poll: Paper Units

formations is the part i'm scared of.

In SupCom 2 you couldn't move units around without them being in a 24carat perfect formation. it looked so blisteringly unreal and unimersive, they looked like floating toys in a baby pool.

especially the speed buffs given to units so they could fall in line in under a second.

I want an option in the poll for an even shorter time to kill.

it does. I called it a binary poll. that's what it is. do you want obama or mckain elected? I understand if you want neither but heck, I don't see you out in the streets with pikes.
either way this will help to see through the fog (and don't tell me it's not foggy without it)
not only that but it helps to bring this subjest to more light : obviously we even have people among the community who think the matter has no merrit being discussed in the present. this alone diserves debate.

also nothing's keeping you from starting your own poll.

you say I didn't refute your point ("we shouldn't be discussing game changing balance like this until we have a (at least mostly) full unit roster") well if we follow texbook definition, I did just that : "full unit roster or not the battle feel is in need of tweaking"
what you probably meant is I should provide argument to my statements.

In anticipation of you not finding your words and that actually having been what you meant : It is my impression that even the engagements between an ant and another ant, for example, are unsatisfactory, and provide too small a use of simulated projectiles. This impression would not change if a unit (of whatever specs) where added to the roster.

the fact that you cant see that this is a biased poll just amuses me. also, dont say that brian doesnt know what hes talking about, thats only allowed by arrogant players like myself who understand the game far better than you, and can also back it up by their ability to play.

I don't? when I mention obama and mackain?
do you even read?
I know the poll doesn't have more than two choices.

go see all my other polls https://forums.uberent.com/threads/scale-megathread.48650/
I even took this to derision in some of them. https://forums.uberent.com/threads/two-sun-solar-system.53246/

if I'm making the poll like this there's gotta be a reason.

im not american, why should i give a flaming **** what they have to do with this. Again, remove the bias.

Edit: the amusing thing is, those two links to other polls, are not biased in the choices. This one is.

Sadly at this point there's already 44 votes, which is a large percentage of those who seem willing to vote, so changing this poll is unlikely to allow for a proper result and as such we basically need an entirely new poll.

I find it sad that people are so insistent on convincing people without using proper arguments and instead rely on such trickery or fallacies.

There's a difference. Your poll has bias in the wording. It's like saying "Do you want Obama (who is a beacon of liberty and happiness) or Mckain (who will take our nation into the third world) elected?" If you had worded the poll like "Should there be more health or kept as is?" Then that would be an unbiased poll. But no, you added stipulations to the poll showing your obvious bias and attempting to influence voting. You also ignore the fact that there is simulated projectiles already in game, and that adding more health will do nothing to change that. You're trying to get people to vote for simulated projectiles, when that's already in the game.

You also neglect the opinion, that many influential people in the community have, of "this is too early to talk about" as is evident by the comments in this thread.

I used my words correctly. You claim your argument was "it needs tweaking." That's not an argument. That's your stance on the subject, not why you think your stance on the subject is correct. If you want to refute someone else's points, you cannot just re-state your stance – you have to use quantifiers and explain why you have your stance on the subject.

I have no interest in starting my own poll because I don't want to clog up the forum with yet another discussion on paper thin units. Also, because it's too early to talk about unit health.

Definitely feel like we need battles to rage longer, so you can see the turning point slowly happening. and its awesome to see many battles taking place.

Still a huge flaw in a game like Starcraft 2 10-15 to 20min macro. then 10-20sec battles.

battles are what people wanna see if you want esports. watching people macro for 90% of a game to have battles that is over in a blink of an eye isnt fun or even interesting. I know PA has instant replay feature, but still.

yes that's my point.

I biased this one for a reason.

maybe you don't understand me well : I see all polls that have only two options as biased.

these polls results while having biased choices will have a meaning in it's outcome in any case.

the same can be said for elections.

thank you for putting this thread back on it's rails, it was in dire need of this.

yes, you're right. i hate not having turning points anymore I miss those a whole lot.

ok, then add the option to lower the amount of health, to slow down unit projectiles, to increase or decrease sight radius of units. More options does not remove bias, it just makes the options more specific. wording options in ways that portray positive or negative light on those options IS bias. stop acting like you understand what you are talking about.

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/poll-paper-units.53458/
"(OPs cannot be eddited to add polls or edit polls.)" actually I have a decent notion of what I'm saying, I may not have impeccable vocabulary or grammar, I'm really trying hard though, english happens not to be my first language.

you should try french sometime, bluff me with how amazingly well you manage to get your points across with that.

either way, it's on you to create that non biased poll you want.

I'm not so sure about that. I think that watching Starcraft 2 is more fun than watching Forged Alliance. Starcraft have much better pacing and much more clear focus. The casters will always focus on the battles.
In Forged Alliance you have battles raging all over the map and the caster usually watch the initial phase of the battle, see that one side is winning and then focus on something else before the battle have even finished.
I enjoy playing Forged Alliance more than Starcraft because there is always constant battle though. I never even bought Starcraft 2.

I'm not sure if it possible to make large-scale game with multiple conflicts as engaging in e-sports as a more focused smaller scale game. I for sure enjoy the large-scale games more though.

A lot of people seem to be saying that PA should have its gameplay designed this way or that way because it will make players "feel this" or it will make casters better able to showcase the action of the game. I also want PA to be successful to the point that it might become an eSport, but spectacle creep is not the way to make a game successful.

Brood War became an eSport because there was a hardcore set of die-hard players who played it religiously for years and became so godly skilled at the game that someone eventually decided that matches between them were worth televising (in Korea).

The way to make PA an eSport is to make it a fun, tense, and challenging strategy game. The professional players make the eSport, and the professional players will only appear if the game is well-designed, difficult to master, and balanced. In that order.

Spectacle creep and making "flashy" graphics or big battles will not make any game an eSport, or even popular. Graphics and spectacle are boring. The simple reason for this is that you are going to be seeing the exact same content thousands upon thousands of times. The same sounds when you click a unit. The same animations when they die. The same planet-explosions when you smash worlds together. The spectacle will get old very quickly, for both professional players and also any hypothetical casters and audience.

So to make a strategy game successful to the point that it becomes an eSport, you do not make a high-spectacle, easy-to-spectate game. Down that road lies casual, high-graphics-budget, gimmicky, shallow gameplay which has a small scale and only one thing to focus the camera upon.

A strategy game made for the players has lots of things to think about and focus upon all over the map. Spectating such a game is hard. But if the game is well-designed, difficult to master, and fun (in that order), then you will get fans that will still be playing your game (or its descendents) fifteen years later.

If the game is worthwhile the broadcasters, casters, and audience will make it work as an eSport. They will adapt to the game, not force the game to adapt to make it easier for them to cast. Making it easier would kill the scale and depth of the game, which is the main thing they want.

It might not be that noticeable, but sc2 had a higher health to damage ratio than PA currently has. Marines, arguably the highest DPS in the game, had 45 hp (not upgraded with combat shield) and only 5 damage per shot. cant remember how quick they fired under either normal or stimmed circumstances, but it was certainly slower than ants 3 shotting each other.

wow great news, we're alienating the SC players too!

Why do you keep advocating the cluttering up of this forum with multiple polls and repetitive topics?

It isn't "on us" to do anything. We believe that this shouldn't be discussed yet – so it is by no means "on us" to do something that we think should be done yet.

I also find it funny that you admitted to having a biased poll. If you truly want to foster discussion, then don't show a bias. It drives away people who disagree with you and all you get is an echo chamber of people agreeing with you and no constructive discussion. Unless you wanted an echo chamber of agreement to foster a false sense of affirmation to your point.

I dont see how that alienated SC2 players. not sure if you read that wrong, but i posted saying that highest DPS unit in sc2 has longer engagement times than ants currently do.

yes... exactly! so they'll be disoriented.