The Vanguard Newsletter - Issue 2

To which I agree. Except for the fact that it was done on purpose as a team mode for gameplay purposes.

I think alliances will be better, but team mode will be harder to pull off, because each person has to communicate well or they lose.

Personally I think the issue is that commanders are too strong at attacking when they have nothing to lose (ie team games).

Now before implementing arbitrary rules about kicking players on commander deaths, we should look at simpler ways of fixing this issue such as balancing. While talking about game pace and balance, Uber informed us that their aim for the commander is to be strong at defending while being weak at attacking (you may have seen the new Uber cannon in the live streams).

So I think it would be better to wait until Uber think there game has reasonable balance and then see if its still an issue.

P.S. Sorry for giving a satisfactory reply sooner.

@liquius if the playerkick/player-losing-control is not implemented then for me there is no reason to have the commander in there ... currently in teamgames the commander feels just like another unit sure he`s powerfull and you cant replace it on destruction but that is it ... with the risk of losing a teammate not beeing in takes a lot away of what makes matches in this game even that intresting to me .. it takes a lot of tension away and makes teammatches less entertaining less dramatic ... it takes that " YEEAAAHHH GOTCHA ... EAT THAT (insert name)" feel away ... instead it just becomes ... "yepp i killed one big bot ... just 3 or 5 more remaining " no matter if nuked, bombersniped or steamrolled ... and because of that i dont have fun with teamgames not from play and not from spectating ... and please dont tell me to wait for alliance ... alliance is totaly different because in unitcontrol in eco and that is also a factor in teamgames because you have more freedom with your own eco and army in alliance ...

the easiest solution? make playerkick (player still able to spectate but not able to chat with team) an option in teamgames (though i rather prefered it to be the mainsetting)... tell me one good reason why that shall not be in ... tell me why this should not be a thing in a tournament ... if people want to still play for fun then by all means but i and a few (maybe more) others want the version that makes sense with the main coregameplay-and lore aspect of the game to which the commander and its supposed role belongs to ... how can this be arbitrary when it was a thing in 2 spiritual franchises to this before for EVERY gamemode those had?... from the thread i created so far non has given me a propper reason why it shouldnt be there ...

buff or nerf the commander all you like it is not my mainissue ... it would still be possible to commrush even with this config ... single and multicommrushes would still be possible and viable ... be it for harassment early game be it for a crippeling push or even a last resortattack the commander is not just a good builder he has a lot of firepower why not make use of it against your enemy ... if after a big push your enemy is severly crippeled with both sides losing their armies then it just makes sense to use your comm to seal the deal ... just have your energy storage be build up and pump your enemy full with u-cannonshots ... i love to see that, i love to see people use their comm offensivly ... because i love the thrill that comes with it and this is what i dont get from teamgames ... at all ... be it in defense or offense it just feels totaly cheap there without that risk ...

I don't get it. So you understand what Team Army games are, and you understand what Alliances games are...

...but you want to change the rules for Team Army games, so it is near identical to Alliance games?

And please, argue any points of what is different between Team Army games where your commander kills it's army if dies, and Alliance games.

Besides, how does it "fix" anything? If a team still picked up a random player as a "martyr" for the beginning, and sent him to sacrifice his commander, if the game made it so he could no longer control afterwards, he could leave, and his team could still carry on like the rule did nothing. So, how does this solve anything again?

The only rule I see being viable, is one where Team Army games make the team that first loses ANY commander lose the game. And that opens up a huge weakness. You will have to protect all 3 commanders HEAVILY and early game someone could snipe ANY of the 3 commanders to win, including rushing commanders 1v3, which actually makes that strategy stronger because it earns a win instead of an advantage.

Really, Team Army games are not what you want to play, and Alliances games are. Play Alliances games then. When a commander is sacrificed, a loss occurs. This pleases you. Sounds like your of place of belonging.

(Last option, apparently since Team Games "makes no sense", remove them because if it don't make Mama happy, then nobody happy. Sounds legit(not))

No... I am actually going to doublepost. My last one was my response to an idea to pretty much turn team games into Alliance games. This one is my own submission of an idea. How about this great idea:

How about, there is just ONE kind of server, but it had OPTIONS to produce pretty much any variant you desire.

For instance, set commanders to nonvital and linked teams to off and economy linked beween teams to off, you have 1v1v1's that are no-endgame-commander-death. People are asking for that.

Set commanders to vital, linked teams off, economy linked off, you have 1v1v1s with commander-death-gameover, classic rules.

Set commanders to vital, linked teams on, linked units on, linked economies on, then you have team armies. Multiple commanders, pretty much same team starting with multiple commanders actually, and 3 players in control of army. Current Team Army settings.

Set commanders to Vital-Individual, linked teams on, linked units on, linked economies on, then you have what Tatsu is pretty much clawing and begging for.

Set commanders to Vital-Individual-Team, and you have one of my suggestions where losing one commander is game over even though you have 3, so you have 3 weak points you need to defend and aren't allowed a single loss of them. Interesting concept, you must admit, whether it is what you'd choose to play or not admit it is interesting gametype.

Set commanders to vital, linked-teams on, linked armies off, and linked economy off, and you have individuals controlling individual armies and their commander-death kills their army, but seperate armies also "linked as allies".

Really, these settings can set up any number of game types, and "laddered" games can force-options what "official" settings deemed by the majority to be "standard":
-Commander: Off, 2, 3... [Start with Commander, and how many. If set to off, start with a "base" fabber with bot-fabber efficiency and commander-blueprints and no weapons, possibly just egg if egg is capable of producing first factory]
-Commander Vital: Off, 2, 3... [If Commander Death causes Army Death, and how many Commanders a player must have to stay in game]
-Teams: On, Off [Selects if individuals are teamed]
-Teams Share Commander Control: On, Off [Any player on team can control any commander, if set to on then team commanders count torwards Vitility limit so if set to 1 and there are 2 commanders then you can lose 1, if set to on and you lose too many commanders then whole team loses, if set to off then vitility limit is counted per player and not team, if off and player loses commander then they lose]
-Teams Share Army Control: On, Off [Any player on team can control each other's non-commander units and structures]
-Teams Share Economy: On, Off [One economy used by whole team, or if off each player has individual economies]
-Other features like Teams can Donate Economy to Teammates, Teams Share Alerts, Commanders Explode, list of unit names allowed in game, ect.

it's what I've been saying the entire time.

Ok Wait you tell me that it is ok to throw in a commnuke and not lose the player But it is not ok if the team agrees to sacrafice a teammember for when it might be neccesary ????
and where are those modes nearly identical?
There are 2 very differentiating aspects between team and alliance that god knows how many times i explained ...

And who ever said something about removing? Dont be so childish
Just because i ask for an additional option to an existing setting...
I said time and again that the current setting is ok to have for those that have fun with that but i also want The setting that a) makes more sense to me and b) while surely more challanging might be more instense and therefore more entertaining to play and watch ... ohhh you have to protect your teammates god save us all we might have a disadvantage ... lets not have something that might be more challanging and difficult .... lets not have something were a team can realy show how much of a team they are ... lets not have something with shades of grey but only clear black and white ...

And you still didn't gave me a propper reason of why it shouldn't be in
But instead that same "wait for alliance" excuse

A lot of people have been saying a lot of stuff.

Some want Commanders not to cause gameover.

Some want no Commanders at all.

I just thought that it would be interesting if a team armies game required NO commander to die in order to stay in the game, force a high skill ceiling to keep all 3 precious weaknesses defended.

You want commanders to act a certain way.

Really, there could be so many ways to set up a game. Really, if I got bored of any one way, it would be badass to play an entirely different game. Commanders are fun, but this game I will play without a commander and just start with an egg or a fabber with commander blueprints and no weapons. Tactically using commanders or hunting commander is fun, but how about today I play a game you must protect all of them simultaneously.

To add to that, what about a lobby option for "Can commanders walk"? That would be pretty badass too. Especially combined with all those other options. That adds whole new thought-process to how you design your base (what defences to put around him and what factories to put in "assist" range) and how you expand (you obviously couldn't use him to expand or even rush attack or defend nearby areas at all anymore, so you would have to rely on armies or defense-towers).

Theoretically, Tatsu, doesn't "Commander Can't Move" solve the commander-rushing issue entirely and still manage to create an interesting game out of it? No fatal design mechanic in a game using that rule?

Also, TBSC, you didn't give me a reason your proposal would be different than Alliance game mode? Tell me specifically and I will then address your question: What do you not like about Team Army games and what do you not like about Alliance games? I ask because, if you change Team Army games then it IS IDENTICAL to Alliance games, so why have FreeForAll, Alliance, and Alliance? Should we add another alliance mode too? That way, it will be FreeForAll, Alliance, Alliance, and Alliance. That is all I am wondering.

So you basicly want fully costumisable modes ... fine by me ...
The setting i ask for was meant for people that may like that for competitiv/ladder play ...

My perspective on team and alliance:

Team:

Shared control of army, economy and production as well shared view
Then shared commandercontroll and player not losing controll when one commander is destroyed


Alliance ( as we know from supcom and ta:

Shared vision ... and that is how far shared stuff goes
Giftable units and resources
Other wise each player with his own eco army and production
Players cant control other commanders but their own
Player is out when his comm is destroyed


How i want teamgames to be (optional)

Shared eco,army, production and vision
Each player with his own comm
Player cant control another comm but his own
Player loses control over production, army and eco ... so basicly has no direct influence anymore but still able to spectate but not able to chat with his team

I will concede to you, that I do not see Team Army games getting a ladder anyway. Alliances perhaps. Honestly, again, even then, it's questionable if Laddered Team games won't have a specific set of rules entirely. Such as, commander dies and it takes it's army with it, each person starts with commander, each person can only control his own commander, each person may control each other's units (or possibly not), the team shares it's economy.

That is how I thought laddered games would probably work. Because individual armies is more of a "measurable" asset in competition to avoid "carrying", yet shared economy probably takes a lot of the seperation out of hitting one player to snipe one of the two.

Then again, I could be entirely wrong, maybe they will be played with shared army control and seperated economies, or both or neither. Not sure at this stage of the game.

I am more of a casual fun-stuff player. I think it would be "like a bawss" to play a game with commanders that can't move. Next time I play a game, I will pitch that as an arbitrary rule, see if I can make the players in the server agree to all use it. Might be possible if I play with Realm. Might even make a thread about this.

I too am more casual ... but i like to spectate competitv stuff aswell
And i imagine that the setting i suggested would be very competitiv because of its chalange so i think it would be viable for ladder and entertaining to watch ...
1v1 ffa and alliance is standart stuff and i dont think they would be played any less then they have been played before in this games spiritual predecessors but i would simply like to see another level of competiv play be put in ... this game is considered next level so why not add another level of competitiv play aswell ... many want fun out of a game but others also want challange as they have fun through that

What is better is rather subjectiv ... one may like a simple 1v1 others like
Ffa's ... then again others like to work in groups in general against one or more other groups ... same goes for having more or less strict rules

To me alliance is that players can support each other, but team is where everyone relies on each other ... both need communication


Edit: apologies for the doublepost

May I just point out that with a new health to metal ratio of 0.5 (as opposed to 8.333), the commander now has a worse health to metal ratio than the dox, and so the ability to repair the damage has been more or less completely removed? That in and of itself will fix the offensive overpowering more than changes to the way team armies works.


(For comparison - before another commander would heal 250 health per second. Now it heals 15. Bot fabber heal 5. Medics heal 7.5)

Hmmm. Neat. Still theoretical, numbers are. Theories don't make me the best Street Fighter 4 player, although Gen did win the last EVO and I told everyone Gen would be the next best at scoring mixup damage.

I personally want to wait to see the next update. It might not be a big one, but it looks like it might, and if it is then over half your complaints might be invalid.

Team armies, pfft, alliances might be in.

Commander rushing, not with new Uber cannons and heal ratios, the one with established energy eco will have more commander power, and commanders cannons will take many shots to kill powerplants so the defender wins.

Those broken units will function and have models. They might actually ADD more problems with balance than fix, since before they didn't all work.

Naval will work again, from what I hear completely differently too. Maybe naval will win whenever present over anything else now. I would actually be happy if naval-only easily beat air-only, so air can actually be used as pocket-attacks to throw out on reaction to something and not used against everything.

I don't think we know all the features that will come. If customizable options come, people could still complain about things, but they couldn't call the game unplayable since you could just change the numbers. Not saying that is coming, its likely that is a server-only feature, that is just an example.

Generally, people are so overfocused on the way they want things. They don't want to consider that numbers balance hasn't been done by Uber and might fix 1/3 the problems, and that some things haven't been designed in and might fix another third like reclaim and junk, and that it never hurts to wait and see once you share a problem with Uber because if nothing else this game will cater to anyone come release when everyone is fiddling with servers.

Next time ask Howard where my +Sing command is. I tried to introduce a friend to PA and they were so disgusted by the lack of this command that they immediately quit.

You're losing sales, Uber, sort out your development priorities!

LOL!

This has probably been covered in the past but I don't recall. Are there plans for built-in matchmaking features?

Yes, low on priority list. Will be a part of galactic war as well as a ladder and ranking system will be there. The main stuff has to come in first.

I thought as much. Thanks.

@Vangards

With the game moving out of Beta and into Gama Phase tomorrow how soon will we see another news letter? As quoted above the next phase is all about "the experience of playing PA" and now in fact it seems that things ie built in matchmaking is now becoming the focus. And I am sure many of us are wondering the full details of this transition.

Beyond we are now working on feature X, Y, and Z. And this is our vision over the next month or two that will be sure to be covered in the news post. But questions from a players perspective about how we will be impacted directly.

Some of my questions would be

A) By calling this Gama is this some way of saying that they feel the game has reached a point where they can work on features not directly game related; but its enough of a change form present that it needs a moniker not Beta? The traditional title of a game in development.

B) What percentage of the team will be shifted over to work on Gama related content? And what will remain dedicated to core features and development?

C) Timeliness? a stretch i know, a answer beyond "Soon/When it's done"

I am excited to see what is in store and like the idea of the vanguard program as it gives Uber the player perspective.