Unit block list

Fraid not. Maybe you suck at the game, and your friends suck at the game, and at your specific skill level, that counter is too strong. Imagine Bronze League players who can't micro, and every time they use Marines against Zerg, they get owned by Banelings. Would removing Banelings from the game increase their enjoyment of it? Well, heck, it just might.

Broken for the guys who play in tournaments for money. Not everyone else.

There's no difference between the dev team scrapping a unit and the players scrapping a unit, except that the player can make a choice for just themselves and their friends instead of forcing it for everyone. Just like how there's no reason to prevent user-generated content, just because it wasn't made by the dev team. You never know what your users might do.

At the most fundamental level, you're stuck in your own perspective. Maybe removing these units from the game wouldn't work for you. Maybe it wouldn't fit your playstyle. But that's no reason to prevent other people from doing as they wish. Those people who like to play NR 20 No Air No Nukes shouldn't be punished just because you can't see what's fun about that.

This argument is equivalent to, for example, wishing to ban gay marriage or trying to enforce religion through legislation. There's no objective reason to enforce your personal views. Of course, this is slightly different since the devs have to justify every penny expended, and I'm not saying such a feature would be free, but just going by my personal experience, there's more than enough demand for it, and it should be a relatively simple thing to code.

Those people probably wouldn't play the game without "No Air". You haven't really changed anything by letting them play the way they want to. As long as people who want to play unrestricted can find other people who want to play unrestricted (if they are around) then the system is not broken.

More relevantly, this is true for all user-generated content. If you wanted to play me on ladder on Starcraft 2, then tough, because I'm off playing all the custom maps. But if you removed them, I wouldn't play ladder, I'd go play Battlefield 3. For every gameplay customization point you add, you fracture the community into the people who like X, and the people who like Y. But this doesn't justify removing customization points.

This argument is equivalent to claiming that every pirate is a lost sale. Maybe some of them are, but the truth is that people have many things to do with their time, and if you take away one, there's no reason to believe that every single one of them would suddenly switch the same way. Some of them would, I dunno, go walk the dog instead, or get off their lazy asses and do something productive, or find some alternative form of entertainment except the one you wish them to pursue. It's quite possible that only a very small minority would now go the way you want.

Yes TA had unit caps. And we used them to make subgames, or new game modes.

Strip down all the base units so you can only have five of each. Leave engineers unrestricted. You have to coordinate your tanks and artillery against the hoards of enginners. So much fun.

This isn't a feature for balancing but it can be used that way. It seems to me that it would be needed less with a one race game, but as a tool to make new game modes. Especially if you can save the unit list and unit count as a setup file.

Imagine a 40 person game with tech 1 only? It would be fun to try (at least once). No research games in supcom 2 are fun. We use these features all the time with my work gaming group.

One of the things I liked to do in Forged Alliance was turning off the long range artillery and nukes. It happened so often that I was building a large army without thinking of my opponents ability to build nukes that such games usually ended with one nuke, ruining all of my work.

Being able to turn off the nukes and artillery enabled me to play in that turtle style and I really enjoyed that. Even though most people will like the normal game just fine, me included, there are many like me that would benefit from such a feature

Pretty much with deadmg on this one. People should be able to play how they want with their friends. There should obviously be a default game type for any tournaments or events though.

Also, the game is already supporting mods so worst case someone could add it, BUT since this game is being developed by the fans for the fans, now is the time to ask for this kind of thing by the people who want it.

Yeah, players should be able to play as they like, even in weird, new, or broken game modes.

am surprised you'd come out in favour of this, dead.

I've always been in favour. Hell, I've been known to play a little no nukes no arty no air myself.

lol, yuk.

Why does it matter? Even Starcraft 2 has custom games. And just like custom games, it should be well understood that disabling units isn't the "real"* way to play.


*"Real" Being tourney's, dev sponsored events and such.

Might be easier to just say 'Stock' ;p

I'm kinda split on unit exceptions personally, I get where Deadmg is coming from, and I agree with it but I also can't ignore that basically what ends up happening is you end up splitting the community, with everyone playing thier own variation then kinda get suckering into only playing that.

On a Personal level that's fine, like DeadMG said, whatever lets you have fun, but looking at it from the community perspective its not all that conducive to longevity I'd think......

Mike

in my experience it caters towards crap players that are unwilling to learn how to play the game properly who use said restrictions as a crutch and refuse to improve. this leads to a fracture in the MP community, which is a concern for any RTS that doesn't have 'craft' in its title. the supcom community was likewise split between real players and those that played no-air no-rush no-nuke no-fun games.

it boggles my mind that players that are attracted to huge struggles and (supposedly) heaps of depth in their gameplay, are already clamouring for ways to make things shallower.

but, looks like im in the minority here.

And you think that by removing options like no-rush timers and unit block lists this is gonna go away? You think that people won't still make those games and simply try to enforce it themselves? Or mod it in?

You have to start realizing that you calling it "no-fun"-games is a subjective thing. It's your opinion, not theirs. They are having fun, otherwise they wouldn't be playing it. Your idea of fun is in no way better then their idea. Removing the ability for them to have their fun is not only extremely selfish, but also counter productive.

They are still going to try to get those games to work, but without the help of in-game tools, people can cheat the system. If this happens too often they will probably leave the game all together leaving you with even less players. And since they might actually be playing the vanilla mode you like so much from time to time, you just lost another player to play with.

First of all, just because people want alternative game-modes does not mean they do not want the vanilla game-mode as well. Vanilla may actually be their main focus, with the alternatives providing occasional fun.

Secondly, removing units or adding custom rules does not always make games more shallow. It can actually open up options that simply were not there before, thus changing the game without making it a shallow experience.

Hmm good points all around. I love the idea of being able to apply unit restrictions. As it has created some fun game types in both TA and SupCom. Like no Engi's Only Navy. Changes how you play completely and utterly. Of course those constant Thermo games did get annoying after awhile, but in moderation they can be quite fun.

I think I support a unit restriction list. It would be great if there was a list similar in TA so you could limit the number of units, specific units entirely, or broad categories of units. However, that is assuming the game will function with units removed at all.

Or maybe some people just like playing with weird, non-standard rulesets? Why deny those people the ability to have their own fun because of such an arbitrary reason?

It's not like anyone is forcing you to make use of the feature, why do you care about what other people perceive to be fun?

thanks, captain obvious. clearly MY points revolved around having as many players available to play the style of game I want and not splitting that into a whole bunch of mini-communities with their gameplay crutches. i don't care that this is selfish and am certainly not oblivious to it. good game design is not synonymous with democracy.

Removing unit restrictions won't really help you. Those players are just gonna go back to playing FA, or play other custom mods, or other games, or watch a film instead of playing ladder.

No, good game design is synonymous with creating as much fun for your players as possible. You don't go around killing the fun of people because you feel they "want things that aren't fun" or something similar. You can see the result of that in Diablo 3 and all the hate people have for it's lead designer.(A design which they are now rapidly reversing course on post-launch.)

Oh and about your selfishness. How about we remove the entire vanilla gameplay all together? Only crazy gamemodes, just for you. Everything nice and unbalanced. Why? Because I want it and everyone knows I'm the center of the universe. Right?

They would at least need to play the game until somebody makes such a mod, which gives them the chance to learn the game. Instead of instantly restrict everything they think is op or not fun.

Who said anything about ladder?


A game should help a player to learn the game, making the start as easy as possible, not giving him tools to avoid learning it.

They don't want to learn your specific variant of it. And there's nothing you can do that will change their mind.

There is no "your specific variant", it is the game as it was designed from the developer team.