PSA: This is not TA or FA or SC2 or...

See title. It's an RTS game which happens to be inspired by the previous of its subgenre. Not a clone. The amount of



"omg op's idea so bad", "X was fine in TA/FA so lets copy it here" and other similar forms of rejection is borderline toxic. Can we please keep an open mind and try and think towards how stuff could work instead of how it couldn't? :/ After all, we're not going to be having shields (not at first, and if we do, they won't be lolbubblespam). If that's not evidence of lots that is going to be different, I don't know what is.

I'm not saying accept new ideas for ideas sake. I'm just saying don't reject them out of hand because "the old way was better". You do that, and you get the train wreck that is Starcraft 2.

Re: PSA: This is not TA or FA

What he said.

(Except the part about Starcraft because that game is good in its own right. But that's besides the point.)

When building a new game you should have an open setting where people can discuss ideas, not discarding them out of hand because another game did it differently or because the idea was poorly implemented in another game.

Re: PSA: This is not TA or FA

Not that I dislike starcraft, but you can count the mechanics changes on two hands, and it's partly because their playerbase would throw a fit if there was much more. Also partly because it was a darned good and refined design for starcraft one. But I digress.

Re: PSA: This is not TA or FA

I feel we need to be a little more constructive on creating a number of ideas to potentially use, and respectfully say when you disagree rather then being rude.

We are all trying to help, and the Devs can eaisly tell a good idea from the bad so no worry's about my crazy suggestions that will destroy your game. (Possibly give me the hint that I am being silly when I am being so)

And for people to more friendly, this isn't reddit.

Re: PSA: This is not TA or FA

But if something was already done well why couldn't it be integrated if the mechanic(s) and/or system(s) are compatible with the Goal set out for PA?

EDIT: I think you just want people to better lay out their arguments/reasoning instead of just going Nope.avi.

EDIT EDIT: Also don't steal my thing, it's mine! xD

EDIT EDIT EDIT: You might also want to adjust eh thread title to include all the games from this particular genre lest you be called a hypocrite for leaving SupCom2 out when you're very much against the grain as a SupCom2 Supporter.

Mike

Re: PSA: This is not TA or FA

I prefer seeing how things can be done better =p There are things that worked well in previous versions, but why not figure out what was wrong with those and fix it?

Done, though I dunno if it carried over to the forum list title or anything.

Re: PSA: This is not TA or FA

Isn't it a bit of a fallacy to say that everything already done can be done better? Or that because it's been done before there are things to be fixed? To me those are dangerous assumptions, along with assuming that just because a mechanic/system is "re-used" from a prior game means it won't be changed at all.

It did.

Mike

No it's the definition of progress. Things can always be better. If you just copy things that worked, you will get a game that feels just like a game from a few years ago.

(Which is a very bad thing for a new game to feel like)

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the progress of the wheel, fundamentally it hasn't changed in centuries(at least), all we've done is come up with different ways to make a wheel.

Progress for the sake of progress isn't great either considering the scope and resources of PA as well.

Mike

After no more than 4 pages, the CnC factory idea topic is starting to fight "but the old way was fine". By you, no less! I'm 100% confident that there's a better way than creating a traffic jam simulator.

*hopes that doesn't contaminate this thread with a specific topic*

Ah ah ah, don't you be putting words into my mouth! I was merely agreeing with someone else that the FA system was "pretty darn good" of a system, and I fail to see how that has anything directly to do with 'traffic jams', those are the result of poor base building and poor waypoints more than anything else in my opinion.

Also keep in mind that it was in regards to an opposing idea, so it should be viewed more so a comparison than me saying it's the BEST system for PA, which I didn't even say.

Mike

True enough, do you think it would function better as a UI improvement for total base management (Like the named bases in the trailer would indicate)?

TA had no shields. Neutrino has repeatedly stated that TA is the primary inspiration for PA. You're not exactly offfering evidence of vast changes here.

The suggestions to do things differently that get a wall of donotwant.jpg usually also get an extended discussion of why the idea is terrible. We've had this argument before rcix - if your idea can't stand up to rigorous debate it's a bad idea and should be dropped. Ideally you should have thought about the problems with your suggestion yourself before posting and discuss how to address or mitigate the obvious flaws in the OP - or at least acknowledge them! But if you're unwilling/incapable of that sort of analysis complaining when other people do it for you is juvenile. All too often the reasoning behind a change comes down to 'I enjoy this particular kind of game, so let's make sure that it's the only viable way to play PA!' Case in point, the various people crying about air being too powerful. Nope, sorry, it only seems that way because you play massive turtlefest team games on Seton's where map conditions mean air is about the only way to win short of massed experimentals/experimental artillery or nukes. Play different maps and you get different results. Or the anti-sniping thread 'I don't wanna have to scout, situational awareness is too hard! So let's make the ACU sufficiently survivable that the only way to win is to slowly grind through my entire army and all my base defences.' Uh, not everyone wants every game to be annihilation mode. If you do, why not flip the switch rather than trying to make assassination mode play the same way?

What that sort of argument tells you is that your suggestion doesn't seem to offer any compelling advantage over the old way. Change for the sake of change is at least as bad as sticking with what we know out of fear. We know the status quo works, any new approach is risky by definition, therefore it must offer clear benefits in order to be worth taking that risk. This community is particularly nervous about dramatic changes to the formula because of the way supcom 2 turned out. (Yes we know you liked it - the rest of us didn't. You won't convince us any more than we'll convince you so please spare us the rant about how great it was and how blind we are).

Please note that actual good ideas tend to get a warm reception - it's just that they are rare compared to bad ideas. See area commands or Orders as First Class Game Entities for two examples which have been embraced by the community. Interestingly area commands have been confirmed as in, and Neutrino commented that he likes OFCGE, though getting the UI right could be a challenge. I have yet to see a positive post from any Uber employee in any of the donotwant.jpg threads and on at least two occasions Neutrino has eventually stepped in to say 'no, this is not going to be in PA'.

Wrong thread. You want this one.

Mike

I have suggested it there as well.

Once, in the appropriate thread, is enough. No need to spam us even more.

Well for a minute there we did go off topic.

And everyone jumps on my case.

Talking about the a different thread is not going off topic, stop using that "poor me" reasoning, when you do something wrong you should expect people to point it out!

Mike

Fundamentally the only thing that hasn't changed about the wheel is the fact that it's round, and that's because when we moved from wheeled vehicles to non-wheeled vehicles (tanks, boats, ski-cars, aircraft, helicopters, etc) we simply omitted the whole thing.

Imagine if people looked at the wheel and said "perfect!". We'd still be stuck with horse and carriage because wooden wheels don't work under an automobile.

That is going off topic, because the topic was not about discussing that thread.

and quite frankly you cant expect people to take you seriously with that kind of attitude.