Super Units as Exo-suit

Except this isn't chess.

What's wrong with Chess?

It could be made cooler.

The point of the game is to kill the enemy commander, at least it is in TA and SupCom. You have to defend the commander with your units.

The commander should be relatively useless and fragile using that logic. But he has to be strong in the beginning to prevent rushing and quick death.

Perhaps make the commander strong and make it decrease in strength and overall stats as time goes by. After a certain amount of time(maybe base it off an algorithm) he becomes extremely weak.

Then after some more time, you get the ability to turn the commander into a big *** bot statue(if you can afford the resources and time) that serves as a big help and is indestructible unless the planet is destroyed (linking this to my megabot idea) and once that planet is destroyed you're dead but the statue can be made invisible or hard to find somehow.
I can't think of anything definitive as I have no clue how the game will actually work, theres an incredible amount of details that can change how this idea would work. Once the game is released it will be much easier to create ideas that will work with the game properly.

Because it's what you're proposing, "replacing the liability of getting sniped" are your own words. Following it up with "with the liability of the commander dying in combat" doesn't mean anything because if a commander dies, it's ALWAYS via combat, all an Exosuit does is make it tough to kill and allow it to kill more, basically just increasing the threshold needed to kill a Commander and end the game.

Mike

*sigh*

Why do people jump to pessimistic implementations

I wanna use my commander for something other than an attention sink lategame, this is bad how?

And THERE is where I stop.

If you truly believe that, we have no common ground.
There are some sacred cows that you just don't kill.
This is ridiculous.

A few quick thoughts on some of the concerns presented here

1. As to the suit defeating the purpose of the diversity of commander designs, it was proposed in the original thread that the commander suit could use the same model as the commander itself, thus making a player's choice of commander more visible, not less.

2. If you're just assuming using these is mandatory and inevitable, consider this scenario:
You've got your commander suited up and well-protected, yay. Then, your opponent decides to knock an asteroid off course towards your commander's planet.

-So, your planet is about to die. That's a problem. The suit makes your commander more unit-resistant, not armageddon-proof.
-Your commander's bulky new tux won't fit in the unit cannon or egg, so he'll have to get out of it.
-Hopefully he has time to do so and reach the egg. It would suck if you didn't make all because he took too long to bail out.
-Okay, he managed to make it out in time and get to one of your other planets.
-BOOM.
-Goodbye, ComPowerSuit. That was probably a waste of resources.
-Wait for surface to cool, then send the commander back to the smoking planet wreck and start rebuilding, without the suit.

In fact, to actually have this suit "always on", you'd need to build a new one on every single planet you control, and all the suits which aren't currently in use would be sitting ducks; really expensive statues, basically. I'm also guessing the cost of these things will be high enough that it will be very difficult to build one before the interplanetary phase of the game, where their drawbacks are far more prevalent.

Remember that the battlefields in PA are nowhere near as static as they have been in every single RTS which has come before it. Those old build milestones likely don't apply here.

3. If the commander is actually a complete liability in the late-game, commander-death as a victory condition is kind of silly. This sort of mechanic reinforces the idea that the commander is a one-of-a-kind unit which is actually worth protecting and crucial to the war effort, and not just some stupid macguffin we are obligated to protect due to royal ancestry and whatnot.

Besides, this game promises plenty of ways to assassinate a commander, giant suit or no. Taking three shots to kill instead of one doesn't negate focusing on the commander as a play strategy, nor does it mean players won't care about keeping their commander hidden and safe.

Final note: The suit doesn't need to be exceptional in combat, just better than nothing. If it were actually designed around making the commander a better builder rather than a better fighter, it would add a lot of risk and strategic options to the commander late game.

Possibly even a choice for the player: Build a suit with two combat arms, two engineering arms, or the traditional one of each. Either way, just remember that the suit won't save you when orbits start decaying.

^what he said.

And it's ridiculous to cling to the past because "it worked" when it can be made better.

Ok... WOW me...

How would you make chess "Better"?

Explain to me how it's an "attention sink" if paying attention to your commander helps keep it alive longer how is that a waste of time?

Fact is, everything you want to accomplish with the Exosuit, is doable with regular units acting in support of your Commander.

Want to make the Commander Tougher to kill? Have a small force between it and the enemy, make them chew through the army first.

Mike

Because it's a thing I have to do or I get penalized as opposed to something I can choose to do to get some kind of reward.

No. Both are one and the same thing... except that your idea is direct, rather than indirect.

And your idea happens to cost Uber Ent a hell of a lot more time and money to make.

No they aren't. One is a maintenance cost while the other is a strategy I implemented. If I choose to protect my commander and devote resources elsewhere, fine, thats what I want to do and I'll do it. But not having an option because "that should be the best way" is aggravating and unnecessary.

Money is irrelevant, Neutrino said they would ask for additional funding before doing super units.

I wouldn't try. But as this is not chess, we can depart from that formula.

My dad is actually a FIDE master and a Chess club owner that hosts world championships. I can guarantee you, chess is extremely complicated and the best brain game(sport now) that humans ever created.

Chess is used in every possible term for strategy and tactical planning, it should be and it is a part of every good strategy game that exists.

Basically what I want to say: use chess as a basis of a strategy game = good game.
Of course a game won't be as "simple" as figures on a chess board but having that same element that chess uses, endless amounts of moves and options where every single one can change your fate completely is an extremely valuable part of any strategy game. You should feel fear with every command you give to your units(or confidence if you believe you are a great player and know how to do things)

Also to keep on topic, I'm still sticking to my idea but I want to see the Alpha before I can talk about anything else, unless they want to use one of our ideas to actually build the game, which would be nice(if they used my idea that is so I can brag forever about it) :mrgreen:

I agree with the statement that chess is extremely deep and a very well designed game. I just feel that if you're looking for that, then you should actually, you know, go play chess.

No, you said it could be made cooler. How?

You've already decided for yourself that it can't be. Any suggestions towards you are thus a waste of a good suggestion, don't you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game) ?

One of the well-documented flaws of chess is the lack of creative options for mid-level players.

Players who are first learning the game can experiment with their own strategies and try new things, but once you're past that initial learning phase, most of mid-level play is simply studying and using the thoroughly explored strategies of other players, with very little variation. It isn't until top-tier play where a player can once again start inventing new strategies and ways to play the game, and still actually have a chance of winning against someone using an established strategy.

Much of the reason for this is simple lack of choice. There are only a few dozen moves possible on any given turn, and usually only a handful of those are acceptable options in mid-level play. Most people find that lack of freedom stifling, and not very fun.

I don't think anything should replace chess, or that the rules should be changed. It has its place, and a well-deserved one at that. But it is clear from even a brief glance that PA is intended to appeal to a wider audience.

And frankly, chess already exists. If I want to play chess, I'll play chess. There's no reason for PA to be more like chess, just as there's no reason for chess to be more like PA.

Hey wasn't the battle suit my idea :idea:

From the megabot thread