My thoughts on Titans

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by ikickasss, October 16, 2015.

  1. ikickasss

    ikickasss Active Member

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    114
    I have over 1200 hours playing pa. So I was already a big fan. After playing titans I do have to say that this game is my favorite rts game on the market. Let me start with units. More choices of tanks , bots, air, and orbital. And lets not forget the titans. For all the bad reviews this game got the majority of them have something in common. Less then 2 hours played. Anyone reading this review. Buy this game it's great and I hope alot of the old players start to come back so we can have more then 1k online on any given time.
    Remy561, wilhelmvx, stuart98 and 4 others like this.
  2. ljfed

    ljfed Active Member

    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    136
    I honestly have never been able to work out why more people don't play PA
    cdrkf and ikickasss like this.
  3. judicatorofgenocide

    judicatorofgenocide Active Member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    176
    How's the eco, is there a ladder? Was big into pa then it felt as there was to much wasted potential then stopped playing and climbed back to masters in sc2 though seeing this might make me reinstall.
  4. cdrkf

    cdrkf Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,721
    Likes Received:
    4,793
    Well eco hasn't really changed much *however* if your going that far back (i.e. pre ladder) then we have hand crafted maps which help control game pace a lot.

    Yes there is now a 1 v 1 ladder + matchmaking system based on Glikko, it was down the other day but should be back in.

    Also, Titans... ads so many nice new units so I'd highly recommend getting it if you don't have it (whilst the 'Titans' themselves aren't used much in 1 v 1, the additions to T1 and T2 are brilliant- especially the new t1 hover tank that can cross lava <3).
  5. pivo187

    pivo187 Active Member

    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    167
    For sum reason all of the ta,supcom,pa style rts games have never come close to the popularity of starcraft and other rts games. I could never understand why either bc ti me supcom and pa are the only games that make you feel as if your in a huge epic worldwide war. Where as starcraft and other like games feel so tiny in comparison...maybe this style of rts games are just to complex ?
    Im debating on wether to buy Titans as well and I have not played pa since the summer. I've built a new pc and am ready to start playing again but I'm afraid Titans will die out and pa in general...?
  6. dacite

    dacite Member

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    19
    Just reinstalled PA for the first time in 2 years and I can still see what I stopped playing.

    The game is just far too unwieldy late game. The pacing just stops the second orbital gets involved and wins come down to gimmicks rather than better macro and micro. Epic engagements don't really feel like they affect the outcome of the game when people go exponential, all buildings will be replaced in seconds by off planet eco support. In large games why should I build all this variety of units when the key to winning is spamming orbital and econ?

    Now if you play on a small scale map with one or two planets then you're left with a scaled down, less tactical version of supcom.

    Other rts's do better because the player actually feels agency over the outcome of the battle rather than some detached point and click paper maché unit adventure. This and the fact that games last a reasonable amount of time. In no other rts can two opponents just sit and wait for 20 minutes without anything occurring. I swear most of this game is just simcity. There's something to be said for peeling back scope in order to enhance the actual bread and butter gameplay. I'm still hoping for a real supcom successor one of these days:).

    PA is at its best when the orbital isn't present which really makes you wonder.

    Starcraft and other games may be tiny but they're no less complicated. The difference is the complexity leads to exciting strategies and maneuvers throughout all tiers of play. PA's needless complexity leads to frustrating unfun macro (Transition from T1 to T2 mexes rather than just having one tier of mex) and wrestling with the UI for the average player while only really shining at the highest tier of play.

    Watching two people spam more and more orbital until one flies an asteroid into the other is only fun once.
  7. pivo187

    pivo187 Active Member

    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    167
    Dacite I Def agree with you. However, is this the case with Titans add on? Or ate you only referring to pa vanilla?
  8. dacite

    dacite Member

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    19
    Titans feels better as there are more options to invade another planet but the same old problems are still there. From the limited number of games I've had of Titans once again I feel as if the orbital doesn't really gel with the rest of the game but it's definitely better than vanilla PA.

    The fundamental issue with PA is that's its unwieldy to play due to its multi planet design. No amount of new units will fix that.

    Eventually somebody will notice that what players want is an iteration of supcom. Supcom with all its flaws the best blend of scale, strategy and fun that we have. The reason for this is manageable scope and a plethora of tactical options. It also looks gorgeous even today.

    There's so much room to improve with supcom but the direction of improvement is not tearing up its fun foundations. Like if someone were to make a supcom with greater faction diversification, a better gradient from T1-T2-T3 and more commander play then we'd have a hit on our hands. Instead we have multiple RTS makers trying to reinvent the wheel when the audience is crying out for an updated and improved wheel. Like the NOVAX in supcom is universally hated as it feels divorced from the rest of the game so why is it a good idea expand that layer?

    Sorry for ranting I'm just tired of my demographic being totally overlooked by devs. I want to give you money. I'd pay 200 euro for a proper supcom sequel and I know I'm not alone. Until then I'll just keep playing FAF along with the rest of the undying fanbase.

    EDIT : The single best innovation that supcom had was the strategic zoom. This made the large scope playable. PA doesn't have an equivalent and its crippling.
  9. cdrkf

    cdrkf Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,721
    Likes Received:
    4,793
    I can't disagree more with you, I much much prefer PA to sup com and I'm definitely not bothered about another sup com game...

    That's not to say others aren't but just to point out there's room for both.

    PA's multi planets are a love or hate thing I guess. I certainly think they are a positive but I accept that may not suit everyone. As for the interface, you know you can area build metal extractors and you can build t2 over the top of t1. Also repeat queues, area commands and such take 90% of the micro out of it. Also pa is built around strat zoom (seamless zoom from ground to whole solar system with icons) so not sure what your saying there.... If you want a mini map to view the whole planet then you need to install @cola_colin uber map mod.

    Edit: also if you're looking for sup com 3 have you looked into AOTS yet? That might be more your thing. PA is very much a TA derived game rather than sup com.
    Nicb1 and ljfed like this.
  10. pivo187

    pivo187 Active Member

    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    167
    I get what dacite is saying. Sup com felt like it had many many more strategies and ways to play vs pa. Sup com has coms abilities which added to strategy and made them strong offense unit throughout the game. In general supcom looked alot better and less cartoony plus having several different factions added tothe depth which pa lacks. I also feel when playing pa with less planets it's more fun and there is less sitting around sim city.
    Aots prob will never come close to supcom just by looks is ugly compared to supcom. I really hope we get a spiritual successor to supcom with similar style and looks/ design.
  11. cdrkf

    cdrkf Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,721
    Likes Received:
    4,793
    Again the art of PA is subjective. Personally I think the lighting and some of the views you can get with moons / planets coming into view are fantastic and frankly never before seen in a game.

    Sup com went for a 'realistic' art style, PA is very much like other uber games in their signature partly cartoon style. I think it's unfair to say one looks better than the other as I don't view them as directly comparable, then again art is totally subjective so matter of taste.

    As for the strategies side, I actually found sup com less strategically diverse than TA when I played it online, as every battle demanded you tech rush or die (sup com t1 is utterly useless due to massive health of buildings and ludicrous strength of pd). I guess after the first 10 mins tech rush sup com opens up but by then I was bored and gave up.

    PA had a much better opening set of options than sup com, if not quite as diverse as TA. I guess it lacks the late game unit variety, but then again titans greatly adds to this.

    The commander in PA is probably they only area where they could improve things, I agree allowing it to be useful late game would be nice, though I'd personally prefer TA's solution to this over sup com (i.e. com with all abilities from game start, limited by eco, I really dislike upgrades as a mechanic in rts).
    MrTBSC likes this.
  12. dacite

    dacite Member

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    19
    The art is subjective yes. I quite like the actual planets aspect visually. I don't particularly like the cartoony style but each to their own.

    Supcom is far more strategically diverse than PA. If you tech rush in supcom you die instantly to T1, you lose map control and mobile artillery destroys PD. Strategies on supcom are all highly map dependent of course which is a testament to the diversity present in the game. There is just far more options in supcom. One game might have heavy drop play the next might turn into a tactical missile and gunship war. Every game of PA seems to feel the same (partly due to crappy maps) followed by a commander killing gimmick.

    Upgrades work for a "hero" unit like a commander. They can be used to add quirky strategies and high risk / reward play as well as faction diversification. As it stands PA commanders are liabilities.

    Micro reducing commands like mass metal building and area commands are a great addition! Next time you use strategic zoom count the seconds it takes until you execute the desired command. You'll see why supcoms 2-D representation of the map is much more useful. It just doesn't work as well on multiple spherical surfaces. In fairness it's very difficult to make a competent strat zoom for a sphere let alone multiple spheres.

    PA could be improved in so many areas! The game's sound doesn't even work half the time! The eco scaling could easily be reworked so that the exponential curve isn't so dramatic.

    What it boils down to is that players that like PA are those who liked turtling in supcom. In that regard PA is very good but just isn't fun for anything dynamic.
  13. Killerkiwijuice

    Killerkiwijuice Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,879
    Likes Received:
    3,597
    u wot m80?
    stuart98 likes this.
  14. cdrkf

    cdrkf Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,721
    Likes Received:
    4,793
    Well I haven't played supcom online for years, I stuck with TA:spring after I discovered there was no t1 play in sup com 1.

    I played through the campaign on FA but never tried online. I'm guessing FAF fixed the chronic balance problems.

    That is a point though, you can't really expect PA to be anywhere near as mature as something the community has been tweaking for a decade. I think PA's future is in mods, just like sup com and TA....
  15. wilhelmvx

    wilhelmvx Member

    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    84
    Thats kind of simple ...large scale rts are already "kind" of a niche within a nichgerne.
    Now there is supcom and there is PA. I like PA but overall most people will tell you that supcom is superior.
    On top of that PA/Uber has a rather sad reputation at this point ( no reason to deny that).
    Not that hard to see why PA even with Titans is still struggling.

    That being said Titans is f+cking glorious.
    Last edited: October 19, 2015
  16. pivo187

    pivo187 Active Member

    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    167
    Dacite hit nail on the head but It's basically what I've been saying since day 1 of pa...what made supcom so fun is all the different strategies you can pull off. Almost every match will play out differently while pa will usually not. Also fa was great once it was released there was very little modders did to make it the best rts to date.
  17. squishypon3

    squishypon3 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,971
    Likes Received:
    4,356
    FA was also the sequel/expansion to SC, they already had a base. By that logic you should judge PA based on how PA:T was at release.
    stuart98 likes this.
  18. V4NT0M

    V4NT0M Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    276
    To weigh in with some simple points as a lot of comparisons are being made with Supcom...

    I prefer PA to supcom, although I wasn't taken to start with by the faster pace I have grown to enjoy it more, the longer multi planet games fulfill the need for longer more complex games.

    I think as other's have said, using a globe rather than a flat surface is a personal choice I don't believe one is better than the other. However... Imagine a classic mode with flat planets... It's probably really hard to add in this late but could cater to more.

    I also disagree that supcom still looks good, it's not bad but I really do prefer PA's very clean style (shaders and texture handling is also objectively better), supcom actually feels quite bland when you step into some maps. Further, will all of the CSG available in PA a lot of maps seem a lot more dynamic. I don't think I've ever played a custom supcom map but the map community in PA is great and again is another way that you can decide what kind of game you're playing.

    I also disagree that there are too few tactics one can employ to win. I think people mainly come to this opinion from playing too much 1v1 ladder. iirc supcom never had an official multiplayer ladder so the comparison is meaningless. If you actually play some multiplayer FFA, team or multi planet games you will see that there are a countless number of strategies that can be deployed to win.

    I also feel that due to the globe play and multi-planet play there are many ways that you can design a system that you like to play. From fast and furious T1 battles on small planets 1v1 to protracted orbital/planetary battles over multiple planets with multiple players.

    I think that one of the problems that people have with PA in general that that it seems much easier for an entire army to go *poof* leaving you with a snowballing effect.

    Personally my perfect game would be part supcom and part PA with a much more developed orbital and space game. Not to mention different factions with different strengths and weaknesses. But this is a wish for the future and never what PA was supposed to be.

    What it boils down to is that players that like PA are those who liked turtling in supcom. In that regard PA is very good but just isn't fun for anything dynamic.

    Not sure what you're getting at with this, people who liked turtling in SC like to not turtle in PA? Also further to you post you say that SC is more tactically diverse but a lot of what I have played and seen it is a complete turtle-fest compared to PA.
    Last edited: October 29, 2015
    cdrkf likes this.

Share This Page