Scale Megathread

you're doing it all upside down... since when do icons need a 32pixel by 32 pixel resolution??? I get by with 15x15 in my icon pack:
(unzip PA1 for shader only once you've made sure the icons work. the shader has a tendency to show up as rainbows)
here they are in action:

Because my screen space doesn't change, so you're shoving more icons into the same space which thus becomes more difficult to read. And what has been gained out of this change?

why in the same space? aren't people tired of making assumptions after awhile? slower units.... same space...

to change the unit speed you'd have to change a different value in another part of the game files, it isn't a result of changing the unit's size

and why all of the sudden in the case of unit grid and spreadout wouldn't we operate a change if we were to shrink the units?

to add to the ridiculousness of this proposal units currently clip the living bedjesus out of each other, no wonder their icons are all clumped up. It seems a natural progression for release changes that the units be much more spread out.

Because if you space them out and speed them up the entire scale change was a pointless waste of time that does nothing but make it harder to operate without icons even when zoomed in. I thought it was a safe assumption to make that your plan wasn't to be that.

If you are talking about a big scale change, asking why change speed too...

...wow, do you know how reverse moonwalk that would seem?

Either all the unit legs would have to move as if they run full speed, or they would walk and slide against the ground at same time (think of a very casual walk, sliding across the ground at run speed, like slenderman or something)

This is why I am against scale change, and especially against scale change more than 10% and on units.

Because the planet has to be travelable in reasonable time, and the units have to look realistic while doing so, and they have to be big enough, and the terrain still has to be visible from space. Which brings us to our current scale.

no. I don't think so. this requires a considerable amount of work in terms of transformations on the engine for smaller units to be handled with a similar performance (let's not veil ourselves from the truth; it will always require more performance to be able to show deeper contrast in size, meaning overall increase in size (but LOD and draw distance are a handy tool there) ) the result, as I mentioned only two posts above, would be a more modable engine (allowing you to create smaller units if you so desire), which I seem to remember Uber wanted.

I in any case know there is a difference to be had with this trio of changes from my FA experience.

realism and short time.... boy you are a drag.

you should check out what this community has to say about realism

as for the speed change, I maintain. no need.
I have no problems with fast moving legs, I'm sure you haven't taken a look at the dox.

But I would personally want one. Again different thread. this thread here is to talk about scale change. another one can be made for speed change.

I think that maybe units could keep the same speed or not, I don't know, but that maybe the buildings could be scaled to be 10% larger and units to be 5% larger. Because I feel that if you are likely to zoom out more that the units start to clump up a lot and it becomes difficult to parse. And also, I feel like if buildings were larger it would make base management slightly more interesting since there are more challenges in terms of placement.

Travel time is important, like on FA more distance & more travel time than on others RTS (i mean RTT) also mean more serious planning about strategy, more long term thinking and finally more macro by giving higher weight to logistic.
On the opposite less distance and less travel time mean more micromanagement and fast skirmishes, as ETA is a way less important data.
That gameplay difference is pretty obvious between small and large FA maps.

A big enough planet doesn't necessarily mean unplayably long games:
1/All the planet surface don't have to be 100% available for ground units , there could be a only few large continents in the middle of a giant ocean, and each of these continents could be like a map in itself and host multiple players. The surrounding ocean, with a few islands interesting to capture for use as supply line point and beachheads would make naval really more useful without making the map too large and boring.
A few really useful continent with some strategically concentrated metal deposits instead of a totally homogeneous planet would also greatly help making the gameplay more dynamic and interesting.
It would also help the visibility if the map had a more recognizable pattern with easily spotted landmarks and a more geologically correct appearance.
It would be less vital to see the WHOLE globe at the same time with only a few hotspots, so less spherical map UI issues and less useless and time consuming planet spinning.

2/Even with very long travel, don't forget that we are in a distant future! We can use air transport to carry and project our armies! (Even today it's achievable to air transport tanks with large cargos.)
We also have unit catapults, orbital transports, perhaps even teleport gates!
This way long distances help again making the gameplay more rich and more interesting than only launching a massive tank blob group into the enemy base.
Think the way you'll attack your enemy, spot the weakness in his defense perimeter, destroy his radar coverage, make a bomber raid on his key defenses, invade his base with large dropships once the needed airspace corridor is secured, build a hidden gate near the base, etc.
Intel and sky/space domination becomes way more important as they are keys to prevent a fast air invasion.

More distance and travel times is actually way better for a strategic game!

So that is why people play under 20x20 in SupCom, or if you try to get them to play one any more than 5x5 above that, they call you "turtle" and *explicative names* and leave the lobby? Because it takes more skill and less SimBase?

Some planet sizes right now are decent in terms of travel time. The ones most use are rather small. Use bigger ones solves the problem with gameplay. Tweaking the graphics slightly alleviates the problem with odd scale. Making this the SupCom that doesn't support maps under 25x25 isn't the solution.

Some people will play intentionally large maps, people who WANT to use air and t2, and people who WANT to use ground army and artillery will probably use smaller. Let's not step on people's toes.

well we finally know who's our 6.4%

I don't get you. what part of "massive scale game" do you not understand?
you wanna play on king kai's planet? you want a 200 unit limit cap also?

Good to know you have an open mind. A five percent in scale is obviously the same as turning the game into starcraft.

well I don't how you could want to make units bigger (that's smaller scale btw) where PA already looks like a toy box.


I do have an open mind, the poll option is there, it's just that I'm also here to remind people what scale is and what it implies.

Actually....
I wouldn't mind making the factories bigger in relative to the units.

But still, everything scaled waaaay down.

I think it would be nice if T2 land and air units were bigger, about the same proportions that T2 naval units are to there T1 equivalents. It would make them easier to pick out in the crowd, right now a Leveler is just a slightly larger ant with two guns instead of one. Compare that with the difference between a leviathan and a bottleblue.

Everything else is more or less the right size though.

I don't see the problem if you are not playing on the smallest map possible.

i thought you were a regular of this thread, we've been over this before, we want scale change relative to their props not to their planets.
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/scale-megathread.48650/page-20#post-810582
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/scale-megathread.48650/page-20#post-810599

I just want scale change relative to other units for artistic clarity and so I can tell them apart better.

bigger or smaller scale? (bigger scale means more contrast hence very small small units and very big big units. Smaller scale means more neutral across the board, less difference in size)

Relative difference so anybody who's never played before can look at them and tell which is more important.

Actually I think air units have it worse, can you really tell which is supposed to be better between T1 and T2 aircraft if you didn't know beforehand? At least with land units you can see the Leveler is Kinda bigger than the ant and has twice as many guns. The T2 bomber on the other hand looks almost exactly like the T1 version when in motion, and the fighters, while visually distinct, have no real feature that makes one look "Better" than the other.