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

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

The amusing thing about your post is you're still calling it an abortion.

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

Well as a SupCom game, it was terrible.

But not as a RTS game, where it is certainly better then some CNC games.

But this is up to your opinion I guess

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

Less dumping on Sup2. That can't be changed, so it's wasted effort crying over it.

More dumping on tech levels and building types.

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

^^^^ yes plz

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

Bullet has given this thread the kiss of death.

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

Dont you guys think its important to keep the complexity high to try not to lose the fan base from the previous games?

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

No.

It wasn't the complexity that stood out for those games, it was the depth in strategy. Which can be done with a simpler game.

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

Tell that to supcom 2. It basicly allows for the same depth of strategy but its, by many that loved supcom, seen as a horrible game.

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

I think the complexity is essential and why most TA/supcom fans dont like any other RTS game going.
But i think ur right about the game. I see it as a simplified version over lots of planets which i think sucks.
I went into the FAF lobby and had a chat with a few gamers and most seem to have the same opinions.

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

Can is the key word. I think we can agree that Supreme Commander 2 was a bad attempt at doing what I suggested, and certainly went too far, especially with the economy and the research.

For instance, in terms of units, Supreme Commander and FA had far less variety than TA (within factions), which arguably made it less complex. In terms of tech levels, TA had less complexity than Supreme Commander and FA. Both were very good games with excellent strategic depth despite being less complex than the other in certain ways.

And I'm definitely not suggesting that PA simplify as much as SupCom 2 did. A more user friendly (and thus 'simpler') but still streamed (and storage capped) economy is a must, but a reduction in tech levels (again 'simpler') to improve unit variety and reduce replacement of units as the game went on is also a must.

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

No its not a must, the current economy is very user freindly once you learn how to use it.

The learning needed may scare away players but if we never include anything new that players have to adapt too (Well its not new, but still) the genre would be dead anyway (bunch of starcraft clones).

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

Guys stop talken about the eco. Go make a new topic about it?
At the end of the day if the eco is simplified like SC2 it will flop.

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

Economy is important. Especially when it comes to upgrading buildings and tech-levels.

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

I don't disagree. But if you can make the economy more accessible to new and more derpy folks, why wouldn't you?

Ninja edit, sorry:
For instance, consider TA's economy versus that of SupCom. SupCom gives the rates that construction units use resources when they build things in the unit descriptions of the things they can build. TA did not have this. I got used to it quickly in TA (yeah, I played SupCom before TA), but it's still something that can be made easier.

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

Because if you simplify the economy so that more people can manage it you lose your fanbase as SC2 did.
When i realised how stripped down it was i uninstalled it straight away.

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

Because there is no middle ground. It is something that cannot exist, right?

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

Offcourse there is a middle ground, but aloot of us is scared that it would end up as another supcom 2 if they even try to reach that middle ground.

If they manage to make the economy easier without changing it in anyway, then im all for it. But i dont want a major change, like for example removing the streaming prices and make them a one time payment.

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

Of course, no one I can think of is suggesting that, least of all me. I have my own shattering experiences with SupCom 2. Indeed, the only reason I played it was to check out the developments in pathing, the squad allocations, as well as the silly story they tacked onto it.

Remember, the people from GPG that are in Uber did not work on SupCom 2 and thus had a more or less completely unbiased view of how it went and how it could be improved. I doubt they'd repeat the mistakes of the past.

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

Don't forget that there are multiple aspects to what makes a game deep and complex. As someone mentioned, the unit variety in TA isn't present in FA, but as a strategy game, FA is a bit more deep. This is accomplished by gameplay features that weren't in TA, such as strategic zoom, complex order queuing, ferry points, etc. Other stuff like adjacency bonuses, meant to make the game more complex, but in the end had only a small effect.

So "streamlining" isn't necessarily a bad word, as long as it is used carefully, to enhance the important areas of gameplay. Reducing micro, for example, doesn't detract from much because the TA family of games is not as dependent on micro as something like Starcraft.

However, there are some core features of the game that would not be beneficial to remove, because they fit the gameplay so well. A flow based economy, for example, is a core requirement for a large scale game, as it's more easily scaled than a traditional economy. It's harder to understand at first because fewer games use it, but ultimately it works better. Similarly, the tiering system allows for the same leeway in scaling to larger conflicts in a way an upgrade system cant. This is why the changes made in Supcom 2 were so detrimental to that style of gameplay.

(To be fair, it fit Supcom 2's style of gameplay, but that was quite a bit different than it was in the previous games. It was smaller in scale.
Also, the issues with Supcom 2 extend beyond economy and upgrades. Much of the interface was handicapped by the attempts to make it work well for console gamers. Strategic zoom wasn't even smooth anymore. The transitional detent becomes a major distraction.)

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

I will point out that SupCom2 while different to the originals was still better then other RTS games of the same era, better then CNC3 in my opinion.