"Reverse Move" command for units

No, if 80% of the accepted ideas are from supcom, then whats the point of making a new game? It might as well be supcom 3. I want a new rts, not warmed up left overs.

Because that's not how Intellectual Property works.

IF you can't accept that PA takes elements from both SupCom and TA, you better get out now because you'll just be disappointed that you didn't get TA2.

Mike

Ive got three pages worth of arguing against those who disagree, its trolling when we go from,

I dont like the idea
To
Its a pathfinding issue
To
Get better skills
To
Slow reaction time
To
It wasnt needed in supcom
And so on, there is no need to keep throwing random crap out there, just because you dont like the idea.

Well, in SupCom the hover tanks would go backwards while firing.

I think there's room for bi-directional units in PA that can go forward or back depending on which requires the least amount of turning. Just depends on whether the pathfinder supports it.

I'd love to see some hover units too.

I like PA so far, all 120 dollars worth. There is absolutly no reason why we cant have new and non supcom features in this game.

But why Exclude SupCom features when they work? Obviously nothing good comes from mindlessly copying stuff, but don't ignore something if it already does 70% of what you need or just flat out works, Heck, can you imagine playing PA without any kind of zoom?

These are the same old tired arguments against SupCom features we've dealt with before on the forums, fact is you don't ignore something if it works, regardless of it's source.

Mike

That was poorly worded on my part. Alot of the features that have been takin from supcom are great in pa and you shouldnt misunderstand me i say, the majority of the ideas that are widly accepted here are from supcom. Supcom is not the only great rts out there and all ideas supcom or not should be given a fair shot.

I expect you to bring something more convincing than "it's true because I say it's true."

Are you angry at me or something? I have the feeling you're following me around on this forum to be negative towards me.

You realise I was in this topic before you, right? Get your ego under control.

Your welcome here arsene and thank u all for the support and non support.

Four pages in, and I still don't understand why a tank can't just fire backwards?

Are most units unable to fire backwards, and I've just missed the memo (for these past many months)?

The DB doesn't list anything in terms of firing arcs for weapons and I'm no good on the Code end of things so I dunno.

Mike

This is true and can't argue against it.

Why can you not have both? You don't weigh any pros and cons so it seems like reverse move is a good idea

From reading the arguments that directly and indirectly challenge the reverse movement idea I come to a middle ground that could be agreed on.

Instead of it being an option where a player clicks or hits a key button to activate reverse tank movement.. How about when tanks are engaged in combat they naturally move backwards to keep engagement and move slower since they are on reverse.

No micro and. Tanks stay in engagement. Not saying this is ideal but it would make tanks a more robust forward attacker while bots are harrass units.

Are we as a community always going to be against any key press that might increase micro? I understand the concern but this reverse move is minor to let's say manual click and deploy click for each tank.

But unless thier turrets can't turn 360 there is not reason to accept a speed penalty.

Mike

That's true, I guess it would only truly matter if there was increased armor in the front of the tank compared to the back.

Which so far there is no indication of being a thing in PA, it has been oft talked about in the forums in the past.

Mike

Games in particular could be the same but they evolve because what is considered as "fun" by players evolve, so even if a sequel of a franchise is released (and technically speaking this is a new franchise, but whatevs') that sequel can be completely different from the former.

this is taking into account that a small portion of the public may not have gone through said evolution and wish for the same, or similar game.

your hands fingers are two few to count the number of titles this happened most noticably with.
My favorite example is Starcraft : dunno if you played Starcraft Bood War when it was first released? great game. I loved it! my very first game. Lots of great times in singleplayer, never played on multiplayer because as a kid such things impressed me a little too much, not that I knew what it was like. I hadn't even had the least bit of curiosity about it, didn't go looking for videos on youtube ect... So all I had to rely on for my impressions on it was how I imagined it, and that's : terrifying.
Meanwhile unbeknownst to me Starcraft multiplayer had picked up a litteral fuc k-ton of success ever since it's release before brood war (especially in south Corea) among people daring enough to try it.

I come back to this game later on in life and the campaign is a massive dissapointment, really something to get out of the way with when you look at it, so you would be left with multi quite rapidly actually. And the feel... the feel of gameplay is so completely different. Whith all this fast pace thing, protoss being discustingly weak and the carrier feeling out of reach wheras the terran battlecruiser feels so cheap and accessible. All this while graphically/UIwise not a single little itsy-bitsy drop of change was made. Basically it was the same game in 3D but all the feel was change and the ballance too.
So what happened? Well the game, instead of being thought up and concieved around single-player (multi being an added bonus), was though up and concieved around multiplayer :

"OK so we have a huge playerbase playing the first installement of our franchise, we could either consider this player base as part of the whole mass of customers we target, or set the target dead center on our playerbase and do everything humanly imaginable to aim for 100% of that playerbase buying our game. Personally I like the second idea better, I know a gamble could pay off and we may end up hitting an even bigger number on initial sales for SCII then total sales for SCBW, but here's the way I see it: we get a dual advantage from the latter idea. Why? because first off we guarantee ourselves from failure, two on the long term we will gain more money from the former, here's why: the player base we have for SCBW is now huge and still growing, if we have such a huge public for a newly released game, if we take Maslow's Pyramid respect by other (the need to belong) is pretty dern high and if we take into account this behaviour of the masses we can expect sales on our game to go up after initial sale thanks to the great number of public who will own a copy and parade wih it."

now that doesn't change much of my idea that SCII was a mess to me in comparison to SCBW. But my later discovery of SupremeCommander aliveated that for me a bit.

I started out playing as before in singleplayer, and being a little more mature I thought well let's click that multiplayer button, what's the worst that could happen, I'm a little curious now that I've tried some multi SCII and Homeworld 2 and it wasn't so bad, I even won alot on HW2.

well the worst happened as you can imagine and I logged off sreaming that I'd "never go there again!!"

...which lasted for about a week. for some reason I deeply wanted to go back.

I tried again... and again and again.
And became adicted to loosing as I realised that there was victory in my loss. I was obviously getting better and ridiculously faster than versus AI, proof of that is that the toughest AI that before I couldn't imagine ever beating became beatable. And I was intentionally choosing oponents of increasing rank.

I didn't want to fight without a challenge. I wante to be challenged and feel myself getting better.

not only that but the human, social aspect made me feel like I'd been missing out ALOT.
lots of fun to be had with other players, undoutably much more than I had before.

this escalated so much that nowadays I can't see myself hooking up to a game that is singleplayer. (you must leave minecraft after two days of building on your own, you start to feel lonely and rediculous). KSP blew my mind in terms of how much fun it is and how it realises the feat of combining fun with learning. But same thing intense, but short love story. I'll go bak to it when I can play with my friends, build with them and not against the machine, show someone my art. Without the videos what's the KSP community? it's not, it ceases to exist.

So why is PA so different from TA even thought it's undoutably it's offspring? because it's adapted to it's time.

and that means taking into account all of the things that it's forefathers have to teach and A LOT of water has gone under the bridge, let's be honest. So might it end up more simillar to another game than TA yet it's own game entirely? Yes.

You were the first person to bring SupComm into this. You are the only person whining about SupComm.

The reason why I don't like it is because it changes the way tanks work. It makes them more like bots. It removes the down side of turret turn rate. It shrinks the already small pool of tactical options. There would be even less reasons to go for bots.

Unless the differences between bots and tanks drastically change, then I will never support this suggestion.

My first issue with this is it breaks a sort of unspoken rule of unit movement, that they can only accelerate forwards (only a few outliers like supcom hovertanks worked otherwise in any game in the 'series').

Second, it removes one of the major differences between tanks and other units. Cornering speed is one of the crucial balancing numbers to tweak. This is one of those points where realism takes a back seat to game mechanics.

Third, implementation sounds troublesome. There would either need to be some sort of way the game could tell when it'd be quicker to move backwards, complete with some sort of way to make it not only affect half your units at a time, or an extra button, which would add micro where I don't think it's needed (as was said earlier in the thread, if you need your tanks to turn around, plan ahead and give them time to do so).