What's your biggest worry about this game?

That a Game of Dots it may become. In the Game of Dots you either win or you die, but you almost always stay zoomed out.

Getting an army from one planet to another.

That it'll be a game of dots and come to a slow, laggy halt in really long matches ala FA.

I'm fairly confident the team know how to balance RTS games at this point, especially as there will be one race. If they don't get it right at launch they'll get it right with patches eventually.

I'll try to sum it up but google can probably explain it better than I can. There is a difference between well balanced and over balanced. A balanced game is like rock paper scissors, rock > scissors, scissors > paper, and paper > rock. Over balancing comes into play when rock = scissors = paper.

If each unit and structure are balanced to the point of equality then it wouldn't matter what strategy you used it would just come down to a numbers and mico match. I don't think it will get that bad but I do worry about the influence of posts about game balance. The custom/backer commander topics are a good example tho you can find some people pushing for over balancing in the experimental topics as well however it's not as clear cut.

Here is a good reference as well however it takes it from an imbalance pov.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w

I %100 agree with this post. I played TA because it was everything starcraft was not. I want to win the battle because I had the best strategy. Please Please Please no more press X not to die / memorize this build order to win game-play. I can't take any more

My only worry might be wether Uber gets to finish the game.

With all the great ideas about making the game moddable/scalable it would be no problem to create all kind of crazy mods/gameplays.

That it won't have the EDGE that Total Annihilation did.

Also that enemy ai units won't be able to get through narrow passages/will magically pass through one another.

By definition there will always be a most efficient way to do anything. There will be an optimal build order, and it will have to be adopted by anyone who wants to be competitive.

That's not to say that you have to play competitively if course, there are plenty of people who share your point of view so you can play against them. But as long as you have direct control over your units and your economy, there will be people finding ways to make things happen that bit more efficiently.

Biggest Worries for me are.

1, Saving in Multiplayer matches. I love to game, but I also love to not be a single sexless husk of a man and such playing for 8-10 hours straight is not something I can achieve. Plus the fact that my fiance & I have a baby on the way. Without saving I feel i'll be pushed out of the more epic matches.

2, Asteroids/Planets/AA Defenses (Anti-Asteroid) won't be balanced. I also want asteroids to be balanced against Planets in more ways than just using them in battle.

Basically commiting to throwing away a secure portion of the playing field (And his possible income streams) shouldn't be something a smart player would often and to commit to blowing up a planet should be more of a "If I can't have that world you can't either!". But that doesn't mean it should be an IWIN button.

hmmm might be easier if I explain my self in more depth.

1v1 Small Map - 1 Planet, 1 Moon (If they are even in) 5 Asteroids

Planet has 25 Metal Deposits, Moon has 10, Asteroids have 15 between them.

Player A is winning the battle on the Planet has control of 60% of the surface, Player B
commits to delaying tactics so he can resettle on the Moon/Asteroids.

Non-conclusive battles occur as Player A solidifies control on the Planet and Player B takes all other orbital bodies (For the sake of my example Player A's map recognition was a bit poor and so didn't realise Players B's domination of the Asteroids and was positive his final base was on the moon).

Right now for the nitty gritty.

Player A suspecting an Orbital Asteroid Bombardment builds up ICBM sites starting in his main base. Just as Player B starts his Asteroid thruster construction.

If Asteroids are going to be Overpowered game winners. Player B has now more or less won the game all but officially, he just needs build up engines on his Asteroids and launch them all at the single planet.

If Asteroids are going to be Underpowered he could lose up to 60% of his controlled space & Income on a epic but pointless fireworks show.

Asteroids need to be worth the loss in possible Industry/Income. So just like Planets are going to be hard to completely destroy, asteroids should be able to take a fair amount of ICBM damage and do varying amounts of planetary & unit/structure damage depending on the damage the asteroid took. But you should also be able to negate them (Not completely negate mind you, Asteroids should always do damage) with surface launchers

3, That they will pull it off in the timescale they've said. When I saw the Kickstarter video, I did a little man squee.

My first thoughts were "2005 GDC Spore (The non Pre-teen version) & Total Annihilation got together and made awesome"...

I just hope that it will be a success

I have a bad feeling, that Uber like TA more than SupCom and I have opposite. For instance, I believe that tiers in SC (all types, but less powerful) much better that TA's (different units/types on different tiers). TA feels a lot more like starcraft (relatively to supcom, which is totally different from "conventional strategy") with all this dozen different unit types, advanced factories and so on. It's my speculation, so I could be wrong, but I have such feeling.

But as I'm sure I'm not alone, I only wonder about modding capabilities. If something will go wrong, it would be modded.

The game is based on TA over sup com don't you know.

In terms of build orders, TA with a good balance mod does provide a lot more freedom than the Blizzard RTS games, especially considering there are so many types of units you could use and the flexible build time due to the assistance mechanism.

That's a pointless, and arguably base-less statement, are you saying that we should leave Stratzoom out because it wasn't in TA? Both games have Pros and Cons, and the guys at Über worked on both of them and they use whatever elements best contribute towards what they(and to a point we) feel PA should be.

Mike

I am saying that the game will be more like TA then SupCom because it not being designed to be like SupCom.

There is a reason they said TA over SupCom, and so really the argument that features from SupCom are more important then ones from TA is pointless, Strat-zoom is nice addition, but Über are not making SupCom3 here.

First off, I never ever said or implied that PA would or should be SupCom3, second you should also be aware that they aren't making TA2 either and third, I never said that SupCom mechanics/elements were better, I said that Über will choose the best mechanics/elements for PA, whatever game it originates from.

Stop trying trying to put words in my mouth, you're not doing your credibility any favors.

Mike

I only say what you imply.

Stop being a git ign.

I'd really like to see you point out, via complete and intact quotes from MY post, where I "implied" what you say I did.

Here is my post again because I'm sure you didn't actually read it the first time;

Mike

Your not discussing the point anymore.

Nice backpedal.

Mike