Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbreaker

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

I think an expansion pack which added 2 or 3 more races would be awesome, I would gladly pay $40-$50 for something like that. I'm sure there will be lots of additional content down the road though, assuming the game does well at retail.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

I think an expansion pack which added 2 or 3 more races would be devastating to the whole design goal of the game. I would gladly pay $40-$50 for anything other than that. I'm sure there will be lots of additional content down the road assuming the game does well at retail but I hope that Uber will stay far away from such expansions as those.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

I'm sorry but everything the OP is writing is making me more and more frustrated. Every post he wants the game to be Starcraft.

Citing that you've played hours and hours of Starcraft and that you are bored of the way that it plays out every game, then trying to implement the exact same stuff in PA, doesn't make any sense.

There is definitely scope for idea generation on the forums, but so far you're just listing abilities that Starcraft units have. If you want to have a Starcraft mod for PA, get a feel for it yourself, make a drive with other members from the community, don't petition the devs to do your work for you.

I beg of you, and others of your ilk, please read about the forums for similar ideas (as you are by no way the first to come up with the majority of these thoughts) and sound your request to the modders, instead of making out that the devs are only doing half a job. The devs are making a rounded balanced game. The features they're aiming for are public knowledge and detailed for all to see. If you think that you have a valid tweak that would improve the features listed, by all means, sound your argument and let your case be heard, BUT DO NOT start spewing another game's design as your ideas, and especially don't list your ideas as necessary.

I apologise that this is inflammatory but I am disheartened by the numerous amounts of threads demanding that the devs do x, y and z.

TL;DR OP, change your tack, this isn't something for the devs, it's a Starcraft mod for PA you're after.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

So wait, will there be any tangible gameplay differences between factions? I'm cool with faction specific traits and abilities even if they don't get different units.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

No, there won't be any Large Scale changes to your army. The ONLY thing Commander abilities affect is the Commander himself.

Which "Faction" you choose merely dictates your Commanders abilities. I will reiterate that these abilities do not affect any other unit in your army, only your Commander.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

Considering the scope of the game and previous games(TA, SupCom), that seems pretty insignificant. The commander is a building unit primarily.

How does Uber make slight commander differences play any role in the meta-game?

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

It doesn't.

That's the point.

Commanders are relatively insignificant in terms of combat or building ability. They are of utmost significance when it comes to strategic importance however.

They are YOU on the battlefield. If the Commander dies, you're out.

It is worth noting that something like "Optical Cloak" are well within the realms of possibility when it comes to the power level of Commander abilities... but they can only affect the Commander.

I can think of all sorts of things I could do with an invisible Commander.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

commander upgrades can be pretty impactful in FA, i'd imagine an entirely different commander would be as well

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

Well it's kinda pointless to make differences that basically make no difference :|

I'm a little iffy on the whole 1 faction thing myself, even if I understand the benefits of it. I just feel like there should be some minor differences that could influence the way you play without drastically altering it(the subtle differences between Arm and Core come to mind here).

Just a random thought that occurred to me, but can anyone think of any known RTS games that *did not* have different factions? Sometimes I worry the game is violating some sacred tenant of the RTS genre and we just don't fully understand the consequences yet.

Didn't play it nearly as much as TA, but generally I just kept my commanders back at home building in that game too. How did upgrades change the game? I get the offensive upgrades, but I still wouldn't have my Commander at the front-lines.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

You say that as if every rts (including supreme commander) which has more than one fraction, is an total disaster. There are pros and cons regarding more than one fraction. Its ok if you don't like rts with multiple fractions (which are nearly all of them), but its your personal taste . Its not devastating for the game.

On the other side, i find only one race ok , if the unitcount is high enough and there are many different tactics and playstyles.

But especially that is the problem . If the developers wont have micromanagement and special abilities in their game, than the only source of diversity comes from the different gameplaymechanics. So for this reason i hope they include many different gameplaymechanics, like the kinetic asteroidbombs, the unit catapult and curving out metallplanets to deathstars.... .

So, im much more afraid that they said, they want no micro at all in the game, than of the fact, that there is only one race. If your apm is getting higher and higher, as you practice, than there must be some improvement that you have from it, at all apm levels.And for me and many others, it would be very boring if we can not affect the outcome from a battle through our unitcontroll. And had to put all this apm only in macromanagment.

Also the argument that you have not the time, to controll 3+ planets and at the same time and do micro, is odd. If you have low apm, than you are also not able to controll the macromanagment on 3+ planets (without micro), at the same time. If you get more apm over time, you can do it. And if you get even more apm, than you have free apm to spend at micromanagment. It would be very boring, if the only thing to spend you apm at, is to macro at 4 planets at the same time, instead on 3. That would feel very repetitiv after a short amount of time. It would be much more interesting, if there where ,with micromanagment , a second gameplaymechanic which i can spend my apm on. I want diversity.

I think its just a matter of taste . At least 50 % of the rts player want to have micro in there game, that you can see in every discussion in nearly every forum, except of this one. And that was also the reason why supreme commander get never as famous as other rts, even if its ideas where far more interesting than the stale ideas of the other rts´s.

Its like having in Sim City RCI without I . So only commercial and residential but no industrial. That is what it will be like.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

If you were playing cybran you had to worry about the microwave laser and teleport upgrades. If you were playing UEF you had to consider the possibility of a Billy Tactical Missile Nuke. There was lots of dynamic offensive upgrades (EMP, weapon range, torpedoes, etc.), there were also survivability upgrades like personal shield, nano-repair, stealth and cloak. The non-combat stuff like Resource Allocation (more resource generation on ACU) and Engineer suites (enough build power to set up offensive firebases).

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

Hopefully the game will be balanced enough and have enough units that the strategies between the players can vary wildly and sometimes be determined by nuances of unit composition for example.

Do you go bots, tanks or air? Do you try to take control of the sea, land or try to maintain air power?
Do you expand as fast as you can or do you play more conservatively to tech and reach space?
Do you try to counter the enemy forces by doing the same thing or do you use completely different units?
Hopefully all those options are viable. Some might be preferred in some situations and on some planets. Others might be preferred in other situations on other planets.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

There is a difference between managing how an individual unit engages and managing an army during a battle. Here's a post from the first page of the new micromanagement thread:

You may be pleasantly surprised, diminishing engagement micro (focus firing, dodging, strafing, kiting, using abilities, etc.) can actually emphasize battle management (feigns, retreats, formations, delay tactics, skirmishing, flanking, pitching, etc.).

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

That's cool, I remember the teleporting upgrade being pretty useful myself, but at the same time, I doubt commander differences can make an appreciable mark on the mid to late game meta where big armies and super-weapons(like asteroids) are slugging it out. Uber seems disinclined to go "crazy" with the commander abilities too from what I've seen(livecasts and the posts I've read).

I guess my concern is that with a common pool of units, even if it is large and varied enough to allow multiple play-styles and strats, those will(probably) still be essentially distilled down into a handful of the most effective ones for online play. Global factional traits or abilities could hopefully influence more variation in play both at a tactical and strategic level without needing uniquely designed sets of units to go along with it.

I dunno, I'm no RTS guru, this is just a vague thought/worry, I know there are alot of really knowledgeable vets in here who could probably tell me why I'm wrong, but I wonder how many of us have actually played an rts game without functionally different factions(and how well it worked?).

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

I think what you desire is asymmetry, sylenall. Asymmetry can be derived from a lot of things and even if the players start with exactly the same starting conditions asymmetry will occur during the game. Balancing the game so that players have several viable strategies and use different tactics means that asymmetry can occur just by the players choosing different strategies.
There would also have to be some transition cost if the asymmetry should persist so that the strategic goals of the players doesn't easily converge over time.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

I will do another doublepost here and in the microtopic.So here it is:

I know you did. I want to be able to do feigns, retreats, formations, delay tactics, skirmishing, flanking, pitching, etc. and focus firing, dodging, strafing, kiting, using abilities, etc. at the same time.

Why should i limit only to one, if i can have both.
Its like i said. If someone would say to me :
"We make a Simcity game with RC but no I" and we call it simcity 2013 than i would say
why no industrial gameplay . Why only residential and commercial but no industrial ????

What is the actual benefit of having no micro at an game.
It can only be that you have more time to think about your strats while your brain must not do "repetitiv" fingercalculations . But what you call repetitiv is fun for many people.


If you play an sport (and esport is a sport) like soccer, than there are many repetitiv legmovments, which you must repeat each time, but its fun to see that you can master them and combine them to fluid motions. Its part of the game.

When you are driving a car does your brain really think of all the movements you have to do. Of cause not!! You have intuitiv learned to do this motions without to much thinking about it. Same counts for fingermovement on your keyboard.

I can understand that people which are not good in this particular part of intuitiv learning , im not saying that you are one of those, are not happy about micro and see it only as an negativ aspect.Because they see that they cant compet in this aspect with others and therefore want to get rid of it.

Its the old "i make everything bad in my mind which im not good in, to protect the picture of, i am better than most others and so i can feel powerfull" , which i have in my self .

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

Well yes, more variety than asymmetry I suppose. I think the game will have to be *really* well balanced for identical factions to not end-up gravitating to a set of effective cookie cutter strategies and play-styles given similar situations or biomes(gas planets/orbital for instance). If one strategy or unit-type is objectively better in than the alternatives, then everyone will use it, traits could combat that.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

When you are driving a car you don't need to pedal the wheels. This sport is more about knowing and working with what your car is capable of.
Micro is not something bad, many games used it and were fine, but it's not a requirement ether. Aren't you at least curious about what will come out of idea of avoiding micro?

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

Don't expect it for alpha, but I presume that balance is going to be one of the big priorities for launch. If one strategy is better than the others, uber will change it.

Re: Love your product, but only one race is a total dealbrea

The problem is that you have to balance the traits as well. The "effective cookie cutter strategies" would still exist. Now you would just try to chose the faction that benefits the most from the situation or biome. You would be locked in from the start of the game. If you chose or have to compete where the enemy has an advantage as his units are X% more effective you have to pay a cost for having chosen your trait.
If you have the choice between bots and vehicles you will be locked to either tech and the composition of your forces until you can spare resources to make another factory and change your production. In a way it is very similar to traits as you have to pay a transitional cost before your can change around your production.
So instead of having to balance different traits against each other the developers can now focus on making many different options viable.