Super Units as Exo-suit

I'm glad you asked.

I find the best way to understand the tone of this game in comparison to TA is to watch the Intro. If a game hasn't informed you on its tone using those first few moments then the player will be confused until a tone is set... so it's the logical place to do so unless confusion is your goal.

Without a true "Intro" cinematic from Planetary Annihilation I am going to use the first minute and 45 seconds of the Kickstarter pitch Video. I'll explain my reasons for doing so shortly.

Total Annihilation

Transcript:
"What began as a conflict over the transfer of conciousness from flesh to machines, escalated into a war that has decimated a million worlds. The Core and the Arm have all but exhausted the resources of the galaxy in their struggle for domination. Both sides now crippled beyond repair, the remnants of their armies continue to battle on ravaged planets, their hatred fuelled by over 4000 years of total war.

This is a fight to the death. For each side the only acceptable outcome is the complete elimination of the other."

This introduction is more masterful than I think many people realise.
We open with a pan down on an image of a cold, blue planet, moon and a scattering of lonely asteroids spinning in space. There is an immediate feeling of helplessness as you float next to one of those asteroids looking down at the planet, as the calm, authoritative voice of John Patrick Lowrie tells you of a war unlike anything we have ever known; 4000 years of destruction that has damaged not only the participants, but "a million" planets of the galaxy itself.

It is an ideological war, fought over principles... not resources, or against some outside threat... but something that humans consider a "higher" way of thinking... the very way in which we think. Will it be as organic life, or eternal machine?

"Both sides now crippled beyond repair" is a frightening line that cements the utterly destructive nature of war, with neither side able to snatch anything more than a pyrrhic victory from the jaws of their inevitable defeat. For both sides, 4000 years of war has bred a hatred that can now never be satisfied... except by one, single outcome; the complete elimination of the other. These two races have doomed themselves. The is no victory... there is only war.

We open a new section of the intro, planet-side, with what I think is a stroke of genius... but I'll get back to that in a moment. We see the endless escalation of war begin anew on this planet. Building are constructed, armies forged, only to be destroyed in an eternal stale-mate. Like chess, pieces are moved only to be taken in an endless cycle of victory and defeat. Both sides strike at each other again and again as we see land units mass, then air units deployed and we follow bombs, personally seeing their destruction, all the way up to giant artillery. Air war rages over radar installations, a war of information. We pan back and see giant facilities and power plants, until finally the widescreen opens up... we are treated to a view of a missile launch silo, with a very ominous nuke just waiting to be launched. War has escalated to its final conclusion; nuclear fire.

The first unit we see clearly in the introduction is the Arm Commander. The last unit we see clearly is the Core Commander. A symbolic message that very clearly states that the war begins and ends with those Units.
This is genius, pure and simple.

Watching and re-watching this introduction strikes at my heart and did actually reduce me to tears on the 6th re-watch. The utter pointlessness of this fight, fought over what should be high ideals. I feel lost and terribly afraid.

You are put into a position in the main menu where you MUST pick a side... and doom yourself to endless war in the name of either the Arm, or the Core.

Planetary Annihilation

Transcript:
"The age of humanity has long past. The endless conflict continues to march into the vast darkness of space. Battles rage across the cold void, annihilating planets, moons and asteroids; cosmic obliteration for a purpose long forgotten.

Technology has been captured, assimilated, refined and transformed into brutally efficient, self-replicating mechanisms of war.

Watching the pitch video for Planetary Annihilation tickles every nostalgia bone in my body. If you watch, the scenes from the Total Annihilation intro play out in almost exactly the same way:
Space, looking down on a distant planet.
The Commander, the first unit you see.
Images of escalation. A base expands and sends out its first units.
Destruction begins. Units are casually thrown into the meat-grinder.
After more escalation, battle ends only with the destruction of the planet.

This is a gameplay pre-vis, but it mirrors so closely the tone of Total Annihilation's intro that it's scary. Consciously or not (probably VERY consciously), the artist has created and struck almost the exact same beats of the Total Annihilation Intro. It even uses the same voice actor; John Patrick Lowrie.

The tone that is being set is almost identical, one of a pointless war that will destroy everything and the Commander... is all that matters

(copied from my post in the general discussion thread)

Glad I posted that earlier

So... I'm pretty sure there is enough information to talk a little bit about the games tone, thank you.

I think you completely captured the "tone" in your citations. But i still can't see where this excludes the possibility for commander exo-suits. With the lore and setting of the game you could find perfectly valid reasons for the necessity of commander exo-skeletons as well as reasons why such a concept would be utterly stupid and of course detrimental to commander survivability.

This is why i meant that citing the tone of the game is not a valid argument, it's what you see and what makes sense for you, this is highly individual. Working or not working gameplay is something anyone can be concerned about... And unfortunately that is too complex a topic to come to a conclusion without just trying it...

I accept that an exo suit CAN be designed and fitted for the Commander. However, the idea just reeks. It's big for the sake of big. Big whoop.

Perhaps such a thing isn't entirely avoidable. However, all energy based powers end up directly linked to the status of the base. Simply scouting the base will reveal what the Comm is capable of. No squinting is required.

Perhaps the most difficult ability to observe is the energy shield. Without direct vision of the enemy's energy storage, it is not possible to know its exact status. That may be an acceptable risk, especially since it's easy enough to eyeball the infrastructure and make a few basic rules (one gen = 1 tank or something like that). Visual status of the shield itself may also prove a helpful guide.

Choose? What is this "choose" you speak of? No. The Comm can work perfectly fine with the entire kit. There is no overlap in abilities and each power works in its own unique way. It's seriously no more complicated than a LoL hero. The abilities are d-gun, shield, cloak, ult, recall, and maybe 2 other things. Say what you will about the similarities, but it's still suitable for just about every contingency.

I also worried about this too. I want it to be a situation action in game.

PA doesnt have a intro yet. Thats just the starter vid for Kickstarter campaign.
Also i dont care really much for tone or lore.
Only thing of interest is the coherency in art style, not even the artstyle itself.

If i do suggestion in this direction it often is because i want to intermediate, or be helpfull and show possible solutions.
But after all sometimes there are people that cant be helped. Sometimes there is no solution. Sometimes i dont know it.

To be honest, i dont get this at all. If there is something ingame i will work with it as far as figuring out the best solutions to achieve my goal. Thats what is the most fun for me at all in a game. If i lose i dont blame that on the game a unit being op or someone being a camper. But i will mostly blame it on myself, lack of hand eye coordination, the strategie chosen or its inperfect execution.

Sometimes there may be hurdles i cant master, this may lead to me quiting the game. Well finding the perfect strategie definitely leads to quiting the game, if there is no competitive multiplayer.

I dont really know why i am posting this here, but i felt the urge to.

Well there was one thing in the current history that really pissed me of. That was Blizzard patching the difficulty from diablo 3 down. It was demanded as hard as they can do, but afterwards there was so many whining because of the difficulty, that they patched and patched and patched. What really angers me is that they spit on the achievements the players made who did diablo on inferno before the first patch. Nowadays my 98 year old granny could do this.

What do i want to say with this? .....












... idk

To those saying its not necessary: of course it's not. Neither are Asteroid KEWs or unit cannons. You accept those because they are shiny and (fairly) new.

If I'm correct, the main objections seem to be:

• it would alter the tone of the game irreparably (nanolathe)
• it would allow offensive use of what should be a pure king piece
• it would be inferior to just building more army
• it would make the commander too hard to kill
• it is redundant to abilities
• big bots are an overused cliche
• too much like upgrades

The first is not something that can be addressed. It changes the tone, and its something we'd have to live with. The second point is more or less the gameplay side of the first, and seems to be predicated on not offering choice because it "should be that way". Objection 3 is frankly impossible to make without seeing an implementation. Four, in addition to being implementation based, is not the point of the idea. Five is difficult to speak to without details on the abilities, but I suspect they could coexist. Pardon the language, but a crapton of people want big bots and don't care that they are "cliche". Sethna also covered 6.

In the end, I'm mostly interested in breaking the enforced staleness of commander usage, and exo suits offer a way to do so while satisfying the demand for huge robots.

I'll look at finding the most coherent counter arguments to put in the OP later, I'm on mobile right now.

What? No. Asteroids fill a huge number of critical orbital roles.

You have the ability to move units across the cosmos. It provides a potential to move resources (given some arbitrary localization of resources). You have a platform for invasions and a platform for dealing mass destruction. And after the planet is totally wrecked, you grab yet another asteroid and sail to the next world in line.

Long story short, asteroids add everything the game needs. It only gets better as they can do more things.

Unit cannons address a critical issue of moving small units across huge maps. While it may seem basic on paper, it speeds up the game and keeps the pacing strong no matter the map's scale.

Exo suits address... like... uhm... yeah. They make the Comm beefy, perhaps, but it turns any play with the Commander into an ALL IN. Taking that kind of unnecessary risk is totally bogus.

I feel the "they aren't needed" objection is specious because it ignores the fact that this game is going to be getting a ton of stuff that isn't needed strictly for a good game. To go back to asteroids, you think Mavor was all like "I think we should asteroids because they'll let you do x and y and Z and that'll really seal up a multi planet RTS"? No, he probably sat down and said "Wow what if you could crash an asteroid into a planet as a game ending tactic? THAT WOULD BE FRIKKIN COOL". All the other stuff was things he or the community tacked on after to give it a place and justify it.

And no, it doesn't turn any play with the commander into an all-in. That's, again, assuming a bad implementation. The goal is to make it a serious decision, not "do this and someone wins in the next fight".

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

What's wrong with this:

?

To me this doesn't say that a commander is something helpless, a crippled wreck only good for killing a few bots and ordering bots around. It says that the commander is the ultimate combatant, with the capability of making himself extremely powerful as much as manufacturing a bot army. As you said, the war begins and ends with them. It makes perfect sense that a commander should, in the appropriate context, be able to make the serious decision of constructing himself a 841st century (or whatever) giant hammer to smash the enemy with personally. Especially for a commander of that personality, someone like me.

I WANT to be on the front lines ripping up bots with my bare nanoguns. I WANT to personally be the one behind my opponent's destruction, not some nameless tank or artillery. My favorite times in SupCom 2 were the heart-rending moments when my overcharge cannon is blazing and my health is ticking down from the weight of a rapidly dwindling army. And I'm not even asking for it to be mandatory; just that the option be there. It's not really that unreasonable...


(sorry for double post)

You are inferring without evidence. The Arm Commander had a laser in the opening Intro, and killed 1 tank with it. The army he created is implied to have a much higher head-count.

The Intro shows the "duel" role of the commander, as a builder and a warrior. Nowhere is it implied that he's a combat "focused" unit. The fact that he continues to build defences as the enemy tank draws close to him, implies that he needs those defences as a top priority.

You could argue that since he killed the tank in but a few hits that the tank was not a great threat, and indeed that is the case. But it took several shots to kill it, not one. This implies that the Commander is more than capable of taking on lone units without issue (since the tank never even fired a shot) but that, since multiple hits are needed to secure a kill, that the Commander would have trouble with a larger number of foes.

Also consider that the moment he finishes the T2 Sentinel point defence, it and its brother further back in the background began firing at unseen assailants. This implies that the Commander is under attack from multiple angles. Rather than fighting at the beginning, he is constructing defences. This implies that they are important.

If you can analyse the Intro and find flaws in my implications and inferences then please do. But you keep saying what you desire to see... not what you're actually seeing.

---

If you want to have your destiny in your own hands... I don't think grand RTS is the right genre for you.

Uhm. Yes. It first sounded cool. And then upon further inspection it got even MORE cool. That's typically how an "awesome" idea works.

The Exo suit sounds cool at first glance, but it is PLAGUED with problems. The most serious problem is that it does not solve the one fundamental issue associated with the Commander. The problem is that a Commander is ONE unit against an endless, ever growing horde of kill bots and super guns. No single unit can hold against such a threat.

It's a delaying mechanism... and not even a very good one at that.

Unless you do away with the 'King' Commander element altogether, it just doesn't work.
If you do away with the 'King' Commander element of the game... Then this is just like any other generic RTS.

Not a fan of that idea.

Name ones not associated with an assumed implementation.

Really not sure what to say to you at this point. I shouldn't really have to explain that giving me the choice to go rambo does not hurt the value of your desire to stay safe and not fight, and I don't particularly care that it would change the tone away from being exactly like TA or SupCom. we're really at odds and more discussion is just talking at each other with no point, sadly.

Now, as anti-Megabot as I've been before, I certainly like the idea of keeping the Commander-equivalent an asset throughout the game in more than a support role. SupCom had some nice ideas for that, but compared to upper-tech and experimentals, the thing was still made of glass. I mean, I would certainly like to see in a game like this, some more direct "Authority Equals Asskicking." Putting it in an exo-suit to make it the biggest, baddest unit on a side... Now if I did that, I'd still keep it in my base(s). It's not being said to make it invincible, just more durable, and with a bit more punch. Maybe even make the exo space-capable in case one needs to beat a hasty retreat from the planet.

There is no One True Strategy dictated by the backstory. The original TA story is no story. Here's what Clayton Kauzlaric, founding member of Cavedog, has to say about it. http://ton-of-clay.blogspot.nl/2006/09/ ... story.html

In fact, the game encourages devising strategies.

If there are going to be problems with an exo-suit, it's going to be for balance or financial reasons. Whether or not putting the commander on the front lines is a sound strategy, that's for the players to figure out in the game. Learning by doing.

Ok...

So there are a lot of HOT discussion in this thread and very little meat. I want to point out a few things that have been discussed that are worth looking at and I will give my opinion on them specifically as I would like all of you to do.

1. Commander is the only megabot unit. Hate this idea. The commander is beautiful the way he was born and doesn't need enhancements.

2. People wanting to put limitations on what you can build and how many (beyond simple resources allocation). Hate this idea. Dawn of War 1 and relics is the wrong direction.

3. Commander provides some leverage, beyond construction support, to getting a super unit. Hate this idea.

4. Commander can be protected. Love this idea.

-I like how the D-Gun is not useable if inside a Megabot.
-I like the idea of commanders transported in Megabots.
-I like how this gives multiple purposes for Megabots.

5. Commander can be used strategically inconjunction with super units. Love this idea.

-Commanders riding in megabots can jump out, fire a few rounds and jump back in possibly.


6. Commander snipes in TA were a SERIOUS problem.

-TA didn't have commander upgrades.
-TA didn't have shields.
-PA probably will not either.
-Uber has already said PA will not have veterancy. The health you have at the start of the game is all you get for your commander.

SO how are we going to protect commanders from Air Snipes. Honestly, this is a big deal. In TA, players could build enough T2 fighters to kill a commander instantly. We haven't even discussed bombing yet. I want super powerful unit capabilities and surviving a tactical nuclear bomber needs to be an option IMO. I really think that a Megabot is a great choice, because it makes the 'Bunker' you are building for your commander mobile, highly expensive and late game.

Also, a simpler bunker structure for your commander is just so boring.

Why, perchance, do you hate the idea of commanders being required to run the megabot? It adds diversity, its a mechanic not seen before in this RTS space, and it solves several problems that super units present (spammability and how they tend to take over the game or be useless, the inherent lack of risk in using them). It is also built on the theme of the commander itself; One Supreme Exo-Suit for One Supreme Unit. Or a few anyway, since there are different commanders.

Okay. Let's start by assuming the game is not about large robot armies fighting across the galaxy, they were not produced for the express purpose of warfare, and they do not spawn from some progenitor "seed" that begins the process of self replicating robot warfare planet by planet. Then there was no kickstarter gamble to reignite this franchise using modern technology and hardware. The fans subsequently did not support the company by demanding money for the game that did not exist.

You're right. From this angle, there's no problem with an exo suit at all!

Ok, my final word;

An Exo-Suit is a Commander Upgrade. It is a complicated upgrade, yes. But an upgrade.

Commanders have been stated to not have access upgrades while in game. They have traits chosen before the game begins, but not upgrades in the field.

I have Nothing more to say on the matter at this point.

If hypothetical reasoning and a plea to preserve the tone of the game is not enough for you, then I fall back on hard facts from Mr. Mavor himself.

I'm out of snark... I'm out of sarcasm and I'm out of patience with this idea. It breaks the tone. That is reason enough for me to hate the idea. But I'm out of hate now. I'm just too tired...

I will not come back to this thread again unless Neutrino has something to say on the matter. You have effectively driven me away... the air in this thread has gotten too stuffy for my tastes.

Oh, the "the commander should be forced to operate as a king piece unable to seriously engage in combat" objection. Right.

If you can give me a good gameplay reason why offering a commander the risky option to personally appear in a battle for victory (improving combat traits for a weakness to strategic offenses), feel free. But no one has as of yet, and what HAS been put forward is variations of "it just can't work because I don't see how based on some assumptions".

Not really that simple, and the wrinkles are what make it work.

These were talked about as things like veterancy, or research stations whcih directly buff the stats or abilities of the commander while preserving his look, location, task, etc. Like SupCom 2 research. Not units that demand a commander hook into itself to run.

Technically you could argue an exo-suit is an upgrade, by the definition of "allows the commander to trade resources for more power of some kind". By that definition, every combat unit is an extension of the commander, and therefore, an upgrade. Either units are fine and thus a unit that happens to require the commanders presence to operate is fine, or its an upgrade and the concept of units is just as wrong as an exo suit.

Can't 100% say I'm sad to see you go, but I do hope we can reach an understanding.