My thoughts in summary thus far

Exactly - really the majority of the desert should be open sand. If you have a base in a dead end canyon that's easy to defend, and easy to become besieged in.

On lava planets - are we supposed to be able to move on Lava? Or not?

I like metal planets because they are easy to fortify - but I dislike the fact that they aren't random. They are really regular by design it seems.

Lava should be impassable, but this functionality is not implemented yet.

Which is why my first post asked if he meant graphic fidelity.

Oh right... I missed that in the usage of fidelity. Sorry.

Thanks for the constructive criticism, here's a few initial additions on my part, to brianpurkiss:

Yet why do you suppose they made the Kickstarter video with a cartoon graphic style? It also seems unlikely they would deliberately choose such a style as neither of the unofficial parent games held this. I also mentioned in the post that the graphics currently shown weren't the final result.

Apologies, my misunderstanding of the phrase, my meaning was that this was the core feature of the game, the unavoidable fact.

I don't like the idea that it's something you have to get used to, since it is inherently disrupting to gameplay and cannot really be justified as good for the game. For example if the screen went entirely black half of the time for everyone, technically you would get used to it, and it is as you say an additional challenge to gameplay, but it isn't helpful or enjoyable.

I hadn't actually heard of this, so thanks for letting me know - that sounds like a good set of improvements, although how well it will solve the problem only time well tell.

Playing on a sphere "you'll just have to get used to":

• The strategy of no map edges to corner and attack enemy? Ok.
• The strategy of there is no more "back" player to eco and tech? We'll see about that
  
• The tactics of attacking from literally every direction? Wonderful, glorious chaos.
  
• Not being able to see everything at all times? Oh. Hells. No.

You should never "have to get used to" a crippled UI.
(*cough*unless this is StarCraft 2*cough*).
That's not the lineage of TA and SupCom.
And it sure as heck not expanding on a true strategic zoom, a zoomed view where you can see your grand strategy unfurl, everywhere at once.

Fighting a UI isn't an "additional challenge to gameplay".
If you are forced to waste key presses, mouse-clicks and mouse movements, that's just poor design.

The cartoony style isn't just to reduce computing power.
It's also Uber's art style...

SMNC



Outland Games



Toy Rush



You tell me. Do you see any "grit" anywhere?

Just thought i have to fight a rts in a spherical planet,takes me all the fun.



But on FA(F) seems perfect.

Don't play then.

With respect, that's because FA(F) is on a 2d map.

That image does make it clear that unit length is too close to a radian. But at the same time, there would have to be a huge increase in speed if unit scale was decreased.

If we took Setons, and used it as a face of a cube...
Then squished it into a sphere....

How "round" do you think that world would be?

Well that's not fair, your taking a single map and using it to cover only one sixth of a "sphere".

Mike

I'm not being sarcastic, but I was wondering what kind of scale increases we would see.
Especially since:
- 64-bit engine ground up by the tech guys, we can have 4gb the ram.
- Video cards have what, doubled in power since SupCom?
- The client/server model is supposed to be better (so no slow down), less disconnects and drops.
- Multiplayer save.
It's like improvements from all fronts!

As you can see, the ships in the ocean are nothing but specs at this level.
I have seen 2 hour setons games.
How much bigger will PA get?

Obviously, PA will be a bit smaller per planet than Seton's cubed. But just how much smaller?

um....

32 ships, tip to tail.



This makes me want to go to FA and see how many ships I can line up into a train

Irrelevant, because Setons is a 2D map. It's a screenshot. Seton's is a 2D plane. It doesn't matter how "round" the world would be. You have to be at least 10.6 kilometres above sea level to begin to see the curvature of the Earth's horizon, so even if the map was part of a 3D sphere, you would never expect to be able to see the curvature of the planet from the perspective of either screenshot.

Just for comparison, if that ship was on Earth's moon, it would be 269 kilometres long.

I wanna say Seton's is....scale 4? Maybe even scale 3? We think of it as a large map but if you mapped it onto a sphere it would feel a lot smaller. And it should also be said that what made Seton's feel so large was that chokepoint in the middle. You will rarely get that kind of setup on a PA map.

Incidentally, Setons was 20x20. SupCom had the ability to support much larger. I feel like if PA wants to push map scale "feel", scale 5+ should be the norm.

PA could probably afford bigger maps, at least in terms of gameplay. People talk about travel times and transports but the real solution to a distant enemy is to just build a forward factory base outside of his radar.

At least until Advanced Orbital Radar ruins the game and prevents anyone from doing anything surprising...

I have to admit, for me even those screenshots of Forged Alliance have reinforced the issue at hand. There is a true strategic bliss in being able to quickly and easily survey the entire map, allowing direction and management of colossal armies. Regardless of the potential for even greater scale in Planetary Annihilation, I can't help but feel that it won't be the same as a result of the difficulty of panning around a relatively small planet, allowing view of only a small portion of the game at any one time. It's not a game-breaker, but for me it's the biggest issue at present.

As to solutions, I can understand that pumping the planet size even further up is a huge drain on machine hardware, especially after attempting to create a size 3000 planet on the editor. On the assumption that this will not be dramatically improved with optimization to the point of creating this size of planet, I can see how this isn't an option. The concept a significant down-scale in unit size is interesting, perhaps with greater zoom allowed. I personally don't mind the idea of longer games as a result of the scaled unit speed, but this may differ among the community. However, this idea introduces new issues regarding the reduced effectiveness of textures at greater levels of zoom, and as a result this also doesn't seem ideal. If anyone has any alternative solutions, please post them, as I'm eager to discover how this might be solved.

Saying that, the spherical nature of planets has also led to a certain amount of strategic wonder, especially in free for all games, where as a result of the lack of map corners, literally everyone is surrounded. This creates a feel of being alone against a vast alliance of enemy players, for every single one of the players, which is marvelous and makes free for all one of my favorite modes at present.

I must say the current scale of everything is hurting everything. Chokepoints are too difficult to properly fortify because you just can't build enough stuff near them nor will enemy units be using them because too few will fit. Decrease scale -> terrain more useful.

I must say that I like the graphical style. Kill me.

It's not an assumption. Uber has said they're trying to make the game as close to the kickstarter trailer as possible in one of their live streams.

You now very well like me ,that we will never see that kind glorius naval battle here.
PA cant handle that.

Its just impossible on sphere map,thats wy i say naval showld be take out off PA.


I Love that seton map