Reactive buildings

I also liked how in zero-K some defenses would hunker down by default, making them really tough to crack with artillery because they effectively had x4 HP if they weren't in use.

That's why it should be switchable. Otherwise it will lead to player frustration "why the hell this thing folded back just before enemy attacked again??". Turrets are turrets, they are always online. There is no need to preserve their resource - they will be abandoned or destroyed far before expiring.

As switchable option it is fine, but as always-on... I don't trust AI that much.

Do people really want to sit around and turn on/off their solar collector defenses manually? That's kind of a step back from where we're trying to go with PA.

Also, if you're in a situation where a solar collector shutting down is going to have a large enough effect on your economy, then you probably have bigger worries to think about. I for one would happily sacrifice a few seconds of power if it meant that my solar collector would survive the engagement. That's what the buffered resources are for. (One rarely ever runs their energy to 0.)

Obviously it would be a bit more drastic to implement for something like a fusion reactor, where a power down would have a large effect on your economy, but that wasn't even implemented in TA in the first place.

In fact, the major reason for that reactive defense was to ensure that early enemy raids didn't cripple the player's economy if they were able to rebut the attack quickly enough, but still have an economical impact for an ill-prepared player.

In any case, the feature is sound, it just depends on how it's implemented and how well it's balanced. Even if it isn't used in vanilla PA, modders would no doubt find many uses for the feature.

People do really want to sit around and turn on/off their solar collectors defensive reaction manually, yeap. I particularly really want to just switch it off for every solar collector ever. If I decided that I need that feature back, I'll just switch it on for particular few collectors and they will start folding on attack automatically.

For everything else - I don't want may collectors to fold when they are accidentally hit by airplane wreckage. Not because it may hurt my eco, just because I want to control it.

Fixed my comment for clarification.
I am genuinely curious. Have you ever played TA? Someone pointed out that it's currently on sale on GOG. Also, a mod like Twilight emphasizes this type of functionality in the buildings, and might give you a better idea of how it can work well.
(One notable example is that certain popup weapons can survive nukes if they are lowered during a strike.)

Popup weapons are in fact nuke resistant to the extreme, and are actually very difficult to destroy when burrowed.

Serious question. Does every single thing in the game have to have an effect on gameplay or are we allowed to put stuff in that's just fun and cool?

Is it ok to put things in the game for exclusively aesthetic purposes?

Every thing doesn't have to have a gameplay effect no. Just when it provides an improvement to gameplay.

Well, sure, but there can also be a lot of seemingly benign effects that can have unintended gameplay repercussions.

That really sounds like a kickstarter stretch goal, and I didn't see it in the running. In fact, I don't think "fun" was in there either. Sorry, guess you can't do it. :roll:

The kind of changes here are rather minute and specific. It doesn't really matter either way. I think it suffices to say that toaster cannons and lotus petal death rays look pretty sweet in action. If a stat changes to match the visual, that's just a neat little detail.

I don't think anyone seriously took pot shots at solar panels (but not kill them) just to armor them up or mess with the economy. It looked good more than anything else.

If you don't put anything in exclusively for aesthetic purposes, the game is probably going to look really bland and boring...

So yeah, that'd probably be a good idea.

Indeed, as long as (like anything) it is done with a bit of caution.
For example, aesthetic-only pop-up turrets are fine as long as it doesn't trick players into thinking that they are shielded when folded ; for example by having another pop-up building that acts this way, or having the animation showing a huge obvious shield.
So as long as it's coherent and doesn't give players false expectations, yes, go for it!

Well aiming animations, unfolding or poping up will propably delay the fire so it can easily have large gameplay effects.
Another thing that I think can make big stuff look great while also having interesting gameplay effects is turn rate acceleration and turret acceleration.

Typically units and turrets use all their turn rate instantly which kinda looks stuttering as they can be turning at full speed in one direction and then suddenly turning in full speed in the other direction.
Instead of having a big turret turning really slow all the time you could have it start turning slowly and then accelerate and turn faster.
Offcourse you have to decelerate again to aim properly so the turret just doesn't go straight past the target so aiming gets a lot more complicated then but it can bring new ways of balancing turrets for example.
Say you have a highly accurate instant laser beam turret with a very low turn rate acceleration. It would be able to hit large airships and ground targets but not able to hit jinxing airplanes that well because the turret couldn't keep up with the rapid turns a plane makes.

Yes!!! Please do!

I'm of the opinion that games are more fun when visible features are utilitarian features.

I would say utilitarian in the sense that you could see the pragmatic use the unit has for the animation / aesthetic feature. Such as landing gear for airplanes, or the 'unfold' animation a lot of units have when exiting the factory, and so on.

I would like to refer to the "bang for the buck" statement made by the Uber team.

If they can spend, say, 5 minutes to make a solar collector fold when hit, and it looks awesome, it's 5 well spent minutes...


Also, it makes sense. Why on earth would you expose something as fragile as a solar panel to something like bullets and pieces of aircraft?

To me, the folding solar panels was more of an "of course" than a "TURN IT OFF!"

Well there's the thin line between something being "fun and cool" and something that affects gameplay

Things being put into the game that are purely aesthetic, like rubble remaining in orbit after a satellite is blown up, the more the merrier. It's when the rubble lands on a p.gen that the problems arise. That p.gen could have given you the 5 power you needed to fire your d-gun before you died, although it's obviously a massive longshot

I'm all for little things like that though, I think they make games more enjoyable, and potentially open up new strategies (Like ctrl-k'ing 30 satellites over an enemy base)

Never played TA online, but back when I used to play BA (don't anymore) in Spring, putting solar collectors in front of light lasers was a way to draw fire away from your laser towers.

BA laser towers can shoot over Core solars (IIRC) and this made core bases look different from arm ones. (LLTs behind solars, while arm has llts in front of them)

And some of the basic direct fire units like slasher or rocko couldn't easily shoot over a solar collecter and so had to pound it down first, past its closed armoured state. During which time, the LLT could polish them off. It really makes ALOT of difference during the early raiding portion, especially on small maps.

Well, of course you can. It's just less fun when you see a really cool visual effect and realize it doesn't have any effect in the game.

And if it can add a twist to the gameplay, why not try to use it at its best?