Some brainstorming ideas for possible future PA

Positive and negative health regen/degen are possible, but the effects continue to apply to the wreckage left, causing the creation of "ghost" units that appear alive, but are not, when the wreckage is restored to full health.

This can be bypassed on units that do not leave wreckage.

It would be really cool if this could be fixed to make it more usable.

______

If fixed, it'd also be nice to have another stat for regen/degen on the wreckage left though. Wreckage that increases/decreases over time is a mechanic that I'd like to experiment with.

A hacky way to fix this would be to disable wreckage for the problematic units and give them spawn_unit_on_death linking to a dummy version of the unit that instantly self-destructs and does not regen.

these two, to me, don't.

i think there's a case to be made for how garbage transports are in favor of ...ANYTHING ELSE.
as for artillery sure why not.

makes you have to chose in an intelligent way between using whatever interplanetary strategy you've been using on the artillery or on the commander.

i concur but then again it is feasible.

added ..

- no stupid manhattan or commpushing ... rework unitpushing so the heavy units push light units away ... not vice versa ..

- split the mend and stitch between medic/mechanic and combatenginerroles same with the barnacle
so one can be better used within armies while the other gets not selected as part of your army ..

added fabricatorbehavior (made a thread specifically for this one)


https://forums.planetaryannihilation.com/threads/fabricator-behaviors.73142/

sry for the late answer on this one

first thing ... not everyone of us is a modder
second .. not every modder is willing to mod something for a rando to prove his point considering modders mod as a hobby in their freetime (hey @Quitch would you mod multiunittransports for me? )
third .. it´s not a matter of waiting for someone else to make said mod ... it´s a matter of a specific function or content to be universally available to everyone
the less a mod is used (and it still can be evidence of someones idea being valid) the less visible it is on the modpage and as such people may overlook said mod and not be aware of it

The mod page lists by the last time the mod was updated (ish). Popularity has nothing to do with it really.

I get that it does take some time, and that big changes are often not possible, but proving your ideas are correct through modding is very achievable without an ounce of programming experience. Anything that helps avoid balance by theory alone is worthwhile in my books.

so do i understand that right that you are expecting a person who has no knowledge of programming to be capable to create a unitmod with movementbehavior, a attackpattern and the apropriate stats?
it´s not a matter of just copying and editing some existing code or values but also a matter of understanding what the code does and why it does it .. .. and this matters especialy more so when it comes to earlier mentioned stuff like adding different sound, adding more weapons than the current limit (which is 4) adding different multiunittranports, firingpattern animations as in the devs kinda would have to add the function to the engine to allow us being able to mod that stuff as modders don´t have any access to the sourcecode (as far as i undestand it, and i doubt they will any time soon, a more knowlegeable modder/programmer may feel free to correct me on this) .. because if it were so easy as you state don´t you think modders would have done it already?

sure it´s worthwhile to get propper evidence through a tested and proven example ..
but i can´t put that example toghether if i have no idea how to use the tools for it ..

To be clear, yes, I expect a person with no programming knowledge to be able to do that. It’s marginally more complicated than entering numbers into a spreadsheet. I make it clear that this is only the case for elements that the game provides options for, but that covers more than you’d think. For example, the kraken uses a spreadfire for its missiles, which perhaps can be applied to introduce this weapon inaccuracy you desire. The challenge is looking at what units currently do, and seeing how you can bend those tools to your goal. It’s not programming, it’s just problem solving.

There’s also a large number of people in the community who are genuinely excited to get more people familiar with how PA modding works. Sadly they can’t help when people don’t ask. You might even find some who are willing to help prototype some of these ideas. Maybe the modding channel of the new discord will render some friendly responses.

Another benefit of this process is that you develop a firm understanding of the systems that are in place, and will be able to describe your ideas in a way that relates them to the engine. You might even reach the point where you can sensibly request features to be added to the engine.

Also important to consider is that you don’t need things to all be in place to prove the concept is sound. If you want a lower-unit air game, you shouldn’t need to have every feature in place to show people that it would be fun to play. Game developers will make the absolute barest model of their game that could be considered playable, and start the feedback process there. I agree that refuelling at factories isn’t feasible with the tools available, but I don’t think that it should stop you from proving that the idea of limited range air is fun by nodding in the typhoon-like factories people have suggested. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would allow you to collect user experience.

Finally there are plenty of reasons something might not have been done before beyond it being impossible. Perhaps the ideas you are trying to implement are actually novel ideas. Perhaps they tried it and found it ruined the game so I did their work and never spoke of it again.

especialy if you play on a entirly new and/or random planet ..

- add static fabricator turret that assists nearby construction and repairs units ..

like hive´s in supcom or the contructionturret in zero-k

I love the ideas for these game modes, but a lot of them don't change the games. For example, score wars, I would attack as usual and try to wipe you out- then I'd have to save up metal to win? Same with departure, except achieve that win conditon? I think it would work well as a turtle option- if you want to win the game without fighting, perhaps. But just playing the game mode would likely end up in the same types of games we've already seen.

added

- allow defenses to be easier surounded by walls to give them extraprotection to last a bit longer ..

The Nosebreaker was talking to xankar about loot boxes and micro payments, in particular how loot boxes would help pa inc expedite upgrades. We feel it’s a small scrafice so we would like ideas on the type of loot boxes that could go on offer. A micro payment The nosebreaker likes is a drop in micro titan flips hat to Romeo. Who’s mostly idea this is.

edited OP due to the addition of audiomoding in the liveupdate 112595

for one fighters do not attack ground and bombers fall easily to AA .. and while sure pelicans are not save from aa
their payload is once dropped ...
multiunit for air might be not required but for multiplanetplay as a midgame invasiontool that does not requier a exitgate or costs thausands of metal ... doing that with 50+ austreus takes a very long time and is very clunky with or without a ferry- or factoryassistsytem ..

uber already circumvented the need to have multiple units be shown on a transport both through the unitcannon (they are build and stored invisibly within the structure) and the helios (acting as a teleport exit) .. so i would have no problem if these transports act like starcraft or supcom 2 clownkarts .. i simply want the functionality to be there ..

rather add behaviors to what any fabricator should focus on and be selectable on that basis ..
another option would be to have a actual combatmedic/mechanic that focuses on armyrepair and the current combatengineer that focuses on defensive options or turretcreep ....

Can anyone explain what the logic is behind how fabs get excluded from selection groups? Generally, that's the level of interpretation I want to be able to set for specific instances of units. I should be able to selection drag the 9 Stitches and have the two Dox amongst them be ignored, whilst being able to select the 9 Dox with 2 Stitches amongst them, exactly as it happens for fabs. If the fab/combat unit system could be expanded to have a third category, and only units that have been marked fit that category, would that be sufficient?

you have fabs and combatfabs ... fabs are for constructing and combatfabs (even though the majority uses them for minefields and reclaim) are there to repair your army that´s why the latter gets selected with your combatunits ..

Also give enemy mine vision