Super Units Being In The Game

One does not simply end a post with this without entering a signature.

There should be a super unit mod a big bacon monster that is OP in every sense of the word. I think that will make people happy.

[the following uses of "you" apply to anyone skeptical of super units and their inclusion]

I don't get what's "weird" about Lapantouflemagic's post. He wants big units. He doesn't care if they're the best gameplay choice to build. They are awesome, and his favorite thing in an RTS. He freakin bought SupCom because giant death laser spiderbot. This is very simple, and honestly, i would bet it's the average consumer's attitude. You may not like that, but it's how it is. PA sold partially on the very same merit. I would argue that it pulled a lot of backers because of A: TA/SUPCOM ON MULTIPLE PLANETS, or B: Take arbitrary asteroids and fling them at arbitrary planets to cause Death(TM). Gimmicky on the surface proposals that could very well end up being really awesome, but depend entirely on implementation.

I very seriously doubt many people went in to this buying for the "nuanced gameplay" and "deep strategy". I'm sure some did, maybe even some on this forum, but it wasn't any of the main selling points in the kickstarter or post-campaign period so far.

(and no, the use of the word fetish is totally out of line here. I think the word you're looking for is obsession. Fetish implies a sexual component and i'm really tired of everyone on the internet doing that for everything >.>)

I won't comment further on the concept of super units themselves as Neutrino has laid down how it is, but I thought I'd clear that up.

I was actually using fetish in its meaning connected with fetishism; the elevation of a mundane object, namely a unit that's only quality is that it takes up too much of my monitor, and imbuing it with mythical qualities, in this case an ephemeral "awesomeness".

Fetishism is the belief that an object has supernatural powers (awesomeness), that has power over others (the only reason to buy the game).

Since I do not think Experimentals from the previous games were all that awesome and certainly was not the reason I bought the games I see someone who buys the games solely for (roughly) 3 to 4 units per race, and then claims that they are the be-all-end-all for himself (and implied others) as a rather fetishistic attitude.

I don't keep my thoughts in the gutter thank you.

If you want to know what did sell me on SupCom 1/2/FA games;

• Strategic Zoom Map
• Maps that require the use of transport for efficient coverage
• Tactical control of unit timings (unified unit orders and attack co-ordination)
• Race Dynamics (I liked the UEF, Cybran, Aeon triangle and their relative strengths/weaknesses)

Why did I pledge to PA?

• Strategic Planetary "maps"
• Combat that takes place across several "maps"
• Consequences for "overkill" (By killing a base/planet with an asteroid you sacrifice the planets resources... or at least some of them)
• A return of Total Annihilation like units

But by far the biggest pull was

• An obvious departure away from "super" units. I did not see a single Monkey-lord, Galactic Colossus or Fat-boy marketed as the REASON the game was great. The reason the game will be great is that it is truly trying new things that would NEVER have gotten an "OK" from a publisher. For the First time we take the RTS to True 3D battlefields? No publisher would take that risk.

For me, Kickstarter is not about backing projects that "just" resurrect old games. For me, Backing Planetary Annihilation is about doing something different. Moving a Genre forward. I've had enough of continuous sequel after re-make after re-boot.

Uber, with Planetary Annihilation, stands on the brink of making something TRULY awe inspiring.

And then someone comes along... and asks... nay, demands...

for a larger unit...
with a bigger gun.

If this doesn't make my point, and my position clear, I do not know what will.
I do not dislike super units. I dislike people who think the rest of the game must serve the super unit.

I hope that Uber does not "play safe" with my money... Because that's not why I gave it to them.

Edit: I apologise completely and without reservation for my bad attitude and inflammatory language. I hope I do not upset anyone personally with this post and if I do, send me a PM and I will apologise to you directly.

How does asking that some form of super unit (deathbot/deathtank/etc) be included, no matter how poor a choice relative to other units, do this?

I think it's the context given for that question, I feel that either nanolathe is correct, or the people posing the questions can't communicate clearly enough to make thier point clear.

Mike

What, exactly, is unclear about this:

Edited for Clarity

The Focus of Supreme Commander, Forged Alliance and Supreme Commander 2 was oversized, and in some cases, overly powerful, Single units. It took time, energy and resources to create them, and if you listened to Neutrino, you would know that it took a LOT of time, energy and resources to make them.

Planetary Annihilation's Focus is on building an army across multiple battlefields (in this case, planets) and co-ordination of huge offensives with large numbers of single units. It has been said that tech level is irrelevant to power and that your massed numbers of units will stay effective at all levels and times of play.

Why does adding single, large units detract from the core gameplay?
Because single, large units are the opposite of large numbers of single units.
Because there is limited time, energy and resources that should be put into the core gameplay.

---

Time, money, resources, ideas and energy should be focused to the core gameplay mechanics of Planetary Annihilation. The implementation of 3D planet/battlefields, the way these interact across a single "map" for a single match between 2 people, and how that needs to be scaled up for the supposed 40 people in a single match takes priority over...

A larger unit, with a bigger gun.

---

Please stop asking Uber to dedicate and direct time, money, resources, ideas and energy away from the core aspects of gameplay.

I'd just like to point out that the trivial addition of a large tank to that fight scene would result in no one even questioning super units.

I would bet that even if it is the average consumer's attitude (and I suspect it isn't), it is not the average KS backer's attitude. There may well be a variety of opinions about the Monkeylord (for example) amongst those people, from brilliant to awful, but people who are willing to pre-fund a game this niche, especially those putting in substantial sums of money, have probably got past the stage of liking things solely because they are big and go boom.

Wasn't half of the gameplay visualization portion of the trailer watching a giant asteroid make a big planet go boom?

When you have time and money, ideas and concepts must be valued and given a "yay" or "nay" to make it into the base game.

Large, visually impressive (for some) units have been done before. Neutrino has told you that it takes a larger amount of time to implement large, visually impressive units.

If they CUT planetary deformation... if they CUT asteroidal bombardment... if they CUT core aspects of gameplay... for an idea... that has been DONE BEFORE...

If they cut those things that made me excited for a game about waging war across entire solar systems... because YOU (anyone asking for super units in the base game) demanded it of Uber... then I dislike you for taking away core aspects of the game for a fetish.

Is that clear enough now?

Okay yes, its a non-essential item, but we were never arguing that it should replace any of that...

Super units are largely a fetish thing. Fetish material gets a strong positive response from a few people, but is largely neutral or a minor point for everyone else.

A serious player will tell you that they'll use the best units they can get. If a super unit happens to add something that other units can not accomplish, then it'll find a place along everything else. I honestly think there's room for both interesting AND large units.

I don't want anyone thinking I'm a "pro".

I'm not. I used the Necro in TA... not because it was powerful, it wasn't. I used it because it did something that NOTHING else could do.

I used powerful units like the Peewee and the Flash Tank (early game rushes with those units was deadly...

I liked the noise and the stream of fire their guns made, and the rate of fire was unique. Nothing else fired that fast. They had a use, were visually impressive and used the SAME technology, AND were small, easily coded units that probably didn't take up much development time.

Yet I loved them.

THEY were my idea of "awesome".
50 Peewees produced super fast and rushing the enemy base was visually impressive.

A unit does not need to be overly large, for me to be in awe of a unit.
I am much more impressed when a squadron of 30 Flash Tanks wrecks my base before the 8min mark, and sit in AWE, as my screen is filled with the visual flare of my base going up in flames to the staccato chatter of those pulse guns.

Neutrino has said, twice now, that larger units take more time. If they run out of time, I'd prefer to see the core gameplay be more fleshed out, than seeing 3 or 4 units that are just... big.

Guys, I'm pretty sure this is a moot discussion, since Uber is still focusing on stuff like KEWs and orbital weapons and are hinting at activating metal planets somehow. I sincerely doubt anything stated in this thread will make Mavor go "WE NEED SPIDERBOTS" or something to that effect, since he's making a game that involves SMASHING ASTEROIDS INTO PLANETS.

SHOOTING ROBOTS TO EARTH FROM THE MOON.

Come on!

If that doesn't have appeal I don't know what does!

Experimentals like those from SupCom/FA get my vote. Loved them. They were fun to use and fun to have to defend against. I hope they make it into the game.

My vote is that experimentals are a waste of developer time and resources, at best, making gimmicky units that are so expensive and inefficient they will have no gameplay effects.

And at worst, they will seriously damage gameplay because they will actually be a relevant factor, dragging the game down with their high cost and build time, and huge resource centralization in few units.

Make the game interesting to play with small units before you even think about adding a super unit.

And if you do add a super unit, make just one, and make it like the Krogoth, which is interestingly different from every other unit in the game due to its sheer absolute power, at a ridiculous cost inefficiency price. But having more than one flavor of Krogoth would obviously be redundant.

But don't do gimmicks. Friends don't let friends use gimmicks. Stay away from gimmicky units, gimmicky mechanics, and gimmicky super unit trash.

I'm kinda against the idea of a special place for the biggest mech/tank/what-have-you one can build, especially when the name of the game is "Planetary Annihilation" (which implies some ability to annihilate planets, and if that doesn't count as "super") and a major selling point is not just planetary-scale warfare, but inter-planetary warfare.

I mean, yes, there's a place for the bigger mech. It just shouldn't be set apart like, say, the Cybran Monkeylord. That's where dropping armies from the moon and slinging asteroids around a star into your enemy's base is gonna be in this game.

Define "gimmick".

Seriously. ANY special mechanic can be considered a gimmick. The only difference is which ones you like or hate.

A gimmick is a feature that only does one thing; what it has been programmed to do. The player doesn't even enter into the equation, except to perhaps turn it on.

With interesting features, the player can use that feature differently and create interesting behavior. A gimmick just does its shtick over and over again.