Unit Cannon Ideas/Questions; a picture too!

Again, halleyed moons and asteroids can't even target other small moons and asteroids at the moment. That needs some fixing up, otherwise people can just move off planet and you still have a stalemate since no one is going to even bother wasting their base annihilating the original planet.

In the end the kickstarter trailer was simply concept footage. It was just a bunch of Uber's ideas for PA compiled into a few minutes of video. I dont think at that time they were thinking of balancing any units or strats so really they could throw anything they wanted in there. However I do agree with the fact that a straight halley race would be boring and repetitive. What I think should be done is to make sure both players start on non-smash-able planets. I guess these would act as power houses for eco and would have to be defended furiously in case the oppoent goes straight for your planet. The next step that I think should be taken is to make sure only one asteroid is available every 2-3 non-smashable planets. That way if players wanted to smash they would be fighting over one planet which could play out very interestingly. I know right now to claim a planet all you have to do is get a teleporter up before your opponent however thats where something like a unit cannon would come into play. Infact it does not need to be a unit cannon either, although it would look epic, it could be a drop ship, or inter-orbital lasers. Just a way to make cracking a planet possible without dozens of nukes and halleys. Basically multi-planet spawns could work quite well, and make some amazing games however measures have to be taken so it is not a straight, orbital fabber race to the nearest moon. In the end we need, a stalemate breaker that can actually create, land battles with regular units aswell as make planetary invasions possible, as of right now all you need is anchor, umbrella, and anti nuke spam to keep you safe against anything the enemy can throw at you. Just my 2 cents, oh and thanks Brad for letting us know whats going on

Oh and thats very true. First it is a challenge to even get an orbital fabber on to the planet, without getting shot down by umbrellas and avengers. And once you get to start a teleporter it is usually taken out instantly by t1 or t2 bombers patrolling the planet. And finally if you do get a teleporter up, it most likley will get insta nuked or rushed by many t2 forces. Teleporters are just not viable at invading a planet as they are just so weak. I hope they get a buff of some sort to even everything out, although I doubt they will be able to withstand a nuke lol. Thats why I think we need a dropship or unit cannon or some sort of multi- unit transport. To make a small clearing on the planet where we can then build a teleporter and rush forces in faster.

Personally I would prefer no metal spots on smashable moons. The fact that they are smashable means they are much easier to defend because of their size. A whole 600 radius or what not planet is a lot harder to defend.

This makes your home planet or base more valuable which I think it should be and not have the easiest planet to defend and win with be a safe haven for the first to rush orbital.

Noooooooooo! Don't take it away! I'll never win again!

-

Discrimination of the unit cannon why is the unit cannon so low priority compared to other units you have already implemented? It is the only promised "big thing" that is not yet in the game. They are so far in the development and still they haven't even implemented a feature that I thought was a massive part of the game. Say what you say, but as a backer from alpha I am disappointed about this...

I feel like PA priorities talks should be more transparent and interactive with the community. Leave it to a poll with multiple select boxes. Who is more qualified to decide the priority of features than the backers? It's not like the devs are making this game to keep for themselves... It would also give us a reason to dust off the rusting backer's forums to boot!

absolutly against it ... the community isnt a developementteam in any way .. no one except for maybe a comparably handful of modders or people who actualy realy are developers or part of a develpmenteam themselves has any idea a of how such gamedevelopement even works ... who are we to dictate the devs what to work on just because some of us spend some 50 bucks on the project?

I don't think you need to be a developer to have an opinion on priorities for features, and being a backer is all you need to have a credible opinion. Obviously if a bug that prevents people from playing shows up or something, stuff like that supersedes priority, but when deciding what new feature is next? We are all as qualified as it gets. Arguably more than the developers themselves. We are the reason they are able to make the game in the 1st place.

Obviously at the end of the day it's Uber employees who make the decisions, but they would be wise to at least make the illusion that backers have some sway.

so you telling me you who have no degree in mechanics for intance are saying just because you gave me a 100 bucks in helping me out making my vision of a car you think you have the right to tell me on what part i have to work on first with ignoring the eventualy more important other stuff ....

a: build the wingdoors first
b: but i have to make the gearbox...
a: i dont care...

sry what? if you have no idea of what matters in developement if you have no idea of such a overall process works your opinion is irrelevant and would just disturb the process ....

Yeah, no way in hell should the community actually be deciding on PA actual mechanics.

straw man much?

It is a bit, but it is certainly true that design by committee is a really really terrible idea in most circumstances.

For what it's worth, seeing how much discussion (some of it heated) that this topic has generated I'm going to push to see if the Vanguards can meet with Uber to discuss this in a bit more depth and report back to you all.

Meantime - keep it civil, folks!

a mere example ... admitedly not the best one but still ..
do you want to the comunity to take the publishers seat? .. i sure dont ... i am a supporter i am not here to tell the devs what to do ... i merely suggest and eventualy like to request a couple of things but that's it ... if and when my suggestions/requests are to be added is and should only be up to the devs themselves .. i have no intention in pushing them into a direction even if my vision of things may or does differ from theirs ...

Word. ^^Looking forward to the report.

Actually, let me correct you a little.

It's Uber *employers* who make the final decisions. Not even the Devs (I presume that they're for the most employees).

Well, but all those discussions are a bit pointless. They will do what it's best in their interest. Let's hope it will in the best interest of the game-play as well So far I have little doubts that it will be any different.

Mainly because if people like Scathis and friends will fail to match expectations on a project so visible, it would be very bad for their reputation.

So, I wish them the best of luck and to find great inspiration. It's in our interest as well.

Actually Uber doesn't have a publisher and their CEO lets them build the game how they think is best. Neutrino, garat, and the other top guys obviously have the biggest say but it's not anything like a normal big game company.

Neutrino just commented in another thread.

Quote in question

As soon as the polish is done, the next layer will be added in before release. I know the term "low priority" comes off as negative or not important, but really it means, "lets finish other critical tasks before we start the Unit cannon task" critical tasks meaning polish. This is how I interpret it.

It sounds better when you say it that way. That's what I wanted to hear, the reason behind their decision.