Hello. After playing this game for a while it seems that the game could use more objectives other then mex because right now it feels like the only thing that matters is who has more mex. So currently we have the following strategic objectives: Metal - Mex, Other planets and Gas Giants Special Planets - Halleys and Catalysts Here are few ideas that could add more objectives to the game Buildings that give improvements - Repairing/capturing said building would give a buff e.g. x% faster movement, attack speed or health etc for all units. Units could have a faint glow to show that the buff is active. Improved buildings - basically it could just be an improvement of already existing building e.g. a super radar which gives planet wide vision or a super defence tower. Loadout Buildings - Pretty much any buff that you can find in the galactic war. A bit of balance is probably needed. Sub Commanders - Repairing/Capturing the sub commander would give you something similar to what you get in the galactic war. Improved resource points - a few/rare points where you could build something similar to a Jig or something like a T1.5 mex/energy plant for a small cost. So what are your thoughs of this?
Most of the things you said do not fit with the "WYSIWYG" principle. By having those various random buffs, I no longer know how combat effective a unit or building is. Right now, I can look at a tank and I know exactly how fast it'll go, how far it'll shoot, and how much damage it'll do. With those buffs, I now no longer know how combat effective it is. So these are a definite confirmed no for vanilla.
Not sure if the OP edited his message or if you just didn't read it. By giving a visual cue ("glow") you would know that the units have a particular buff (perhaps only 1 can be active at a time) so it's still WYSIWYG. And the other ideas are fitting enough. For example, one of the things that can appear on metal planets is something that looks like a giant ruined Holkins. Perhaps this is actually a super cannon that works as a Holkins that can hit anything on the metal planet. You just need to locate one and then repair it to claim it and get it working. Or like a "super resource" would be fine. TA had geo-thermal vents. In TA these were pretty mundane "tier 1.5" structures but they could, instead, be more like T3 things that you cap volcanoes with, making them a more important strategic resource worth fighting over. (Or just implement them exactly like TA to make your initial landing spot potentially more interesting of a choice. This spot has more metal but this spot has a geo-thermal vent nearby?) I wouldn't mind discussing ideas for other strategic resources, anyway. That's basically what gas giants and catalysts are and those were added fairly recently. Also, I didn't know brianpurkiss was part of the dev team now. You can confirm what is and isn't a candidate for future improvements? Welcome to the dev team, dude! I had no idea they hired you.
More objectives means more decision-making, and I'm all for that. Volcano-topping energy plants would be a fantastic way to spice up Lava planets. It's harder to determine what else is available, though. Reclaimable weaponry on Metal planets would be cool, except that Catalysts already make those worlds a huge game-changer; just having one in the system prompts a "gold rush" to get there. Such weapons might help tip the tide of battle there, but it could also overcomplicate things.
A glow wouldn't be WYSIWYG since we spend most of the time looking at strategic icons. So you'd have to add indicators to the icons, would get really messy really fast. So then it would technically be WYSIWYG, but it would be a very clunky and messy WYSIWYG. Right now I can glance at a collection of strategic icons and know how much damage they can do. With upgrades, levels, or any of that stuff, I would have to look at each icon individually to see how upgraded/leveled it is. And then it would be incredibly difficult to gauge how combat effective the army is. It's a mess that makes the game a lot less intuitive.
We spend most of our times looking at icons, doeskin mean all of our time either. And in important battles, every player zooms in to get better details about any conflict in-order to micro. Not that a glow really means jack. Unless its from like, plasma damage, then it means a lot.
Somewhat off the side of this topic, but doesn't WYSIWYG break when you have even a small blob like this: It's very hard to count up individual units and determine unit strength & numbers. So much so that you don't even bother adding it up, you just do as much damage as possible and move your groups according to unit type to be at their most effective range. So WYSIWYG is a principle that is already broken, since you can't process everything you're seeing anyways. One cool addition that would work could be that if you own a planet completely, each planet comes with a 'bonus' effect that can be clearly shown in the planet overview (+10% hp per unit, +10% increase in resources, etc) - you wouldn't need to know this on a per-unit basis, but simply by looking at the planetary list. So do you sacrifice that asteroid to smash his planet and lose your +15% air speed bonus? More unique wrecks / things to fight over would be interesting if the map generator allowed for custom maps that could be appropriately balanced.
My strategic objectives are to control as many planets as possible, overwhelm the enemy at a weak point and kill the enemy commanders, else enemy resources or build production. Hitting enemy energy production is just as bad or even worse as metal production. In early games hitting the factory's / unit production can also be effective. I don't really see why I would go after any of your added options: - Super radar tower == orbital advanced radar - Super defence tower -> if the enemy commander is not near it , it can sit there being super as long as it wants - Buildings that give improvements is the last thing I want to see in RTS games. - Subcommanders: Supcom had those but it didn't add much to the game (because they had their own icon/look) I would not mind a commander factory tough, or a planet that has one. But then again I do not want to have to many special planets because players tend to put em all in one system. Thats the downside of easy system creation
Not the kinds of things I'd like to see in PA. Although some of your wishes would be fulfilled by bringing back wrecks in a working state; it would essentially create dynamic strategic resource points where armies meet, and would be important to control (as long as resource generation is balanced to suit). But static control points? No thanks, this isn't that kind of game to me. As for the rest, just no.
What if there was a good way to make it fit in to the WYSIWYG theme. would it be a viable idea then? Also what is it that you dislike about the other ideas? Like Slamz idea: Thumbs up Slamz - Super radar tower - What if you could repair a advanced orbital radar wreck (witch would be on the planet at the start of the game) this would give you quite an advantage early in the game, but can still be reproduced by the other player at a higher cost. - Super defence tower - As you said its strategic value would of course vary depending on where it is placed. - Buildings that give improvements is the last thing I want to see in RTS games. - I would say that most RTS games have upgrades/improvements (Starcraft, Age of Empiers, Company of Heroes etc). I would also say that T2 counts as an upgrades/improvements. Last time i checked mex were static control points...
Guys with ideas, really look first what vision and design plans for this game has Uber. Fact that you like ketchup on your hamburger does not mean that everybody will like it on steak. Since kickstarter time UBER was clear what kind of game they want, we all are here for exactly that kind of game. While beating dead shield horse or experimentals is still in scope of TA successor your ideas are more like LOL or Starcraft area. There is reason i dislike Starcraft, its his tiny size maps and no strategic view i feel claustrophobic there. And I love PA for exactly that reason: army of 500 tincans means nothing here (or will when we can finally have battle with 10k units). In such huge battle even 100 tanks with double HP and firepower mean nothing. Well I would say that 10k units facing few nukes or lolzor cannon is also meaningless. PA is truly strategic game, wile i would say that Starcraft is more on tactical level. So you cannot just mix every cool thing you like mostly you get something that appeals to nobody out of it. There needs to be coherent idea and design behind good game. Else you will get yet another WOW clone. PA is made for planning and winning on strategic level, I think that micro and tactical layers are kept very simple on purpose. It mimics real war where single even godlike unit means nothing, economy is what counts in PA. Even best unist are expandable.
I think that's largely what this thread is all about: those very PA-like strategic objectives. The fact that my units are glowing isn't important except that it lets you know that somewhere, I have located and captured the strategic Cave of Making Units More Awesome. Just like the fact that you notice a Halley engine means I have captured the strategic Moon of Smashing and am looking to use it. These things don't change your tactics much but they sure change your strategy. You'd better get me off of that moon before I smash it into something you like. You better get me off of that gas giant before my economic expansion makes your strategy irrelevant. You'd better stop me on that metal planet before I destroy the whole planetary system. If anything, I think PA has a bad habit of creating too many huge gimmicks and not enough small ones. It might be nice to have some smaller ones, like geo-thermal vents that are better than fusion plants. It's not going to win you the game but it might be a nice, small strategic goal that's meaningful and makes THIS patch of land a little more valuable than THAT patch of land. The only thing like that today are metal spots.
Heh, yeah I guess they are. They have been with us since TA, and form part of the fundamental. Introducing new types of artificial control points (as opposed to natural ones, such as terrain features, wreckage fields *grumble grumble*) would fiddle with the formula too much. Unless they're geothermals.
So all ideas that could change/improve the game are horrible because someone might not like it? That said i understand that all ideas should be thought through thoroughly and i understand that not everyone will like my ideas. But how else am i supposed to find out if this is a good idea or not without asking? Frankly i am asking a simple question: why or why not should we have some other small strategic objects apart from Mex? And so far your feedback has not told me why you think this is a bad idea.
I got an idea. How about... a building... filled with people... and you collect the people... and could build more the more you collected... seriously I should stop trolling here, sorry, carry on...
I think those ideas do not fit for PA, because at beginning UBER promised some kind of RTS game, they were totally clear what they want. And we all agreed for paying for that game, not something else. Your ideas do not fit that vision, they require more micromanagement, more attention to detail, while devs were clear from beginning they want something different from Starcraft micro APM madness. Simple put scope of your ideas is for small tactical RTS while PA is all about massive war. In PA most valuable resource is player attention, instead of getting for eg. Subcommander (which usually steals my mexes and then wastes most resources on something silly) i would rather have those extra mexes and make units that i need and can send trough teleport. Loadouts mean that i (and everybody else) do not have access to every technology at beginning i need to capture and keep some area. This may work in single player but for multi is just annoying limitation. Buildings that give buffs and any buffs in RTS are hard to balance, and again they do not fit PA design. Super resource points, well they are not needed unless its system with minimal resources nobody really cares about metal. I would rather build 20 mexes than 1 super mex with same output. Why, because its easier to nuke single mext and ruin my eco. Your ideas are more suited for game like C&C Generals where you have 40 units at max and small map, for PA those perks are not needed.
"they were totally clear what they want" - could you please tell me where i can find information about their vision? All i have to go on is the game itself and the kickstarter. "they require more micromanagement, more attention to detail, - Can you name any RTS game where micromanagement is not a part of the gameplay? The guy who has better awareness and micro wins the game, this is true even for PA. also what would you call the Uber cannon other than a weapon that requires micro? "Buildings that give buffs and any buffs in RTS are hard to balance, and again they do not fit PA design." - Balance is always hard to achieve and not an excuse. "Loadouts mean that i (and everybody else) do not have access to every technology" - what i meant was that you could pick up loadout buffs on the map meaning that everyone has a fair chance to grab them. But i understand that it might be a good idea to make sure that the tech you can pick up is available in other ways. e.g. Say there was at the beginning of the game a partly completed Holkins on the map (seen by both players at the beginning of the game)? Depending on its position and how much Mex i would need to get it operating this might be a good choice for me to grab. "Super resource points," - There are pros and cons of any decision. Yes it might make it easier do target a single super mex instead of 20 basic ones. but in return you only have to defend one point instead of 20 and you could probably get up a super mex faster then 20 mex depending on the distance between the mex points and cost. So to go for it or not to go for it would be a matter of preference and balance.
