Planetary Annihilation LiveStream: May 3rd, 2013

how about just having one icon with a counter for each of the distinct unit types in a group. This would cut down on the mass of icons. And could also be used as a way to quickly select all the units of a particular type from within the group by just clicking on the icon.

I think the icons should look like the units. SupCom always annoys me trying to find a unit type based on squares, triangles and diamonds is really hard! It's easier to read if they look like the unit they are. The challenge will be making distinguishable icons for all units without resorting to random shapes like SupCom.

Just an idea, but what about having base colour for the icons but with highlights as to it's function - so like blue base colour, yellow highlights for engineer or red highlights for attacking units. Would make reading unit type very quick. Though you might think it will restrict the colours players can choose, I think you can probably work round that.

Quick test of the idea

I like FA icons only tiers should be viewed better, single double triple borderline f.i.

I disagree with the single icon per unit type, as it'd disconnect you from the large number of units even more. (Send this icon worth 100 to that icon worth 50) You could already easily select a particular type by double clicking or selecting one and pressing ctrl-z.

I never had issues reading the icons in FA. The tiers were clear to me as well.

I wonder if this is true. I've been thinking about this and my personal conclusion was that simple shapes have the advantage of being quicker and easier to read. Especially when you have lots of different symbols on top of each other the outline of the symbols easily is blured away. That's just an idea I had, it would definitely need testing to verify.

imo the supcom icons are great. Once you know them, you can easily distinct units. But PA will have less units, less tiers, so maybe another solution will be found

Less overall units available vs all 4 FA factions. However since but normal(t1) and advanced(t2) units will likely be used throughout the match, I would suspect there will be considerably more units in PA actually used at one time in game than in FA.

But remember what Mavor said about scaling upwards?
The engine right now is built to scale up.

I should think the GUI design should be well thought out to accommodate more units on the field and more unit types included as well.

Bit of a random question but It's been bugging me for the last couple of LiveStreams now -the guy in the "awesome" floating head logo that accompanies PA -why does he never appear in the videos?

This guy -Scathis?

I have not had a chance to watch all the live streams so bear with me.

Has anyone discussed how the camera movement will handled (or if conclusion is not final, how is it currently implemented)? Is it driven by cursor position (ie, move towards edge) or hold down mouse button and camera will move relative towards direction mouse is traveling in?

Or do we down a couple and go World in Conflict WASD-keyboard driven style?

Good question.

Also,
I wonder why kind of say he had in this unit.

since this one is about the recent video i would like to throw out a suggestion on the strategic symbols when zoomed out far on a planet ...
f.e how bout displaying metalmakers with a metalbar (or something that displays metal),
using a electric flash for energy gens,
for facilities a hammer with additional symbol for bots, vehicles etc.?
i think that would be easier to read instead of those blocky symbols in the video... at least on those buildings...yeah i know they were first pass...

Are rockets going to be the final projectile? They look kind of... boring? Seems a lot less intense than the EMG bullets or lasers of TA. Kind of makes every unit seem like an artillery piece, which doesn't really sit right with me. Hopefully it's just placeholder.

Not sure how many times 'This is alpha' needs to be said, but no, it's not final.

A lot evidently :s

Yeah we simply can't win by showing unfinished stuff. If I caveat it people yell at me for that, if I don't they think it's finished. Captain Kirk would just reprogram the simulation...

Please take it in stride. For everyone of those ****sticks there are literally thousands of us watching you that do comprehend what you are saying. Of course you never really hear from those people, because they don't make dumb comments and bother to search the forums.

Heh. Just think of how much fun it will be to say "THIS IS OUR FINAL VERSION" (so far, until we change it again in our iterative post development period)

neutrino, you don't have to feel down when people are making comments.

I think it might be how you choose to digest those comments.


From your "caveat" most people know that everything is unfinished.
But that also means it's not quite too late to change it either.

In terms of "rockets".
energy blasts, pulses, constant lasers are things that say "future tech" to a lot of us, whereas balistics and rockets have been around since WWII.

I don't want to be putting words into people's mouths, but I think most of us don't actually know game design.

For many of us, a rocket effect on missile boat is transferable to the com, to the turret.


So a "too many rockets = boring" isn't necessarily a negative.
But rather a "rockets are awesome, but don't overuse them".


Regardless, nitpicking art is still kinda weird to me.
I would rather your art team be allowed to go crazy


As long as we can "read" what is happening on screen, then all is good.

People who know game design know it's not worth commenting on things like "too many rockets" in an alpha video, that's the thing. Or they caveat it with "but I guess that's a placeholder". I think it's quite fair to call for people to think through their comments before posting.