New unit ideas, why shoot them down?

So Ive been reading in the forums last couple days, and have come across a lot of arguments over new unit types for and against. I think a lot of people are shooting them down way to early with-out the consideration that any RTS needs variety. Even bad variety, in the essence that it gives the player a lot more options in gameplay, it could be a wrong choice or right, but the option needs to remain open to the player.

I think the more options for gameplay, the better. Someone should feel free to choose a path in RTS that could be wrong... It creates different scenarios that are good for variety in the way one plays, and it defends against single tactic play.

Feel free to leave your opinion.

For me, I'd love to see a whole range of units, from tiny burrowing units to giant megalathon units or even suit units that smaller units can wear. I wouldn't mind extra superpowers. And I would love SHIELDS, I understand that finding a way to balance them is hard, not impossible tho and it gives the player a lot of choice in terms of gameplay.

Bad variety often removes options. Poorly thought-out ideas make others moot and pointless, which is irrefutably a bad thing.

If you try to refute it, someone will point out that if X beats Y in every situation, then it was a waste of backer money and a waste of Uber's time making Y at all.

The ideas that are shot down are usually both of the following things:

1. Fundamentally impossible to balance
2. Inexplicably popular and well known

Mind you I never use the word impossible. I've written 20 or so long-winded posts on why shields are very poor ways to create a sense of security in defense.

A lot of people suggest units without putting enough thought into them. They often end up with odd mechanics that don't fit into the game. If the suggest doesn't have an odd mechanic the chances are that its a direct upgrade, or its been suggested and rejected every week to two.

I agree that variety is needed, but it needs to be done well so that all units are worth building and no specific units are needed every game.

My point is, why is it just about X beating Y, why not have multiple ways to beat each other and multiple options at hand..
Currently it feels like most things are a one strategy tactic, whereas I think this game can achieve much more.

And with shields, yes there are countless reasons why they are bad, but im sure that there are countless reasons against that argument also. Like having shields represented in a different way, like generating a shields power to 100% then activating it, it lasts 30 seconds then it needs to power up again. You can have EMP units designed to be one shot units that take out shields, theres many ways to design a way to balance shields IMO.

Im just saying, that people are shooting down a lot peoples ideas without thinking first, just because they don't like it in said game. The unit roster feels somewhat light for me, and I for one would love to see a lot more variety, even if that variety has select-able options to turn it off in the lobby before playing.

Yeah it makes it much harder to balance with lots of varied and different units but I would love to have a large choice of diverse and distinct units that were viable.

Many people don't put a lot of thought into new units, they may think of this "awsome" function that a unit can do, but that's about the only thing they describe.

They however don't think of:

• The situations where this unit has the advantage, and situations where it's at a disadvantage.
• How the function of the unit fits into the gameplay compared to other units, in other words is this unit really needed?
  
• Given the time and budget, is this a realistic unit to expect?

The point is that there's nothing wrong to have lots of different units, as long as the ideas actually fit into the game.

Yes ghostflux, this is a given. You cant chuck in any old design into the game, I know that. What im trying to say is, there are lots of ideas going out on the forum and a lot of people are just saying "nah thats crap" but a lot of the ideas have been plausible in my eyes, especially with design tweaks. I know Uber want to make the game different, balanced and above all fun, and they have to make hard choices on what to keep in the game because of money and time spent on the game, I just think that some unit ideas and gameplay ideas are being overlooked and it could turn out to be a proper shame.

I don't remember reading short responses such as "Nah that's crap", usually when a unit is bad and people are against the idea, they explain their reasoning. If you do not agree with the reasoning that person used, then feel free to argument on that specific case. Complaining about it in this topic without any specific examples to discuss doesn't get anything done.

Then those people should be advocating specific implementations of shields.

Just saying I think shields are cool. Gimme' does not help anyone.

Instead, try; Hey, I know A, B, and C are problems with shields in past games, but has anyone tried D instead?

When you do that, people will actually sit down and think about the idea. If there's problems with your idea, they'll point it out. If they think of solutions to those problems, they'll point those out too. Most of the people that shout down repeated ideas are the ones that want :new: ideas the most.

Suggest new things. People are attracted to PA because fighting across a solar system of BALLS IN SPACE is a relatively new idea.

I don`t think anyone has been asked to design a fully fledged design tho. The developers have asked for "ideas" yno, like stuff to spark off their imagination, or anyone elses. So if anyone has submitted an "idea" on the forums, the least anyone can do is use their imagination to contribute to their idea. Most things ive read have been "well that worked horribly in TA or SupCom so it can not be in PA!" Or "No, your idea isnt realistic enough or has design flaws" and I really don`t see how this helps.

As much as people have the right to post anything that sparks their imagination, we also have the right to criticise the ideas if they are not correctly defined. Often the idea is criticised and used as a foundation for a slightly different idea.

You seem to like making these imaginary sentences as an argument, even though nobody has said that. Quote people if you want to make a point please.

Just because they weren't asked to, doesn't mean they shouldn't do it to help convince everyone of the merits of said idea/unit/etc. Ideas are cheap. I want a nuclear missile that can't be intercepted by defence.

A year ago, well before the alpa and the beta, there was lots of new, well thought out ideas. Those days were great, because you'd read an essay from a single person and they'd have convinced you that even if the idea wasn't suited for PA, it was great in its own right and should deserves to see use in another game.

Those days are gone. All the original ideas have been thought of, posted, and debated.

Disagreed, people still post nice ideas regularly. If you want a more recent example, check https://forums.uberent.com/threads/new-unit-idea-wartrain this thread.

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/black-hole-bomb.52926/
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/force-fields.52978/#post-808075
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/its-time-to-talk-unit-ideas.52165/
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/why-no-advanced-aa.52309/

"You seem to like making these imaginary sentences as an argument"
Give these a good read...
A lot of people just shooting down ideas instead of providing constructive criticism.
And just because one idea is more detailed than the other, doesn't mean that the less detailed idea is invalid at all or wrong.

Anyway I don't think anyone has quite understood the point of the thread and it feels to be getting quite heated, there's no need.

Like I've said before, if you feel that you have any specific ideas that you feel have been shot down unecessarily, then quote those. But don't link me whole threads, I don't know which responses are troubling you and why.

Why should the community provide constructive criticism 30 bajillion times?

We've already answered why some specific ideas are bad. We've discussed blackholes. We've discussed shields. We've discussed experiment/mega units. We've discussed underground units. We've discussed space navies. We've discussed upgrades and veterancy. Why should we discus it again unless somebody introduces something new?

Don't say asking for it again might spark imagination. Try that and watch everyone suggest the exact same bubble shields idea, post after post, in this thread. Like I said earlier, talk about something that hasn't been talked about before. It's your job to have that spark of imagination. It's not ours. Don't ask over and over, expecting us to have it.

Mate, your missing the point. I haven`t submitted any ideas of significance. But I do like a lot of other peoples ideas, whether it be small ideas like shields all the way to the wartrain that was submitted a couple weeks ago. Too many people here are feeling entitled and think they speak on behalf of Uber to say No, You cannot have this because of so and so...

Like I said, This is turning into an argument, and a bloody pointless one at that!