Factions/Unit Set

uhm.. they just want a single faction for release. now you're saying they don't want another faction even in DLC. that's different.

I am indeed saying that. Did you have a point?

HOW a second faction comes into being doesn't really change any of the issues involved that we're talking about here.

Mike

http://youtu.be/qqDSh34VoPY?t=37m29s

Jon Mavor himself isn't against multiple faction it really is mostly a economical choice as he states here:

http://youtu.be/qqDSh34VoPY?t=36m49s

So yes I agree there should be 1 faction on release as I've written here

Robots facing other, slightly retextured robots is a bit old hat in my books.

UEF, ARM, Cybran, CORE, Aeon... it's basically the same thing with numbers fudged slightly this way or that.

Actually having a completely different faction is interesting to me. Just having more robots on a different "team" isn't.

so much predjudice it almost radiates and melts me.

You said in an earlier post you knew FA well. Your posts keep telling me the contrary.
I now firmly believe you have never played on the forged alliance forever lobby and that you've completely corrupted and biased your views on it.

The factional diversity in FA while bieng admitedly based on a system of similarly organised techs and strenght/weakness units was really there. I think it was really well done. I think Jon Mavor himself was really proud of how it turned out.

I for one can say it has incredible strategic depth. And one unit unique to the race can not be replaced with another unit from another race. it really is unique. And the whole thing is so well balanced. it's incredible. it makes you wonder.

and I am talking abut the balance obained today wit

Technically yes, the problem is that those truly unique units were few and far between. Otherwise everything was just a slightly tweaked version of something else. Gimmicks don't count. You can't say the Brick is "unique" because it has a Torpedo Launcher that does 10 DPS and has no strategic relevance.

Mike

Then what makes the deference between a truly unique unit and more of the same with a slight tweak?

This provides (though indirectly) a good primer on that.

Mike

Mike has the right of it in that linked post. tatsujb, I honestly couldn't care less about what you believe regarding my playing (or not as you seem to think) of Forged Alliance.

What I do care about is the analysis of SupCom's "uniqueness"

And I think it's wholly credible... and actually rather boring and uninspired. Your thoughts and feelings as to what's well balanced and what does or does not have strategic depth are purely spurious claims. You don't back it up with any evidence.

In fact it flies in the face of all stated evidence on SupCom where there were many problems that Jon Mavor himself has admitted to, such as awful power creep between tiers with an emphasis on just T3 and T4 tech being outright better than previous tiers. There are also multiple threads on this board alone that bring up SupCom mechanics like adjacency bonuses, shields, upgrades, overpowered gunships and more. In each case Jon has spoken out against the implementation of all of these in the same manner as SupCom, because in that game they have been poorly implemented.

SupCom may be more strategically deep than its contemporary competitors. That doesn't mean it's perfect. It certainly doesn't mean it's a shining example of interesting inter-factional play and design... far from it.

It's got the Military, the Religious Nut Job and the Tech-Head factions. Nothing very fancy there. Not to mention they're all using the same technology;

they all have ACUs, they all have T1, T2 and T3 powerplants and mass extractors, they all have land, sea and air factories that all work in the exact same way, they all have three tech levels and an experimental tier... they all have a torpedo bomber, a gunship, a fighter, a bomber, a scout, an air superiority fighter and a strat-bomber. They all have the same emphasis on tech levels being pretty much straight up better the higher you go. They all have Nuke Silos, anti-nuke silos, point defence turrets, three tiers of AA turret, TMLs, anti TMLs and bubble shields...

They ALL use the same sodding tech with a different skin and tweaked weapons/statline statistics. All except experimentals... and even those are comparable in terms of power.

---

You call the SupCom units wonderous. I call them an exercise in marketing.

Well since any one from Uber team is not trying to question my arguments they are not invalid.

Jon Mavor has a great a experience, but it does't mean that he knows everything. Infact he is experimenting with one faction. He does't know how will wider audience like it when Pa will be released. Since many alpha players are totally devoted fans of Pa and approve everything Uber does.

He experiments with one faction since it's more comfortable for him and he would need to cut few things in order to have a second faction. It's still does't mean that a part of players or future players(the more critical audience)would't like to have a second faction in favour of the few units or features.

So you would prefer a asymmetrical force then? Where bots and tanks would be more distinct then even currently?

Currently they seem good role wise, but I believe you would agree that functionally that they are far to similar too tanks and other vehicles.

Let me put it this way, What do bot's currently do that tanks don't?

If the Scamper looked like a tank, but kept it's speed and weapons... would you be any the wiser? Would you be able to point to the 'Scamper Tank' and say "Why isn't that a bot?"

Or the other options is that they don't feel this thread is worth the time replying to given all the arguments already presented.

I wouldn't say he's experimenting, just because it's something that hasn't made it into prior games, doesn't mean it's something he hasn't experimented or actually tried.

Those that would choose a largely 'false' variety over more important gameplay features are just shortsighted in my opinion.

Well good things it's not indicative of final balance then....

Mike

Well we both know the answer your looking for.

Do you have a proposal or some ideas you wish to share then?

Indeed!

I wouldn't dismiss people that off-handedly. Everyone here has their own vision of how the game will unfold, and these forums form a useful melting pot for both Uber and fans to throw their ideas around to see what happens.

However, although the points raised in this thread are interesting, the one overriding thing about the single / multiple faction is the cost. In both time and resources, if Uber makes more than one faction for this game, that is time and resources, both of which are in very short supply, that will not be used in making and refining other core features of the game.

I would, and have done so (though not on that particular topic). But I'm pretty sure Uber doesn't need another "Ideas" man.

Plus, the design team is too busy for an open dialog at this time, which is what I'd want. I'm not totally comfortable spitting into an ocean... It feels like a waste of everybody's time.

:lol: Tell me about it, he he.

Indeed, Beta?

Maybe. Uber seem receptive to well presented, well thought out ideas...

but I've yet to see much evidence that we, the community, have actually influenced the development into the inclusion of an idea, beyond the Delta's Lathe Arm.

It's disheartening that threads like the Alpha Commander Rig/Animation issue, YourLocalMadScientist's Orbital suggestion thread, The Needed Dichotomy between tanks and bots thread and so on, aren't garnering any interaction from the Devs, while obvious troll threads about pricing get two or three Dev posts every time they come up...

or at least, that's what it feels like.

Developer interaction with the community is strong in many places, but if you were to ask me, I'd say it's weak in the one place where it should be strongest.

---

Damn I'm feeling morose today...

Here, this should cheer you up a bit

viewtopic.php?f=71&t=49951