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

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

I do recall TA only had 2 techs and I personally appreciate the 3rd one introduced from sup com. I know the 2 games had differences, and I say include it all =) the kbot lab included lol.
Ur right 1 faction will simplify a lot of things for the developers but unfortunately for the user too. Blance would not be as fun to discuss imo with 1 faction :s
The sup com differentiated tiers by power and cost is true but I don’t believe that made them obsolete. Maybe in chris taylors mind which is where u got the quote from. If u got a big map and ur enemy is maken a base far away and u don’t want to worry about sending expesive units to sort them out, u can sent 100 little ones. =) or whatever, the strategy in these types of game can be endless but by no means obsolete.
I can see what ur saying in ur last statement and that you would get to use ur 2 levels more but it all depends on balance, u could balance the 3rd tire to not be as good and try to incorporate all 3 tires. Therefore adding depth?
As far as experimentals go I am all for removing them.
Flame away pro’s

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

This also explains why some of you won't discuss my point seriously, and instead insult me.

Again while the streaming system is easy to understand from a distance, trying to manage it during a game is a whole different problem.

And the SupCom 1 economy won't cut it.

But in the end from the consensus that I have gathered here from people who are even bothering to read what I say, the TA economy will work fine as it won't have ridiculous multipliers to using more then one engineer, thus making it as transparent as Zordon sarcastically says.

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

Don't feed the trolls. :B In any case, igncom1, what do you find hard to manage about the SupCom 1 economy? I found it quite easy to manage, certainly easier than TA's.

I do remembering reading on the tech level thread that the developers will in fact be going for 2 tech levels. Which I would be quite happy with.

In addition, I remember a while back that ZK was trying for a one faction game (not been part of the Spring community in a while, so my info may be quite outdated) in which they implemented factories in such a way that choosing your initial factory and the overall expense of factories meant that you were locked into that factory and its units for much of the game. Each factory had its own set of units, and functioned as a faction. Uber could do worse than to implement this idea as you still get immense unit variety available to the player in each game.

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

Trust me that wasn't sarcastic. Understanding the streaming economy is simple, managing it well was an art. I believe the game would be severely diminished without a proper streaming economy.

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

Reading the topic I think there are alot of good ideas. Engineers having a max "output", same for factories. If it scales with the input, like 1 mass extractor can "fuel" one T1 engineer then it should be simple enough without being confronted with a big output of resources by building something expensive. This combined with the option to assign multiple engineers for 1 task players can calculate upfront how much engineers they can assign without crashing the economy.

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

Streaming actually gets easier to manage as the game progresses, both from a conceptual and practical point of view, the opposite of what you said.


Also, we seem to be talking about Tech levels in 3 different threads simultaneously. What's worse is that the same people are making the same argument at the same time in multiple threads. Can we kill off one or more of these convos?

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

Public service announcement: Chris Taylor is not involved in this game, and the people who are making this game left GPG before SupCom 2.

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

Thank **** for that. Its still not a whole team tho.

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

You people need to remember that this game is NOT Supreme commander 3 NOR is it Total annihilation 2.
And even if it was (which it is not) it would be more like TA2 than SC3.

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

What are you talking about dude? its a rts made by the same dudes that made TA and sup com (well at least 2 dudes). Its even got the word annihilation in it lol.
It is ment to be a sequel and therfore i expect the best things to be carried across, not the worst (ie simplified ideas forom supcom2)

I just dont want them to make supcom 2 over again with the solar system stuff chucked in for fun.
I want a solid game, and i want my 3 tech levels.

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

Your saying that because the team worked on TA and SC this must be a sequel?! According to that logic "Chris Taylor's Kings and Castles" is also a sequel to Scupreme commander.

Just like Supreme Commander is not a sequel to total annihilation.
If this is a sequel then why is it not called TA2, SC3, Supreme Annihilation or Total Commander? And why is there no relating story or units?
(exept for the commander itself but there are more RTS's with a commander)

And YOUR 3 tech levels? Start publishing games and then you can tell game studios that you want your 3 tech levels but not until then.

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

Just by looking at the list of features already confirmed you can see that PA will be nothing like SupCom 2. It's not going to be TA2 either and it definitely won't be FA2. It's a new game albeit with inspiration from these predecessors.

I suggest that you read the list of confirmed features here viewtopic.php?f=61&t=34022

Neutrino has said that there will be 2 tech levels and possibly a few T3 units (like in TA) but T3 will not be a focus or a complete tech level (as it was in FA). "I want" isn't a particularly persuasive argument unfortunately.

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

Pureriffs' arguments are invalid, solely because of his horrendous spelling.

Ignore him.

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

Hey guys, I am upset because I was playing Minecraft yesterday and there were creepers that made me die in lava. Plus, you have to use custom skins to make Minecraft not look like I am playing my SNES.

I mean, at least my SNES emulator has image scaling gosh darn it!

Notch is one of the people who probably donated 10k, so this game will obviously include things from Minecraft because uber is completely incapable of making anything new and will obviously just steal features from existing games so they can crap out this game and then go spend the rest of the money on blackjack and hookers. I don't want to have to feed my Commander! I don't want my RTS to be first-person! I don't want retro-graphics without image scaling! I don't want someone else spending my money on blackjack and hookers when I could be spending my money on blackjack and hookers!

I already play Minecraft so that I can build stuff block-by-block, I don't want to have to do that on a planetary scale...those games would take forever. The recipes would be uber complicated, and I don't think new players would be able to handle a 25x25 grid to craft a nuclear reactor. I mean, the game will also be super boring while I am waiting for my ores to be refined in the oven, so we'll need to add some sort of mini-game to the smelting more fun.

On top of that, one of the other 10k contributors is some random dude. We saw him in a video! He will obviously want random things in the game like clowns juggling chainsaws while balancing on top of giant balls. I mean, that has no place in any RTS I want to play!

What else could he possibly do because he's some random dude and we don't know enough about him to make any specific criticisms of his ability to contribute anything of significance to the process of building a really amazing game that we all really want really badly even though we can't be bothered to find out anything about the game beyond the fact that it exists and how to register on the forums?

[/sarcasm]

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

Thanks for pointing out your sarcasm, for a moment there I thought that there weren't going to be any Minecraft elements or juggling clowns.

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

The dudes even said in an interview that its supposed to be the spiritual successor to TA and not SC, i call that a sequel.
Its not really a new concept, its TA all over dudes, stop being so pedantic.

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

Stay tuned, I'll be putting up a poll later to pick the type of motor oil we use to mix with the chainsaw fuel, since it's obviously a powerful two-stroke and not one of those wussy electric ones. We'll also need to vote on the supplier for the rubber used to make the giant ball.

Or perhaps we should first have a poll on rubber vs. cloth for the giant ball.

Ok yea, first we'll have a poll on the material type and then we'll pick our supplier for the material.

Wait, wait...maybe it would be more awesome if instead of balancing on a giant ball the clown was in a bouncy castle? Floating down a river towards a waterfall? Surrounded by crocodiles? And the crocodiles were also on fire?

Maybe the clown should be a she instead of a he? Maybe she/he is actually a transgendered alien from another dimension who just wants to save his/her/its race from the evil hyper-gendered Zerbunautickanian Empire?

Maybe s/he/it should be juggling and playing violins instead of just juggling chainsaws?

No, sorry, I am getting way out of hand. Calm down, take a breath.

That would just be silly and we'd get more complaints from parents about all the violins in our videogames.

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

Mate, we live in a mostly free society, and if you want to believe that spiritual successor = sequel, go right ahead. We can have worse.

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

SupCOm1's economy doesn't seem to work the way it says it does, when a number of engineers assist with a construction, the outcome doesn't adjust the way it should for the amount of engineers it said.

I find TA's economy a breeze in comparison, for reason I don't know why.

:| :?:

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

The build systems are exactly the same, so the only thing I can think of is that the time remaining to completion that shows for constructions might be confusing you in that they don't change if more build power is put on the construction later. Is that the problem? If it is, you should know it's purely a cosmetic error and that constructions do finish faster as per amount of build power put into them.