My two cents on PA: Meh...

Rushing is basically the games premise.

The only problem with turtling, is that it isn't a mid or late game strat.

"Rushing is basically the games premise."

Well, more like the end-result of PA, but aye, I'm all too well-aware of that...I'm just not fond of it. Whether it was the Zerg, Nod, or going all the way back to House Harkonnen, it was that strategy that made me wonder why we didn't just roll a pair of dice, or do rock-paper-scissors to see who won

I prefer to porcupine in games for my fun every time, but this is all pretty subjective, so to each his own. Actually....someone who's really into the rush thing, try to explain the thrill of throwing a throng of T1s at the enemy commander hoping to get him first.

I realize there's a few tactical elements at play....to scout or not to scout, deciding to build 9 or 10 tanks? Where to look for the enemy commander, and clicking like a mofo. Don't explain why it's better than turtling or whatever, just try to convince me that rushing is fun (not merely the superior strategy in PA). I won't debate any of it, I'm just pretty curious.

Thanks,

-Morloc

I think when it comes to RTS games in particular, the default strategy most people are going to want to go for is more of a turtle type strat, followed by careful expansion. It's competitive players who typically go for more aggressive strategies...but the truth is, most of us aren't competitive, don't want to be, never will be, and forcing us in to a playstyle that is frantic rush-style aggression results in us having less fun.

Aside from the many technical issues Planetary Annihilation has, I also feel the overall way the game plays out is fundamentally unfun - 1 health units, too many game ending gimicky strats (sxx sniping, annihilaser, comm rush since the comm is pathetically weak), no diversity in terrain or interesting maps, etc. It's just not a *strategically* fun game to play.

Well the balance and such can be changed by users through nice mods. Starcraft forced many players to micro, the ui was literally built to be unintuitive. This game is a macro game, all about the big armies of units and such, rather than the single great units. It's different, but you could argue many games force strategies on players.

If you'd prefer more well rounded games, I wholeheartedly suggest you try out a balance mod, be it the one I'm working on, Statera, or the Realm's RCBM. Depends on what kind of balance you're looking for.

That said, I have been steam rolling since the 90's.

Doesn't matter if early or late game, nothing quire like rolling over my opponents base with my holy legion of armor.

It got me through Tiberian sun, It got me through Red Alert 2, It got me through CNC Generals, It got me through CNC 3/KW, It got me through Red Alert 3, and hell, it got me through BOTH Sup Com's.

Even on windows vista.

So i have always turtled at the start of my games, but late game, all heavy armor, all blitzkrieg.

and what do those extra ten units do differently then the already existing units?

just as example cybrans

jester, renegade, wagner, Soulripper

all four are used for anti ground ... their differences rather minimal
why should i use the soulripper or jester? one is more for harrasing the other heavy assault yet i can do the same with renegades and wagners toghether ... so what do i strategywise so much differently using the other two?
to me this isnt strategic variety but merely changing units that at some point get too weak and useless
why should i use the jester when i get the renegade with extra AOE?

different example

mantis, rhino, wagner, loyalist, brick, monkeylord, megalith

why use the mantis or rhino when i got access to the loyalist
why use the wagner when access to brick ML or Megalith?
the first 3 become redundant lategame in any way possible even in numbers they become fodder at best not having anywhere near the dps to be of use against hightierunits or buildings not mentioning LAB´s that become usless after like 5 minutes in game ...
so that´s actual 4 ... i can understand one 1 or 2 types becomming fodder but 4?

and this is just this faction alone ...

my point is SupCom has a number units that simply lose their usefullness in the period of the game going on and that hasn´t a situational reason as in when does my enemy use bombers or longrange artillery against my shortrange antiground tanks ...it´s a timereason ... once players reached a certain techstate you can´t use lower tier units to the extend you did in the beginning of the match ... they lose massive ammounts of effectivness while other high tierunits stay effect in match through the whole time ....

like i want to see a mirrormatch in which a player that has access to all tech vs one that deliberately limits himself to t2 and/or t1 only
both with a fair ammount of territory control and same ressources ... i dare say i don´t see the low teck player win in 90 of 100 games unless he´s a friggin godtierpro ..
the number of unittypes and the way they are tiered adds a huge ammount of complexity and raises the skillceiling because they way they are ballanced, but it doesn´t realy add much depth to it ... for any casual player this game is mostly a techrace to t3/tx while doing the same for the most part

and this is where i like PA´s way of tiering better it makes the unitpool simplier and more clear while still retaining the same ammount of depth imo ...

the "variety" you ask for doesn´t realy add much different options then to what already exists aside from the obvious missing content that makes invading planets easier ...
so realy imho factions and more units do not add depth or real variety to the game but complexity that ultimatly doesn´t change anything ...

i am rather for the game having as much units as needed than having as much units as possible ...

It shouldn't have to be changed, it should be correct.

says who?

You'll never see ME arguing that Starcraft forced strategies onto it's players .... pff You probably don't really realise how ironic you saying this is TT_TT .....

and starcraft UI was ...say what? "literally built to be unintuitive".... I don't know where you're going with this but these arguments are driving your point nowhere fast.

I mean WOW alone serves to disprove you there, if not to mention several other MMORPGS.

as for Starcraft.... I'm sorry but it's UI really is conceived like a kiddy's play toy. And everyone seems to agree that it is as intuitive as it gets. And I can't blame them. As TLO very well put it: "Any idiot can play Starcraft".

Back to Developers or "the game" forcing players to micro. none of that was intentional. When you conceive a game/UI, unless you're gifted with foresight, you have no idea how people are going to use it. And that's what happened with starcraft. Especially since back then "competitive" did not exist for gaming. It was basically created by Warcraft III and Starcraft (starcraft having come first started it all).

there's a very neat article that I'm having problems finding which tells the story of the birth of the competitive scene and the birth of glorious revolutionary new builds that changed the face of the game each time without the balance ever being touched.

I don't know how WoW had anything to do with what we were talking about, but whatever, haha.

Anyway, if rushing wasn't the premise of the game why would it be the dominate strategy, and a balance Uber really seems to enjoy? I think over the years it's been pretty clear that Uber has said many times that large armies and many many factories is what the games about, and not really defenses.

Now then, I'm sorry, but Starcraft 2 was a deliberate choice to make it micro intensive, I'm near positive. The UI is built to be difficult to manage it seems, having to check a factory over and over to replenish it's queue, because the queue only goes up to something like 15(?) Units, the no attacks while moving bit (a happy accident formed by technical difficulties in SC 1, why did they keep it exactly)

Micro was essentially the premise of the game, there were a couple metastrategies, most revolving around the factions premise. Zerg being the rushers, and etc... The factions fit your playstyle essentially, but no matter what playstyle, it was still very, very micro intensive.

Well I wouldn't go as far to call it rushing, but more constant raiding, as a strategy.

And once you have a large army, it's just steamrolling.

what is the rapport with WOW? https://www.google.fr/search?q=over complicated UI&safe=off&client=ubuntu&hs=XzH&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_LglVN_nO9XsaLKggZgD&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1855&bih=983
if you search "over complicated UI" WOW is the third result in google images. gives you an idea of what people around the world think is really a complicated UI. I don't see starcraft pictures anywhere in there.

then I think we may have a quiproquo on what "rushing" means.

ssssssssssssssssstop.

right there. no need to go further, this is the point you need cleared up.

what is starctaft II?

before asking yourself what Starcraft II is you should probably begin first by defining for yourself what Starcraft is.

Unfortunately it works this way for this game.

this is starctaft:......................................this is starcraft II:

Spoiler: more starcraft II

Had I mixed these up would you have been able to tell them apart?

there's a good reason for this. ....it's the same game.

not because Blizzard are lazy bastards; because starcraft was such an unmitigated success... to the point their potential new clients and fanbase where already one and the same.

that is why they didn't change anything (significant) in the second instalment. That is why when you refer to starcraft II's micro, you are forcibly making a reference to starcraft's micro.

directional shields would be the most non invasive way of shielding, bubbles are too unreal for the era of these prehistoric war machines. Hard light has been made on our earth with quantum entanglement, and these robots are quite frankly based on our post-era of science.

Just because you like the idea of no obsolete units doesn't make Supcom have less unit variety. All those example units you've given have obvious places in the game, even if you stop using them after a while. Not only that but you've ignored the much larger factor of having 3 entirely different factions to work with, which is the larger part of the unit variety.

Look, I'm not arguing that PA has to suddenly come up with 100 new units - I'm just trying to point out that you can't dismiss the appeal Supcom has over and above PA simply because of the 3 factions and many more units. PA unfortunately doesn't have the luxury of the same amount of manpower to create that many units, but don't try pass it off as "this way is better". You know as well as I do that if they had the cash to make 3 factions they'd do it.

So I don't know if this was a troll attempt or something, but both pictures are from Starcraft 2. Just sayin'


As for the rest of the topic: I feel aswell that SupCom had more diversity and a more fun gamestyle overall. In SupCom it was always about epic clashes of ground/air/naval armies, with constant fighting going on about key points on the maps. Additionally each map had its unique terrain features, which required different strategies. In PA instead, the terrain of the maps doesn't matter very much and feels a bit blunt, and the whole army-combat-aspect is less significant because of the addition of the orbital layer. I feel in PA often it's more about using (orbital) "gimmicks" to defeat an opponent, at least when you play on systems with more than one planet. That you also have a constant lack of awareness on multi-planet systems doesn't help. Yes it is cool to play in a solar system and have all those nice planets to conquer and destroy, I was sold on that aswell when I saw the kickstarter video, but the fun about that multi planet gameplay wears out pretty quickly. After a while one realizes that multiple planets don't add much positive to the gameplay at all, and that the orbital layer and conquering enemy planets only forces some tedious micromanagement onto the players.
Well to summarize, PA is at least for me the most fun when playing matches on 1-planet systems, where it is more about "traditional" fights with armies. But if I then compare this 1-planet gameplay to SupCom's gameplay, the latter still does it better. :/

I really hope PA will someday get there, and if it's with the help of mods. I still like the concept and for sure the existence of PA is good for the genre overall. But it is not yet there where we all imagined it when we first heard about it I feel.

pff
fine.

I just got trolled by google because I got the first one searching "starcraft broodwar"....

anyways as you can see the two are lookalikes.

I know because I played both quite a bit.

Procedural generated planets, SPHERICAL!

Orbital units, 3 layers, 4 when subs are fixed.

No unit cap.

Server side - client side relationship. (no lag from guy with old cpu)

Potentially...large planets with 40 man battles..maybe...

Good selling points over sup com.

why shall i not? i think i gave a well enough explanation of why i think it IS better .. both for gameplayreasons AND development
i don´t dismiss supcoms way of tiering ... but i am pointing out it´s obvius weaknesses of complexity

the factions don´t feel as different as you claim ... from the core they play all the same
the mere differences are, one has more hp units, some has more stealth and bit more AoE to bear, one has more figherpower the other has less units but those are more versatile ... those differences however are so minor you bassicly are still doing the same in the end ...
factions in FA feel rather like skins, none of them had enough units and structures/non of their existing units and stuctures had enough impact to truely differentiate their strengs and weaknesses ... in that case ... SupCom 2 (yes i say that) did a better job ... imo ...

could they do multiple unitpools for factions? sure ...
shall they make them like in SupCom FA? ... imho ... heck NO!

I can't see why it should take millions of dollars and hundreds of people to create more units for PA, or even unique factions. Supcom / FA modders - people working alone, spending a few free evening hours - have made hundreds of new units and buildings though mods. A whole new faction even.

I fear that Uber just can't let go of the Supcom 2 philosophy of less complexity, no adjancency bonuses, bigger scale, all that. I say it's a concious design decision to make PA a more rudimentary RTS than Supcom, for lack of a better word.

Yes PA has orbital, and that's where a lot of valuable dev time is going into probably. Yes it's revolutionary in RTS gaming. But it remains to be seen if ten years down the road people will look back and say THAT was the start of a new era. So far it looks like people aren't really attracted beyond the initial awe of smashing planets. So you can ask yourself if all this dev time is worth it.

This post is wrong for many reasons.

1. There are many units that are unique to higher tiers or one tier of tech in Supcom. The MMLs, the mobile bomb, the stealth units, mobile shields, jammers, ambhibious etc.

2. You're missing the point that BECAUSE lower tier units get obsolete after a while that thinking about your transition to higher tech adds a layer of strategic depth. You call this bad I call this good. And even if you find it too complex and a reason not to play the game, another thing to consider is that seeing that first T3 unit enter the battle is just cool to watch. You don't get an even bigger blob of spam of the same strength, you get to see a different creature. It's even more awesome for expeerimental tech. Call it what you like but it's appealing in that regard to many, many players.

3. The factions play differently, dismissing them as reskinned models doesn't do them justice. Even though the units functions are comparable, choosing a massive frontloaded cannon instead of rapid fire lasers adds a whole new level of strategic decisions. You seem to be misunderstanding the way the factions play or at least inexperience in using all of Supcoms factions.

you don´t know what they are working on, you have no idea how many people they use for certain parts of develepoment ... and as such your opinion does not help nor matter ...

also take a look on SupCom 2 revamp mod ... those guys are working on that mod for like 5 years which is basicly the time it would take to make a RTS game ...
AND they still not done ... far from it ... they didn´t even manage to get half the content in they are showing on their site ...
developent on multiple unitpools and factions take a lot of time ... you don´t just throw it in there like that in a couple weeks or month ...
ask mike and his team how long they worked on Blackops Unleashed ... i can assure you you don´t do such a thing just like that ... it needs a lot of preparation and understanding to build up a propper unitpool and faction ...

aside from 2 or 3 guys that had comparibly minor work on supcom 2 .. uber overall has nothing to do with SupCom 2 but more with SupCom FA and TA

of course it´s worth it ... why? because no one ever tryed it before ... this game was never meant to appeal to a broad appearance .. it is as niche as it gets ... UBER wanted to add another strategic layer to RTS
it didn´t want to fundamentaly change the gameplay of its grand predecessor .. it plays in fact like it ...
so you either play PA or TA ... (no i am not speaking bout supcom)
i personaly am tired of always playing the same 2D map style RTS´s i did over the past 15 years
i am also tired of upgrades and techbuildings .. as they rather add just more binarity to the game ...

every faction has amphibius units
every faction hast a stealthgenerator
every faction has shields
3 of factions have a mobile shieldunit at minimum

it adds no depth but complexity and binarity ... you either go and get a techadvantage/keep up with your enemy or don´t and risk falling back and lose, same with shields, same with adjencencybonuses
tell me are you not seing different tech/units with the tiers TA and PA offer?

is much more clearer to see in PA .. example vanguard, slammer, blue hawk, sheller

now Supcom FA just as example

cybran:
mantis, medusa,viper,trebuchet
UEF:
striker,lobo, flapjack, demolisher
aeon:
aurora, fervor,evensong,serenity
seraphim:
thaam,tzuee,ythisah,suthanus

PA:
ant/bolo,grenadier,bluehawk,sheller

all for factions have fundamentaly the same unittypes with minimal statdifference and the same unittypes are available to the PA unitpool .. that some are hovercraft would´t even matter on a pure landmap, so aside from one having a bit it more aoe than the other where is there the strategic difference between the factions?

as for amphibious units in PA you have dox and slammers already and there might even come a dedicated hovercraftfactory to the game ...
point being you can do the same with less content in PA
factions are not needed when you have a unitpool that allows you to do almost everything ...

shields have been dicussed to death and it is generaly concluded that they would be to powerfull and rather add binarity to the game ...

stealth is a difficult topic
as it is quite difficult to navigate and read planets already to the point of stealth being possibly too efficient on larger scale unless you cover everything with scouts