What's your biggest worry about this game?

My two biggest concerns are certain aspects of the game being dominant to the point of being a no win if not focused on. The example would be air in FA being so critical that losing the ASF war usually meant losing the game with no counter but more ASF.

On a more meta note I worry that mass fabricators being too cheap/efficient will lead to eco spam instead of fighting over territory. Sup Com 2 had this issue and many larger games turned into spamming mass makers and experimentals. I do enjoy the large end game but it needs some tweaking to keep it active.

My biggest worry is that I bought into this as an alternative to the F2P crap that EA is releasing as the next Generals game. I'm a massive fan of the CnC style of RTS, Generals, RA2/YR, and those lot. I don't care for Starcraft or Age of Empires style RTS, and I worry that these games may become like those?

Over-abundance of resource types to manage is one issue I have with a lot of RTS games (like AoE and others).

I worry that (probably needlessly) that the game play will be too narrow and encourage only one or two ways of succesfully overrunning solar systems.

I think terrain and resources plus exotic weather/space conditions etc could determine whether its is possible to use experimentals or certain WMD weapons in a given theater/planet, space station etc.
Some theaters will suit long range defence and you will have to crack heavy defenses turtling. That is as it should be when facing entrenched enemies in a suitable landscape.
Effective Defenses are slow and expensive to build so they should be commensuratley diffcicult to overhwelm.
Others will require running battles between dynamic unit dominant defenses and blitzkreig attacks by fast insertion units.
SOme will need a balance of both.
But the nature of the environment should determine what kind of units, attacks and even defense is possible. Tactics should rely on strategic options whihc are determined by the nature of the theater you are fighting in.
That will keep the game play diverse enough to suit many different playing styles adn stop players getting bogged down in one size fits all approach.

To be blunt, I'd rather not see this game hobbled just because you can't be bothered to keep pace with technology.

Most computer users (even those with a budget) tend upgrade their gear every six to 12 months to take advantage of both new hardware and lower prices as the bleeding edge hardware is being surpassed by something better. Even a medium range prebuilt system can be purchased for under $700, decent video card upgrades for $70-150 and hard drives are currently being given away with the advent of modern RAM drives.

Hence if you want to play a game, you should be willing to keep pace with the rest of us, even if its a little behind everyone else.

-Resin

My biggest fear is that the game will be a APM test, not a test of strategic choices and battlefield tactics. Click-to-win is not the game I want to play, we have Starcraft for that, and I hate Starcraft!
My other big fear is that 99% of games will be one planet 15 minute rush fests, and the BIG game will be virtually unplayed.
This leads right into my final fear, that the game will be too big, and take too long to complete. Virtually no one wants to play 10 hour games, so ideally we want some way to make endgame achievable after 2-3 hours. How? I have no idea...!

That attitude constitutes the worst part of PC gaming, especially during a recession.

You should be ashamed of yourself for saying that.

No, I'm sorry, I agree with Resinsmoker.

You can't expect to play a cutting edge game on 5 year-old hardware, nor should you expect the game developers to cater to the lowest level of hardware, that just makes a game unable to benefit from the advances in technology, one the main BENEFITS of PC gaming.

It's like asking a game developer to only release PS2 games, because you can't afford a PS3.

I see no reason why the scaling level of graphics and AI should not be able to support both low and high end machines. Making units visually distinctive at all levels should be the most important thing, and from there, you can hash everything else out.

There's no good reason a game should not be playable on both a budget and a high-end computer, nowadays.

I'm sure you could always just turn the graphics down to lower settings. And I agree, it sucks that some people can't afford top end PCs, but developer's aren't going to purposefully make an uglier game because of that.
However, Resinsmoker's attitude comes off a little wrong, since he's basically criticizing him for not being able to afford a top end PC. It isn't his fault he can't "keep pace with the rest of us." That's a pretty dumb thing to say. $700 can be a lot of money in some situations. Also, I highly doubt "most" computer users update their hardware every half a year to year.

The biggest worry I can think of ATM would be whether or not Galactic War would just be a series of regular Skirmish missions or something different. I'm not saying it will be, but if it was like that, it would make it A LOT less interesting. Hopefully Uber can find away around that.

This is a concern for me, too.

I'm also really hoping the units are able to deal with differences in terrain height. There is nothing like watching 2 armies shooting the ground endlessly (or a hill) with no hope of actually hitting each other.

Stuart

Well remember we're talking planets here. A truly "realistic" scale would be woefully impractical.

Honestly I'd be generally happy with even the relatively basic graphics in the intro vid, ideally with some added texture/polygon detail. That said, I agree too "cartoony" is a big no, but I'm not too concerened about that given what we've seen from Uber so far.

I'm worried about little kids making horrible suggestions without thoroughly thinking of the consequences of them.

My biggest worry is that the game will be too slow. I recently picked up SupCom for cheap and while I'm not even halfway through, one of my complaints is that there's a lot of "click and wait" so far. I'll select a bunch of units, zoom out as to the global map, tell them to move somewhere, then proceed to do busy work until they finally get wherever they're going.

Now granted I don't want to have to micro such that it takes the game away from overarching strategy, but things should have a certain flow and a degree of time pressure to them. A notch or two slower than Starcraft 2 would be ideal for me.

In a nutshell: Not so fast that the game eventually narrows to a half-dozen effective strategies, but not so slow and event-less that you're constantly switching from dynamic general to desk-jockey quartermaster.

You're playing against the AI aren't you?

Why? First I doubt many little kids back kickstarter campaigns. Second, this game isn't being designed by committee. We're backers, not shareholders. The devs can do whatever they see fit, and if a suggestion is dumb I'd hope they'd reject it.

Mine is that players will get bogged down in micromanagement. I don't want to have to touch each of x# of cities on each of Y# of planets to configure their production & Tax rates, et cetera every turn. I stopped buying civ games because it was just more of the same.

Games also need a different tech advancement paradigm; the tech tree (in general) is too predictable. Possibly randomize discoveries?

Expansions, sequels, DLCs, and patches can be ruined by bad ideas that get implemented.

The layman is terrible at understanding the difference between causes and symptoms. They often see symptoms as causes, and then pose band-aid solutions without actually fixing the problem.

In the single-player campaign, yeah. Single-player AI is one of the core ways I judge RTS games. I'm not expecting it to be as good as a human, but if I can lose my entire assault force with the enemy intact and still have time to get bored, there's a problem.

Against a competent opponent theres always plenty to do.