Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building types)

Hi all i was a huge fan of TA, and sup com, i only really played vanilla and fa to a competative level where i got to 7th in the world on the leaderboard table,

When i realised a sequel to TA was coming out i was so excited, when i could start to see the screen shots i could tell this game was gonna be epic and it was just that (the best RTS game ever).

Now Planetary Annihilation has showed up. The main thing i wana say is please dont simplify the game to account for the 3D planet shaped maps and solar systems. I dont want to be playing 3 games of TA all at once with loads of T1 units on each planet.
That sense of leveling up and getting to build bigger units that pack a punch is essential, No one just wants 500 T1 units runiing around over different planets.

I think the building variation that supcom had should not be trashed either, ie tech 1 - 3 radars (was in TA also) shields made an awsome introduction, and the visuals were amazing on them. Different turret types lvl 1-3. And all the levels on powver generation / mass generation.

3 Levels of ground sea and air are also essential in my oppinion or this game risks not even being part of the series, end of story.

I also hope they lose that stupid techtree from supcom 2 which sucked soo much ***.

On one hand i really like the idea of RTS on different planets but not at the cost of reducing the units types (ie only having 1 faction!!) and building does not excite me. I just pray to god that its not simplified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would rather have a game without the planet busting and have all the features from TA /supcom than have another supcom 2,

Also dont take away the strategic zoom, this is now also essential =) One way to encorporate it would be to see a shopere shaped planet and when you zoom out it folds out into a flat map that you can scroll across. *** you scroll in a direction the otherside of the plaet could come infrom the map (kinda hard to explainwithout drawings) Then when you zoom back in allow the 2D image to return to the sphere shapped level.. just a thought.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

SupCom didn't need to have all the complexities from TA to be a good game, same could be applied to PA.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

I would suggest reading the forum.
The arguments on tech leveling are particularly fascinating.
What I gather is that we the supporters generally favor a two-tiered system, wherein tier 1 are the main force, and tier two are supplementary and specialized units. (i.e. t1 artillery and a t2 artillery scout)
I also gather that there's a near consensus on preferring one faction with twice as many units over two factions each with their own set. Makes sense.

I guess I would summarize the game as being more refined, not simpler.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

I think he's mostly referring to the simplification of SupCom/FA when going to SupCom2.
I also believe they shouldn't oversimplify. However, I believe we'll see what they've done when we play the alpha. At that point they'll have plenty of time to fix any oversimplifications.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

I just want explosions and have this feeling I am commanding a massive army.. 500 T1 units sounds like a small army :mrgreen:

But too be honest, I think the biggest mistake for SupCom2 was resource management (or the lack off). I really hate the idea that I need to have all the resources before I can queue up a building or an unit, thats what all RTS games do! I want it the old fashion way where I can queue up all the stuff I want and be punished for me wanting too much with too little resources

I also hate the "research" part most RTS games have. I mean, how stupid is it that I need to research the same units or tech EVERY FIGHT AGAIN! I find the old way where a T1 builder can build T1 buildings and T2 builders can build T2 buildings.. it is a much more fluent model.

Basicly I want to be empowered to do things, not be restricted by game mechanics! If I want to place building miles apart I should be able to do so, and not some stupid restriction of "power cables" or something that prevents me to do this. Minecraft is a success for a reason, it empowers the player instead of restricting the player..

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

OP, if you wish to discuss the current state of specific features, it would help to be aware of what that state is in the first place. Please read stickies and existing threads as much of what you're deeming essential, or claiming people want, does not necessarily align with either the community or the intent that has been shared by the devs.

It would behoove you to research this type of information in order to ensure that your unique perspective and contributions will be taken seriously, as opposed to being dismissed outright.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

While I will defend to death that SupCom2 is an fantastic RTS game, the way it plays is rather silly considering the setting.

But overall I still believe the current SupCom2 economy is the way to go over the older streaming economy that causes major problems for new players and is quite frankly the most major part that ruins the originals of the series.

Tech trees are again, a silly choice for this type of RTS.

As for building types, the avoidance of redundancy is key.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

The "older" streaming economy is a big part of what made the original so awesome. Remove that and this game has no right to call itself a spiritual successor to TA. It would also make a lot of backers very angry.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

I will say that the SC2 economy is exactly the same in every way apart from the spending, where you buy things instead of streaming out.

Its a lot more user friendly, and helps players focus on the battling more then focusing on managing your economy.

SC/TA often had the problem with allowing you to totally screw up, which I still believe and in many cases know is not a good thing, a problem that is a lot worse in SC then TA for some unknown reason.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

This, exactly. I will probably not play this game for a long time if it has SupCom2-style economy.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

Streaming the price of units is more user freindly, prevents floating and constantly checking your wallet like you do in most strategi games. It is a bit tricky for new players that are unused to the concept. But thats their problem, you shouldent prevent using a better system becuse the users dont want to learn something new.

Btw Supreme Comannder 2 might be a allright game, but it has strayed quite a bit from being a Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander kind of game. Aloot of Supreme Commander and Total annihilation fans realy dislike Supreme Commander 2.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

The point I am trying to make is that PA will need some work to not make its economy as un-user friendly when considering the scale.

"Streaming the price of units is more user freindly, prevents floating and constantly checking your wallet like you do in most strategi games. It is a bit tricky for new players that are unused to the concept. But thats their problem, you shouldent prevent using a better system becuse the users dont want to learn something new."

Having a SC:FA style economy on the scale of PA would also destroy the game for me, so I would like to work towards a way we can have the best of both worlds.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

more user friendly != less complex
if you explain the workings of some concept in an usable manner, it doesn't have to be less user friendly - it just may be a touch more complex (in this case not even much more complex, you just have to keep in mind the difference).

if you don't won't to burden the player with managing an economy, just remove it all together and give all players unlimited resources.

(as for my personal taste: less complex != more fun, but that's just me )

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

We either stick with the streaming economy used in TA and SupCom, or we dont. Theres realy no middle way to do it.

How do you know that it will destroy the game for you? We dont even know how they will implement it! For example: We dont know how they will do it for different planets, will every planet have its own pool of resources or will it be shared? It has been discussed to death on the forums allredy and it will be up to Uber to decide.

Im assuming that the majority of the supporters want a TA (and supcom one) like economy system since the game has been introduced as another spiritual successor of TA. So im rather sure thats what we will see in the finished title, unless they test it out in a alpha build and finds it horrible on PA's grand scale, but i sincerely doubt that.

Offcourse if a majority of supporters would want a simplefied economy and made threads and polls on the subject Uber would most likely lissen, but as i have mentioned i dont think a majority want that.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

I suppose in the end that this "first past the post" democracy on the forum will mean that the majority always wins, no matter the details of the idea.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

The only problem that the SupCom 1 streaming economy had was with the hidden multipliers. So for example 10 engineers building T3 artillery would use up more of your resource stream than 10 engineers building a power plant. And factories would use up different resource rates depending on what unit they were cranking out.

I remember them mentioning this in the kickstarter video. So ideally 10 engineers will always use up 10 engineers worth of resource stream when they build something. So you can que up as many power plants and artillery installations as you want without having to worry about randomly tanking your economy.

And as far as usability goes all you have to tell people is "This engineer will use up 5 mass and 100 energy when building something. So if you have +15 mass and +300 energy coming in you can run 3 engineers at a time."


Also while we are on the topic of cutting things out of the game. They are taking out shields, but it looks like they are leaving artillery in. Shields were the only effective counter to artillery that I have found. It's almost like taking anti nuke silos out and leaving nuke silos in.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

^^ Think positive, enemy artillery wont be defended by sheilds anymore either, so some active scouting (if scouting is needed, who knows) and you can most likely take it down before its completed, or atleast before it does to much damage.

We shall see how they choose to balance it when we get further into development and the alpha arrives.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

This is the sort of thing I mean, as I have never herd of that before.

While shifting people towards my idea is most likely impossible, moving towards making the game more accessible is something I will encourage.

From what I can tell, the artillery left it will be the equivalent of T2 artillery from supcom, rather then the T3 monsters that really require shields.

More options of radar jamming will help you protect your bases from short range artillery.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

There is one, actually, that Zero-K uses : having metal price aligned to the buildpower price. This way, you don't suddenly crash your economy by building one pricey unit after a cheap one, for example. This simplifies the economy management a lot while keeping the streaming economy and its interest.
Zero-K also aligns energy to buildpower price, but this is more open to debate. Another way to do it, for example, is to have the metal:energy ratio fixed for each factory, and for all buildings/building 'families'. This way, a factory always uses the same amount of energy, and engineer energy consumption is easy to calculate.
In fact, playing SupCom after Zero-K can feel wrong, with build power, metal and energy being inconsistent between varied units or buildings.

Re: Please dont simplify the game (tech levels, building typ

Why a user friendly economy system? The way I understand it Uber did this through kickstarter so they won't have to compromise and so they can give the backing community (probably mostly TA and SC1 fans) as well as themselves what they want. And because of that it is already desided by Uber that the game will feature streaming economy.

PA is supposed to be a spiritual sucessor to TA. They are not taking shields out, they're just not adding them.