I love TA but I can't help but feel the pace of PA is much quicker. Would anyone else prefer it if the pace were more like TA's with a slower build-up to tons of units? I know it's only Alpha but at the moment I can envisage two scenarios: 1) Things stay roughly as they are with units and structures being produced much quicker than in TA providing sufficient resources. To balance the great number of units however they all have lower health, higher rate/more accurate fire and are generally more expendable because they are also cheap. This makes for big battles early in the game and a race to see who can make the most units and smash them into your opponent to overwhelm him before he makes more than you do. This is how the game feels currently and it's really a contest of who has the bigger economy to produce a ton of units. The focus of this scenario is not actually so much on combat and strategy but macroing a huge resource base. The advantage of this scenario is it makes for quicker but not necessarily more satisfying games. 2) The production/construction rates are slowed down considerably with production costs more expensive (this could be accomplished by reducing the amount of resources garnered from mex's and energy plants). However because of the longer production times and 'high' cost of units they also have greater health/resilience. To fit in with the more relaxed pace of the game they have a slightly lower rate of fire/accuracy and are not as expendable. Early in the game you realise that this time is about strategy and small skirmishes that continually test each player as the game evolves. Moreover this relaxed pace perhaps helps to create a situation where units don't die so quickly later in the game so players really have to work to push the enemies front line back. The good thing about this scenario as well is that even the T1 units are still useful later in the game because they can avoid projectiles/become cannon fodder without being annihilated in the first 3 seconds of combat (T1 bots could be slightly bigger in size as well). Also the second scenario means that with superior micro a player who has a worse economy can still put up a good fight and turn the tide if the units are handled well. I know i'd definitely prefer the second one because then the game naturally evolves and so resource management/macroing becomes the focus of the end game rather than right at the beginning. Also given that 360 degree planets means you can move anywhere it could be that with the proper skill a player has more chance of retreating to continue the fight elsewhere if things are slowed down a little. Being out resourced and therefore outgunned at the moment is a very slippery slope currently with little hope of recovery if you fall behind. Well that's it. I've probably missed a few things out but what are your thoughts on this? Oh and Star Wars laser physics would fit in well with the second scenario I think
If anything it feels a little on the slow side for me right now. I don't have all day to play a match. I want it to be quick so I can have time to do lots of them.
Irrelevant until we get to see the pace with multiple planets and the larger planet types, and planet features and water obstructing units. Right now you can send your tanks in a straight line towards the enemy, that won't be the case later.
Not to mention the limited unit selection as well. There are just too many things still missing to really have a proper and productive discussion on PA's Pacing. Mike
I like the pace as it is. I thought TA and SupCom had way too slow paces, and I would usually speed SIM up to +3 or +7 if I could, sometimes +10 for PA.
On average a 1v1 game in FA would last 40 mins on a medium map. The same as SC2, roughly, which is many times faster then FA.
If we're talking about a 1v1, yeah, 40 minutes is about average. That was decently fast paced, though I could never get into it, primarily because of how sluggish units felt even on 10x10 maps. Anything bigger than a 10x10 map was horrifying in my mind. I played Setons Clutch on FAF 5 times, and every time I thought "WHAT THE **** IS THE POINT OF THIS?!" It's just a glorified click war. Yes, arguably you can flank and attack weak points, but all maps in SupCom had 1-8 choke points that could easily be barricaded, either with a tank/bot garrison or PDs and Shields. And don't even get me started on shields. I played as Aeon specifically so I could **** on shields with Absolvers and Mercies. But back to flanking, even if you did manage to flank your enemy with a sizable force, because all units in SupCom moved at the same crawling pace (or slightly slower or faster), aside from LABs (which were worthless if anything with half a gun was stationed at the flank point), the enemy would almost always have spotted you on radar and moved a force in. Even if they don't have radar cover, they usually have T1 Interceptors, T2 Fightabommas, or T3 ASF patrolling everywhere. Let's say you sneak past all the radar, choke points and air patrols. That's called a drop, and they were almost nerfed into oblivion because they were considered overpowered. They also happened to be my favorite and only tactic aside from "MASS SHOOTY UNITS" and "BUILD SHOOTY BASE". Wow, that turned into a rant on SupCom really quickly. In hindsight I really did not like a single aspect of that game aside from Strategic Zoom and Templates.
: ( you really didn't play it enought then. 1 LABs are AWESOME, they have a great dps to mass ratio and loaded into any tech transport they were the fastest (and maybe even) most popular way of killing a commander. (I could've done this in 6min no prob, t1 transports would've also been even faster) 2 barricades were not a solution. this is a newb tactic, no pros use it. 3 Drops are actually when you "drop" units (e.g. transport them) they did not need to bypass choke points radars and air patrols to be called such. They are indeed good, they are valid, it takes micro and extra eco to do they, they were never nerfed and they still go strong. (I dunno where the hell that came from) Also you should know not so long ago the ASFs were nerfed severly in hp and anti-air of detroyers buffed, generally leading, to drops passing even more. 4 Flanking was valid in many ways I can't make the full list here but here's a few examples: -cybran t2 mobile stealth field (still functions while in transport) loaded into a transport with aggressive drop units -6 Percivals into a t3 UEF transport (5 percival shots kill a comander) -teleport-stealth field-tml -cybran com teleport-mazer -Monkeylord (stealthed, also cheapest exp) -in Black Ops teleporting transport
I'm going to just list off a bunch of keywords and let you realize the flaws in your argument. Fighter micro, Omni radar, Death on transport kill, T2 Point Defenses, Regenerating shield, Teleport Traps, Air scouts, Choke Points, Radar. But I have deviated from the original purpose of my stance, and would like to conclude my argument; SupCom's pace was atrociously slow, and any increases in pace are nullified by the inevitable decreases. Many of which resulted from poor gameplay design decisions as they did from poor networking and inability to reconnect. In my eyes, may the great giant rest in peace. I won't stand in the way of your fun, though I will force you to look at things objectively.
It's fliping and tossing in it's grave then because the community grows stronger everyday and it's stronger today then GPG's prime. I won't argue that FA's pace was fast, it was slow and I hope to find more of this in PA, I mean I KNOW I'll find more of this in PA. Jon Mavor really is catering to people like me when he says "let's make a game with fourty player matches that play out over multiple glaxies and where you have to have total conquest of the galaxy to win" I don't think those matches would last 8 minutes (like the picture above) and I was pointing out that barricades never were a thing in FA that they would be is a very one-sided opinion, they really never were. unless you were watching a newbslap where you basically saw a turtle war where a player only sent out his first scout when he had 2 t4 bombers and a nuke. THEN, in those matches you would see choke point barricades, otherwise it's something easy to break and an invalid strategy that you'd never see. also supcom came out in 2007 ; reconnection :!: (correct me here I may be wrong) was introduced first in lol, a 2009 game for wich the mechanic was implemented early 2012. This is a new technology.
I am very against making games longer. At the moment even big games usually last 20-40 minutes which is great. Making them slower will hurt the esports scene and will put off a lot of people who want action and fun rather than a drawn out opening stage before they get to any action.
Just because there are long games, doesn't mean there will be no more shorter games. Furthermore, assuming that a longer game will have less engagement is a somewhat presumptuous argument to make. Games can be longer, and continue to keep a high degree of engagement. As for the Esports scene, I enjoy watching a good replay as much as the next man, but balancing a game purely around the ultra-competitive is a bad idea for a large number of reasons. If you are worried about the time taken to cast and watch a replay, I think you'll find that appropriate use of chrono-cam fixes a lot of issues. Incidentally, now that chrono-cam scrubbing is implemented, I suggest you try casting a game, post action, using chrono-cam. I'm not saying it will be uniformly better at this point in the game's development, but it would be interesting to compare with a more traditional cast.
We would still have the same pace however ie. 'fast' because early game would still focus on macroing like crazy right from the get-go. The only difference on a bigger planet would be that the battles would be bigger but we'd still have to focus most of our attention on resourcing a huge economy as quickly as possible. The advantage of emphasising unit power like in TA however is that if handled well even a small number of units can make a big difference, and I think this is a better indication of player skill. The beauty of this as well is that you can also focus on macro level play when you want to, whereas at the moment your units won't last more than a few seconds after being engaged to really make them count. Thus the focus switches back to macroing and thinking you need to build a ton more of them to win.
My point was that I feel the pace and length of games works well now. In terms of esports having 5-10 minutes of slow build up isn't fun or engaging to cast or watch. People who randomly stumble on the video aren't going to be interested. I don't think it does good for gameplay either when people have to spend a while building up before they get into the game. At least this is my interpretation of OP's post. I don't see what you're suggesting about the chronocam or scrubbing that will make this quicker or more interesting to have a slow build-up. How are you suggesting I use the chronocam?
This isn't about making games longer, perhaps I should have made that clear in my original post. This is about making combat and the use of units more fun and meaningful. Just because the pace is slower in building up your planetary empire it doesn't mean you can't snatch victory away from someone with early superior micro play This is what TA did to perfection in my opinion.
Simple. Fast forward that bit. Play or spectate the game normally. Enjoy it and play to the best of your ability. Don't worry about recording. Then, after the game, hit the review game button in post match screen. Rewind the match to the beginning, and now start your screen capturing, and begin your commentating. If it takes 5-10 minutes for the game to heat up, you can quickly speed past that part, perhaps only showing a few key parts of people's build order. It also allows you to compare the approach of different players, and generally use the time to more efficiently describe what is going on. Such is the benefit of commentation over participation, when used fully. You can play the entire game through at the desired speed, speeding up if the action is slow, slowing down if it's too much to handle. You can even do quick replays (slow motion) of key events. With such capability, to focus on the key events (there's normally something going on somewhere), a good caster maintain viewer engagement over the entire length of the video. If there's a lot of non-engagement time in a 2 hr match, then you can fast-forward, and compress 2 hrs of match into a shorter time-frame. Although I would hasten to add that many conventional sports manage to keep their viewers interested for two or more hours. I understand if this isn't really what you consider to be your preferred style in casting a match. There is something to be said for the immediate reactions of a player under fire. However, RTS games and SupCom in particular do have a fairly strong tradition of post-match commentary. I think the FAF caster I enjoy watch the most when I'm in the mood to put something on in the background is this guy, and he pretty much exclusively does post match commentary. PA has, potentially, one of the most groundbreaking casting and replay features of RTS's in modern times. It's not yet hit it's full potential, and it's still perfectly usable, even at this early stage in development. I would love to see a caster begin to make full use of this awesome feature.
Zaphod is not only a caster, but a good player. A very good player that needs to stop underestimating himself lol. And I agree with him 100% when he says that the current pace of the game is almost ideal. Units could have a little more health, energy plants could produce more energy, but aside from that everything works as it should.
I have a feeling that this game might be divided right down the middle in the future with those people who want a more TA feeling game using mods to change certain factors. Just my feeling on this.
