait a minute here :shock: .... Supcom "unplayable"?

HERESY!!!

*Takes out torches and gathers the fanboys preparing to burn the heretic* :twisted: