Wargaming acquired TA IP.

And to be slightly back on topic, that's exactly my original point.
FA system is more complex to learn but make sense, and also allow a great liberty at balancing.
PA system is less complex to learn, make sense, but restrict liberty for balancing.

The problem is how people will react to it. Obviously we already bought the game, so we are not the guys that need to be convinced.

Let's say you have to convince starcraft gamers. Does the system is easy enough for them now, with that change ? Will it prevent them to crash their eco badly the first 10 games ? Probably not.

Let's say you have to convince FA gamers now. They will probably see it like a unwanted simplification and will reject it by default, even if it's good (and it's probably is, if Uber manage to balance the game around it, I have my doubts for that .
And, managing the biggest TA/FA-like community (after these forums probably), I can tell you it's the general feeling (for those who did not support PA, a vast majority).

So, finally, what is the purpose of the change ? That's what I've understood from CT quote, and that's probably why supcom2 failed that bad.

People will learn, or they won't; as was with TA and SupCom, so shall it be again with PA.

Yeps, exactly. So having an extra layer of complexity isn't THAT bad. You are already playing the game because it's complex, so it's not like your mind is not in the right set for that already.

PA simplification is good ONLY if it doesn't affect balancing.

Well said. But I'd say the compromise makes sense, since that extra layer of complexity does not seem worth it, and I think it will pay off.

And of course, the ONLY way to balance something is to alter its cost, right?
Science forbid that you try altering any other attribute!
:roll:

Okay, so you're saying it's impossible for air to cost less metal and more energy in PA? That it's impossible for naval to have longer build times?

Why not just decrease air factory mass expenditure and increase air factory energy expenditure?

Why not keep naval units at a similar hp&dps/mass&energy but just make them more powerful and therefore more expensive, and therefore take longer to build?

to be honest, thepilot and nanolathe are quite stubborn here xD

to be fair, FA's eco system is not failure, it is working perfectly. this is a point nanolathe has to accept. But I admit its a little harder for newbies to know, when they need how much eco to build something.

In PA it will be easier, to track the energy cost down, as you will know 1 engy, that means X energy. 10 engies means 10X and 54 engies means 54X energy. This IS simpler. Same for mass, afaik, right? And then build time is perfectly mass cost / (mass rate * number of engineer) Of course then there are different engineers, that have different rates. which means its not perfectly easy either, but even if there are 6-8 different engineer types with different rates, it will still be easier than 50 different units/buildings with all different rates. This is for Zepilot to accept.

I never accused FA's system of being broken, nor of failing. It's just an arbitrary, gamey system, which I happen to dislike.

Once more, i am forced to post this:

The difference between depth and complexity

To summarise, depth is generally good as it brings about the interesting choices that we all look for in games. Complexity is less good as it requires additional thought, memory and reactions in order to accomplish the same goals. The only reason to add complexity, is that it can provide more opportunity for depth.

The SC/FA system was undoubtedly more complex. However, as lordq has just pointed out, much of the depth that this additional complexity bought can still be created in this more simple system. The original SC/FA system, adds little additional depth over the less complex alternative. It is a poor value proposition, and one that it appears the majority of people here (who are also people who enjoy SC/FA), are happy to move on from. The current system is a sensible compromise, and one that I'm glad that Uber has made.

Just a suggestion, chaps, do we want to continue this discussion here?

After 64 pages, I think we have all had our fill.

Exactly. As energy cost and build time are derived from the mass cost, you can't do that in PA.

And engineers? Also, it break the original premise : only mass cost of units & build power if the fabricators matter. If you change that, you are back to FA system, but amputated from some features.

Actually, after Uber proposition, I've though "Oh it's smart, and doable in FA !"
So I've tried to see how it can be adapted in FA.
After some researches and play around, I came to the conclusion that it will render the balancing a nightmare I don't want to deal with.

I "accept" this. But you still have to compute stuff. Or display it in the interface. So overall, if it's in the interface for PA and FA (it's not there YET for PA and not perfect for FA but I'm working on it), and not by yourself, it's not really different.

Of course it's not only mass cost of units and mass consumption of fabricators and factories that matter. Energy matters too. The key difference is that each factory and fabber unit can only spend a certain amount of resources. Which, if you want to do balancing, can be easily changed, but only for each fabber or factory. And haha no, it's not as needlessly complex as FA.

And engineers? Have you looked at any playthroughs of PA? Engineers are not cost effective at assisting factories.

Can we get back on topic....any ways why was uber the next backer for ta copyrights??!!

He claimed it is complicated, but he would have released to public the ta source code.

They would have probably also used it somehow commercially, they aren't only a charity after all. I understand and appreciated his sentiment about releasing ta source code though, the old isn't useful for them to sit on so why not, they are nice for that. I'm sure the use of the words and names and story from ta was probably of use to them in pa.

thepilot you now many can,t understood you!
I do, like most off us,but iff you done FaForever when no 1 belive, maybe thats the reason wy many not understand you :lol:

:shock: :lol: am I the only one seeing this?

The irony was not lost on me either.

Ahh I see..I feel uber starting a new franchise is the best step instead of ever buying ta rights. Often times sequels never live up to the original and it's best to start from scratch and just be a spiritual successor. I still was hoping ct would finish kings and castles instead of doing another ta type game..I feel pa will satisfy our SCI fi needs enough