Factions/Unit Set

The problem is the transition. To transition to T2 your factory has to stop producing units to upgrade, it's a risk and the transition happens slowly if you have players of equal skill, if you have someone outright better they can transition while still meeting the other player's production and once more than a handful of higher tier units come out on the field you roll them over quick. T2 units still make T1 units obsolete, the problem is getting to the point where you produce enough T2 units.

Did you know that if I have 20 loyalists, and you have the equivalent cost in Mantises I don't even have to move to with a battle? Of course if I move I can just kite you forever because Loyalists are faster and have more range on top of doing almost 8 times the damage.

You can have 5 times the mass cost of Mantises and you'll still lose that battle without firing a shot.

tatsubj, when did you start playing SupCom?

Mike

Ow right let's stop the discussion over tech levels since there is no strict law determining which is better 80% of times or 70% of times.

Last time I think you did't understand all of my post.

What I'm trying to say is that this visiual difference coming from factions( different unit, skin, the way they shoot and they move) is very important in particular scenarios.
Let's assume your playing a game on a oceanic planet. Your in an army with 3 of your friends. Your oponents mass spawned submarines to that point that you are not a able to build any ships. You and your friends are forced to build torpedo bombers. As the only units you own are the torpedo bombers, you would appreciate some of the visiual differences brought by factions.

In an different scenario you want to maintain air control. You and your opponent spawn fighters and engage in to doge fights. Since the game is all about fighters you and your opponent would appreciate the visual differences brought by factions.
It will influence active players the most.


And I'm saying this again. Factions are no longer a limiting factor if you have at least one player from each faction in your army.( meaning that you can use all the units available in the game)


I'm fine with 2 factions and third in Dlc. I just want to have a little bit of variety in the game. With the current PA graphics second faction should not be very hard to design.
Please mind that if there will be only two factions, then the chances you are not going to have both of the factions in the army will be very small.

The another thing is that someone in this thread has stated that if there will be only one faction in a final game then his friends will not buy it. I sadly need to confirm that my brother will not buy it as well ,if this is the case.

Who says the only counter to Subs (that doesn't include navy) is going to be only planes?

I just was giving an exammple to explain how this works. It does't neccessarily mean torpedo planes will be the only counter in PA to submarines, but in Ta there were no torpedo surface boats. Furthermore if they will be only few ways to counter subs in Pa, no faction variety will still be a problem.

The reason why it's better to have additional faction in the game when it's released instead of having one in Dlc is that people will get bored of original faction and everyone will play the one released in Dlc.

That sentence makes no sense.

---

Also, unit variety is not tied to faction abundancy. You're failing at some very basic logic here.

Access to 100% of all units that are available is the very definition of variety in this case. To argue anything less is flawed thinking at the most fundamental level.

This thread hurts my soul.

Ok let's make it more clear. It's better to have two or more factions when the game is released then having one in the first version of the game and additional ones in Dlc. Since when the DlC will get released all people will prefer to play the new factions. Since every one was forced to play with old faction before DlC was released.

I'm not linking unit variety with faction abundacy. Just stating that faction abundacy is needed and that factions no longer limit the unit variety when armies are introduced.

I have no idea at all how you came up with such a conclusion.

Next time you need to read more carefully before coming up with such a decisive conclusion.
This is very irritating. Last time you provoked a guy and we had a quarrel on this thread.
Garat gave you a warning. Did you mind it? Just stop it and let's not make this in to an issue.

I hate omni slashing, or quote sniping as some call it, but I feel compelled to act in this instance;

I can only see this as an important factor if you have an attention span that matches that of a gnat. If you want pretty colours and flashing lights that are purely cosmetic changes then you have a very shallow idea of what is important in a game. Important aspects of gaming (depending on the game) are either gameplay or the emotional response you invoke in your audience. Visuals... tacky skin swaps and animation profiles do not make a good game; in fact they actively obfuscate gameplay by changing familiar silhouettes into ones that newer players will be potentially confused by.

Keeping a consistent palette, theme and style across units is both less costly for Uber (which is a very important factor to consider) and reinforces the tone, lore and theme of the game.

You have no information regarding the "counter" to submarines. Your argument here is a complete red herring and of no worth in supporting your claim for multiple unit factions. If you've been outgunned on the sea and have lost it I highly doubt that one plane is the only thing that will be able to help you.
Second, the fracturing of the unit pools into multiple factions actively limits all players; now the guy with the special tech used specifically for killing subs is FORCED into using it to cover for your piteous weaknesses.
Third, if a team of players wishes to do well you are, under your scheme, required to have at least one of every faction to ensure the maximal chance of success, since only with every faction being represented on a single team can you unlock 100% of the units in the game.
And finally if there were a different faction that had a completely different response to losing naval superiority then answer me this; Why hasn't the Technology be subsumed into YOUR faction? We are talking about advanced robot AI beings with the ability to capture and repurpose tech. Why did these advanced beings never learn that technology? Why would a supposed "advanced" being fail to remember how to build an opponents unit after it's been captured, assimilated, refined and transformed into its own unit?

Sure... if again, you have the attention span of a gnat and only want to look at pretty colours and flashing lights, rather than appreciating the strategy involved.

Why should a groundbreaking RTS be pandering to such people?

There is variety already. You simply fail to use the correct definition of the word.

the whole POINT of the minimalist graphic style was that they didn't have the MONEY to produce multiple factions, nor the desire to since all TechFactions do is limit player choice.

More power to them. I hope they have fun playing somewhere else.

Don't try and strongarm Uber into doing something they don't want to do by holding your brother's money to ransom. If your brother actually CARES about an innovative RTS then he'll pay for, and play PA.

---

What complete nepotism and hypocrisy.

I am perfectly mindful of Garat's warning. I believe that your arguments are for a fractured unit pool are flawed and I will do my best to point them out. I am not breaking any forum rule by doing so.

I am not attacking you personally. I simply poke holes in your reasoning so that they are clear for one and all to see.

Then what point were you trying to make when you said that it would be better to have multiple factions so when you all have to build the same unit there would still be some variety?

The problem with SupCom style factions is that while it's true that units can be different(some more than others as I explained) the core aspects of how you play them is still the same. The limited variety the factions have offsets this somewhat but you's still playing the same way, just using different units.

My explanation for PA's setup is NO DIFFERENT. Well, except you have way more freedom in how you play. Just because all the units will be available doesn't mean you'll use them all in every game. For example if you're playing in a system without any major bodies of water, you'll not use much, if any, naval or amphibious units. If it were a planet with lots of winding rivers you could want to use a variety of Amphibious units instead of normal land units because the amphibious units will be so much more mobile.

Think of it this way, the Ultimate Goal for PA is that 2 players, using different strategies, won't build any of the same units(aside from things like fabbers) at all. Obviously that's a very hard goal to hit, but even if they only make it half-way it's still a lot more progression than you see in other games. Multiple factions is nothing more than a few steps backwards in comparison.

Mike

If the problem is to differentiate friendly and enemy units, then there is no need to make more factions. A simple colorblind mode will do the job.
Multiple models for basically same units would only confuse people.

I've been playing supcom for a while, and i still don't understand the benefits/drawbacks to choosing each faction. One faction makes sense, both in the concept of the game, and for gameplay reasons.

The problem is not about differentiating units, but about geting bored to fast due to lack of visiual diversity( assuming their is only one faction in the game).

I can show you, hit me up on faf I'm tatsu. always up for showing people around.

Nobody plays (or stops playing) a game like PA for "visual diversity". They play it for the friction, the mechanics, the gameplay. All of which seem to be perfectly conveyed by the art style of the current single faction.

It's just to improve the gameplay.

No, it's not. It's been covered in this thread already why it does not improve the gameplay, and some reasons why it specifically harms the gameplay, or at least the purity of it.

No, Aesthetics are completely removed from gameplay, a low fidelity game is not any more or less fun to play than a high fidelity one, if anything the high fidelity game may be more confusing as there is a lot more to take in and process, it's a lot hard to understand what's going on at a glance.

That's why for a game like PA, with the potential for hundreds, maybe thousands of units in game at a single time you need to be able to take it all in and react quickly, the whole system of Strategic icons is an extension of that need.

It's true that in time, one can train and memorize what's what, but for all the new players that don't know left from right in the beginning, it makes for a steeper learning curve.

Mike

Flashing lights are there to improve gameplay. It has been said before why.I'm not saying this is the most important aspect or that other aspect are not important.

I'm repeating this last time: The chances you will not even have one player from each faction in your army (assuming that there are 2 factions) are minimal.

Uber saved a lot of money on not making a campaign. If the game would only have 2 factions then this would be less than Supcom had.

They also saved a bunch more money by only having a single unit pool.

IT will have less factions than SupCom, but on the flip side, it will have much better Unit AND Commander Variety.

Mike