Super Units as Exo-suit

It's a battle suit, for the commander. When the Commander wears one, he is no longer a custom commander. He's a decoration for the battle suit. I don't think that will go down well for the big backers.

I am of the opinion that everything a Comm needs can be:
- Small enough to fit directly on the comm.
- Powered directly from your energy supply, with all the heavy lifting coming directly from generators.
Or
- Otherwise supported/enabled by a visible and obvious external structure.

A gigantic battle suit is not needed to make the Comm strong. Everything a Comm needs can be provided by itself. This means a heavy focus on survival abilities for the Comm, as direct damage powers will always end up overwhelmed at some point.

A couple threads have been dedicated to this, with multiple concerns and potential solutions on the table. Check out the topic index in the main forum.

The devs made a thread to discuss game modes. Check it out. Assassination is a major mode because it fits the game lore, but it has also been an option since Total Annihilation. Neglecting domination mode would betray the history of the game.

Please don't assume that everyone who is against the idea will all have the exact same reasons.

Also, the poll still reads as
Yes
yes
maybe
maybe
no

It's still slanted, although less aggressively so. It may not seem like it matters, but the psychology of statistics is actually very deep and things like this do matter. If you want an impartial result that Uber will take seriously, try to keep it as symmetrical as possible. For example:

Definitely yes
Preferably yes
Don't care
Preferably not
Definitely not

Edit:

That's assuming it doesn't look exactly like a giant version of whatever commander the player is using, which strikes me as the simplest and best design.

Your original point fails in the case that the exo suit is situational and expensive to deploy. It only reduces diversity if it's something that's spammed, and for some reason people are jumping to that. =/

If there are other reasons I haven't heard any.

That's the exact poll options i have, just more generic. Yes absolutely, yes maybe, meh, maybe not, no.


----------------------

Just like nanolathe, I'll be very sad if this is shut down. Why? It's being shut down because the current system is "good enough". It's a trend in the community wanting more of the same, and it's frustrating when it blocks discussion. I'm one of like 3 people trying to figure out how something like this works, while the rest are categorically objecting based on assumptions about an implementation that doesn't yet exist. I just wanna talk about cool ideas and everyone else wants to shoot them down :cry:

The commander should be a king piece, not because that is how it was done in TA, but because the game is more interesting if you have to protect your commander, while still being possible to use the commander in combat.

The fact that the commander is a powerful piece is offset by the fact that if that piece is lost, you lose the game. In TA this lent a great deal of significance to anything with a commander involved. Attacking a base that contains a commander is an especially strategically significant event for both sides. Electing to use your commander in a particular fight takes on a very special significance.

This significance goes away if the commander is actually a very strong piece in objective terms. In TA, the commander is a powerful piece, but is still quite weak compared to a real army. The Dgun allows the commander to snipe large enemy targets, making the commander scale well against bigger enemies in small numbers. However the commander itself is a vulnerable, fragile asset despite its usefulness if you're in a tight spot. It is a piece which simultaneously is strong, yet also vulnerable, very much like the King in chess.

This is a more interesting dynamic than having a commander that is a strong combatant- you'll just use it to fight wherever possible. And it is also more interesting than having a pacifistic commander that is virtually useless in a fight- as you will never gain an advantage by exposing your commander to any risk whatsoever.

The most interesting dynamic for a commander is the for the commander to be a powerful piece, but also your greatest liability. TA was designed the way it was for very good reasons, and those reasons remain effective for designing PA.

Now try reading just the first word of each. Trust me, it does matter, and Uber will notice.

If the poll is just for fun, it doesn't matter. But in a serious poll it's always best to play it safe, and that means be as simple and symmetrical as possible.

As a note, even most of the professional polls out there are deliberately biased and not good examples to use as references for legitimate studies.

The thing is, this is kind of what I want, but the TA and SC system mostly worked out to "commander is useless and has to hide lategame because any military force would roll him". And that's the system that people seem to be defending and the one that is viewed as good.

This is a rather radical change in the *tone* of the game.
One of the more passionate reasons I play games like TA and SupCom is because of this unique tone. Your Commander is something you have to protect by keeping him away from harm. He is not a God-Like being... but can create God-Like beings to do his will.

This tone, one of protecting your Commander against the world is a very vital element, in my opinion, to the game. The Commander is "me". I don't want to die. I don't want to get in harms way if I can. I dislike the idea that I might be in danger.

I identify with the Commander... he is me... and I am him. I would build 10 million robots to stand in the way of harm. I would sacrifice everything, even Planets for him. In the end, the Commander... "me" is all that matters on the battlefield. It is actually a strange form of social commentary on War.

Changing this element has greater impact that you realise.

This game isn't "just" about making robots fight each other...

That's assuming the custom design is capable of fitting a cockpit for another Comm. Yo dawg, I like Comms but one is enough for me. No thanks.

The role of the suit completely contradicts the Commander's function. There's no clearer way to put it.

The Commander's role is not to FIGHT the war. Its purpose is to IGNITE the war. Ultimately, using expendable kill bots and not dying is the best way for the Commander to fight.

You're making a flawed comparison: In chess, the opposing army does not grow in number and power throughout the game. Quite the opposite, in fact. The king in chess starts the game locked and immobile, and grows in relative strength over the course of the game as pieces are taken and the board opens up. The king is still usually helpless against the opposing army and needs to flee, but the longer a game of chess lasts, the more likely it is to end in a stalemate, and the more likely you are to see the king start taking pieces. <-- Edit

In PA an TA, the commander starts out overwhelmingly powerful, and slowly fades into the background until it is no longer a powerful piece or even a piece at all. It becomes simply a feature of the game board, akin the the back line in chess which almost certainly costs the game if an opponent's pawn reaches it and becomes a queen.

This proposal would simply slow the rate at which the growing power of the army makes the power of the commander effectively non-existent. Keep the king always able to move and capture the occasional piece. Like in chess, but not so extreme as to encourage a stalemate. Just to slow the arrival of the inevitable point where the commander becomes no piece at all. (n.~)

And it would be designed to let you still do that. Just that if another player doesn't want to play that sort of game, he can choose to be with his bots on the front line.

That still ruins the tone.

Now I am on the battlefield, will full knowledge that I can "ascend" and become like the gods of war I create?

I can become, in essence, like the protagonist of a modern FPS, and wield power far beyond the usual limits of my form?

---

Instead of the commentary that war, no matter who starts it, eventually escalates to a point where I am rendered insignificant compared to the destructive power that I have unleashed... that I am now nothing more than a cog in the machine that devours life on scales, unimaginable... and yet... is all over if I die...

---

The message a "Super-Man" suit gives me, is one I do not like... unless of course it is to show me, that I am a soulless machine, instead of a fragile human being.

I guess i don't feel that tone like that should get in the way of gameplay.

Keeping my fragile and very mortal representation on the battlefield alive...

Is gameplay.

I think the point being made is that the tone is created in part by the gameplay, so to change the gameplay as you suggest with the Exosuit is changing the tone in a domino effect.

Mike

You're looking for a very specific gameplay paradigm, which is fine, but then you insist that any other options must be denied because it would "ruin the tone". I get the point you make, but at the same, time, that isn't really all that good of a reason to justify not considering increasing mechanical options.

Which is correct, but I don't feel that tone should dictate the gameplay.

This. He's supposed to be the king AND QUEEN.

I've long suggested several different chassis upgrades for different uses. Tank, spider, megabot, super-engineer, ship, artillery, etc. This wouldn't hurt the game at all, it would only add strategic depth.

Having to protect a useless commander is a boring no-brainer. Having to balance the commander's fragility with his great utility is MUCH more skill-demanding and intense.

Then why play this style of game. The tone is part of the experience of playing a TA or SupCom-like game.

You are literally asking for a completely new "Type" and "Tone" of game.

Gameplay informs Tone. Tone informs Gameplay (or at least it should).

Oh, I'm not mentally ill... just thought you should know.[/quote]Oh, and I'm not mentally ill. I'm physically sick.

just thought you should know :roll:

I think it's valid to make games to hit a specific tone, but when you're trying to make a deep interesting strategy game, tone should take a back seat.

Erm... justification for that?

Why does one preclude the other?

You prefer a heartless strategy game, over one with some kind of emotional investment?

For this topic's exact reason; tone screws with gameplay and blocks vital changes. Most would agree that they played TA/SC for the gameplay, I think.