Unit diversity in PA

I'm sure that Uber has a lot of ideas for new units, both their own and things we've suggested on the forums. But if I was running things I wouldn't tell us about them either. If Uber tells us they're planning to put something in the game and then either cannot do it or decide not to, people are gonna be pissed. People are also gonna bug them constantly about "When will X unit be added?". Case in point, the Unit Cannon; Uber is pestered about the Unit Cannon basically every time they interact with the community. Imagine how upset people will be if the Unit Cannon is cut for technical reasons? It's definitely in their best interest to wait to reveal something until it's actually being implemented.

Balance is always in flux, so there's no reason not to start now, even if we don't have the full roster. Adding a unit to a well balanced game is much easier than trying to slot something in when everything is out of whack, IMO. By your argument, Uber shouldn't even attempt it until they're pressing disks for release. And in this day and age, games are never really "finished". Blizzard was still making balance changes and adding content a decade after the release of Diablo II.

I feel that the only thing Uber "owes" us is a finished game, and they've made great progress towards this goal. Every few weeks we get a patch that adds new features, units, and bug fixes. Everything else is icing on the cake. Just letting us watch the live streams of the internal dev tests is a pretty big deal. Maybe next time they have one you should join in and ask a few questions? They won't (and can't) answer every question of course, but they always do their best. You might not like the answers, but at the end of the day, it's their game, and the only vision that really and truly matters is their's. We can make suggestions and voice our opinions and concerns, but nothing entitles us to anything more than that.

It needs fab towers that autopatrol!
Also one orbital entry only Space to Planet Fighter!
Commander needs customization! (yeah, that's actually not something pressing, but probably easy)
Bunkers! (t1 survives 'small' weapons, like a nuke, t2 survives an asteroid impact unless directly hit) upon 'explosion' 1-5 repair bots spawn and whichever two? units you had inside, alternatively the fab bots could be part of the process (building it automagically builds them too, but they can't be removed) also it should not be discoverable by a radar/satellite, this would, on larger maps (more planets) offer interesting strategic options.
They should be super expensive, at least the t2 one, also really not pressing or even needed at all in the game!
But would fit the canon of such a game very well.

I can see your point, but the unit cannon was in the kickstarter video is it's a bit of a special case. For any other ideas perhaps a disclaimer that these are just ideas would be enough to cover their butts?

Don't get me started on Diablo 3. That can be held up as an example for the worst implementation of a game / design / community interaction in gaming history. The devs reaction to the public reception is what make me boycot Blizzard forever.

Last stream Brad made a thread for our questions. Mine was the 2nd or 3rd post in that thread. They didn't even look at it during the stream. It wasn't for lack of trying on my part, believe me...

There's a lot of suggestion that more units will fix the current issues.

I disagree.

The reason we see mass spam of few units is because all the units right now are too useful at everything. The main culprit is bots: fast, reasonable armour more than capable fire power. The only thing bots are susceptible too is bombers and an easy counter to bombers is fighters. This stands to reason that all a player needs to win is a tonne of bots and fighters. YAY 2 units! Adding new units isn't going to be the answer either; For example if we add a specific bot killer unit to counter the uber useful bots it is not going to fix the issue because bots are still good at killing bots and a bot killer will only be useful at killing bots making it less useful than just building bots.

What I'd like to see is all the units that are currently there get balanced in a way to make them all useful, now. I'd like to see units pushed to the extreme. Bots should remain agile but be lighter. Tanks should be heavier and faster in a forward direction, but slow to turn making them great at storming down defences head on but not good at stopping raiding parties on the outskirts. Someone earlier had the idea of diversifying AA between bots and tanks. This makes perfect sense and adds more reasons to build both bot and vehicle factories. In fact if tanks become the major base raiding unit then maybe they shouldn't have an AA unit type at all. bots can then be the utility units that support a large dps tank blob.

Another thing to consider when balancing units is how they react to terrain. Right now there is no thought from players as to what to build depending of if it's rough, flat, mountainous etc. Players are building the same combination of units on every terrain type. This is not how it should be imo.

I think when you add new unit, balance changes really significantly. you have a lot of new unit interactions with every another unit, assuming they are at least somewhat complicated

This is true.

If a new unit doesn't significantly change balance, chances are it isn't a good unit.

Or players haven't figured out how to use the unit to its true potential.

Maybe. But you'd have to be WAY more cleverer than the average player to pull off such a feat. That sort of talent doesn't fall from trees.

Some sort of obscure timing attack might come up, of course. But if that's the only thing the new unit is good for, the new unit just isn't that good.

I'm reading this forum for some time now and I really feel the need to just say a few things.
I am so f***ing pissed when every time someone has some critique points on the game or makes some suggestions for things to change or implement, there is ALWAYS within the first few replies some Uber fanboy condemning every point with just one standard reply.

Yeah the game isn't finished...guess what? We know! But why the hell is that a reason to not criticize the current game. It is helping the game to become better by pointing out stuff that isn't perfect and maybe should be changed or improved. Also the argument everything is subject to change is bull****. Just one example we had one of the biggest threads in this forum about the subject of maybe changing the unit scale and as far as I remember a majority in the poll related with the thread was for the change. Does anybody believe Uber is going to change this, after releasing more and more units keeping the current scale?

If Uber has a vision fine. If they don't want to share it with us thats also there problem.
But to say then, like multiple people did in various discussions, that because we don't know Ubers vision we're not allowed to criticize the game is unbelievably stupid.

Thats my point and please for the love of god spare me that welcome to the forum bull****.
It contributes nothing to the discussion and I've read it often enough.

P.S. Don't get me wrong thats not primarily a critique on the game or Uber, just how some people act on this forum annoys me as ****.

Well. Yes and not. Not exactly.

Uber proposed a product on Kickstarter. They documented it in details. Of course it is reasonable to accept changes in the course of work. But those needs to be reasonable, and not far away from what we have been promised.

Otherwise, to bring an example to the extreme, would you be happy to finance and support an RTS and get as final product a Racing game? Of course not. You would feel cheated.

Now, Uber is doing a great job and PA is awesome already. I have a ton of fun playing it and I'm not particularly anxious to suggest anything in particular. I'm fine with lot of things. And I trust Uber will make PA shining.

Therefore I do not feel like bitching about the actual status of the game, 'cos the game is being made wonderfully. Also, at Uber they seem quite attentive to what's happening in here, on the forum. That's very good.

But to say that at Uber they do not owe anything to the people who financed their idea, it would be equally wrong. Uber owe those people something. Of course they do. It is a matter of moral integrity.

Without people who believed in them, they wouldn't be here either. Of course, we believed in them thanks to their talent, the fascinating concept they showed us, and the gorgeous trailer that demonstrated what they were aiming for.

And that is what we expect them to realize, nothing less, indeed.

The Community, specially the people who pledged on Kickstarter, have legit rights to express their voice. Uber has a moral obligation to listen, at least.

ps. Insurmountable technical problems aside. It may happen that something we've been promised isn't achievable. If that the case I wouldn't be mad with Uber. That could be fine, but in that case I would expect them to sincerely explain and justify. That would be enough.

Amen! I try to play devils advocate most of the time and if there was such a think as a "hate" button beside the like button I'm sure I'd be breaking records because of it! lol

You (and others) are completely free to criticise the game just as others are completely free to not think it's as big a deal as you do, or outright disagree with you.

Getting angry and venting in a non-specific nor productive way however, doesn't do anyone any good.

(though you are free to do so, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously)