On June 15 2013 05:40 Mistapibb wrote: Sorry to digress from the debate, but I was wondering if there is multiplayer, or at least some kind of single player for the game available right now. I'm asking those of you who have paid; is it easy to find a game and make the commitment money worth it so that one can actually test the game?
You can play solo, it's always with AIs but they have a static base without factories
On June 15 2013 03:45 LaNague wrote: its a big deal because they are basically selling their kickstarter funding on the steam main page, im just as annoyed by valve as i am by the game publisher.
And rightfully, a lot of people got annoyed as well.
Aaand why is that bad, exactly? Is that supposed to be unfair for the kickstarter backers or something?
no, its bad because steam is being used as a crowdfunding platform when most people use it as a store that is selling working products. As i said, id like to see it seperated from the main steam store page if valve really must insist on competing with kickstarter like this.
this kickstarter and early access business is prone to abuse and not always working out, sometimes the devs dont even mean to pull a scam but are just not skilled enough to deliver, i really hate to see it on a platform that i previously could trust to not scam me.
kickstarter backers know that they arent making a business decision, but are donating for a game to be made, btw.
On June 15 2013 03:45 LaNague wrote: its a big deal because they are basically selling their kickstarter funding on the steam main page, im just as annoyed by valve as i am by the game publisher.
And rightfully, a lot of people got annoyed as well.
Aaand why is that bad, exactly? Is that supposed to be unfair for the kickstarter backers or something?
no, its bad because steam is being used as a crowdfunding platform when most people use it as a store that is selling working products. As i said, id like to see it seperated from the main steam store page if valve really must insist on competing with kickstarter like this.
this kickstarter and early access business is prone to abuse and not always working out, sometimes the devs dont even mean to pull a scam but are just not skilled enough to deliver, i really hate to see it on a platform that i previously could trust to not scam me.
kickstarter backers know that they arent making a business decision, but are donating for a game to be made, btw.
Steam officially supports the usage of Steam as a crowdfunding platform. Why else would you pay to play the alpha version of a game?
as i said, i blame valve too. But we three wont get anywhere with this as our opinions stand, so lets clear the field for people who have gameplay to discuss.
This game looks awesome, for those who have tested it already, is there different "factions" and how big is the batelfield actually (one planet and a few moons,several planets and lots of moons)
So is it donations/funding or are you just buying product at exorbitant prices on KS? The whole concept is getting muddled now.
sort of both ... you buy the game but are also further supporting it finacianaly ... so yes you can consider it funding beyond the kickstarter as alpha and beta are progressing till release ...
no, its bad because steam is being used as a crowdfunding platform when most people use it as a store that is selling working products. As i said, id like to see it seperated from the main steam store page if valve really must insist on competing with kickstarter like this.
then it´s an issue with people not beeing propperly informed ... which is a problem rather made by valve
valve could´ve put it on a site that further supports games that are still in the making ... i don´t think they are competing with kickstarter instead they continue the funding campaign ... and honestly ... i kinda don´t find it wrong ... i just wished they would put in the other perks aswell not just alpha ...
On June 15 2013 20:05 zbedlam wrote: Anyone that has played this and FA forever that can tell me if/why it is better?
it´s not like SupCom it´s more like total annihilation .. you can´t upgrade stuff but tech up through building specific factories and use the various buildertypes to build the more advanced stuff .. the biggest difference in this game compared to both its predeccesors is that it will have an additional layer of battle wich will be the orbital plane this means you will be able to build orbital structures and units that first require a rocketlaunchplatform to go into space but you will stay in the orbit of a planet ... though you will be able to land on moons, asteroids and differend types of planets depending on how the solarsystem you fight in is set up ... currently this stuff isn´t in yet so we´ll see how it play like... on it´s current state it feels very similar to TA just that you are on a spherical battlefield and have the strategic zoom stuff from SupCom in it ... no shields and experimentals in ... yet ... i like it so far ...
i put on some videos on page 3 you may take a look at ...
Thanks for the response, will check out videos. Doesn't sound bad at all but I'll wait for a more finished product before I pass judgement.
SupCom and TA rather similar though :p
edit: Not sure if I'm keen on the strategic view, doesn't seem like an easy way to see everything that is going on without scrolling all the way around the world. Going to be interesting to see how they deliver information to the player about whats happening outside his field of view.
minimaps as far as i heard won´t be a thing... though you will be able to put up multiple widows for multiple viewpoints...mutimonitors will also be possible and here is quite a big intresting feature ... ChonoCam ...this allows you to rewind the game like a replay while playing beeing able to see what happened on a specific time on a viewpoint you choose and then go back to actual match as it continues..
I'm really interested to see if the Starcraft community takes to this game. I've watched a couple of their live streams of gameplay and it looks really fun, and really different from traditional RTS games in a lot of ways. Blizzard hasn't really had much competition in the RTS field for a long time (LoL and DotA aren't RTS games).
On June 15 2013 23:56 MrTBSC wrote: minimaps as far as i heard won´t be a thing... though you will be able to put up multiple widows for multiple viewpoints...mutimonitors will also be possible and here is quite a big intresting feature ... ChonoCam ...this allows you to rewind the game like a replay while playing beeing able to see what happened on a specific time on a viewpoint you choose and then go back to actual match as it continues..
Actually, they were saying they're planning on trying out minimaps in some of the upcoming builds of the game, although it's not exactly a priority so it will probably be a while before we see it. But Mavor was saying, at least theoretically, that he'd like to do some kind of minimap. Although I can't imagine how that will work with multiple spherical planets being represented on a 2D map. Maybe it will be some kind of thing where it shows one planet at a time, and you can choose which type of map projection you want to use.
On June 29 2013 08:23 ChristianS wrote: I'm really interested to see if the Starcraft community takes to this game. I've watched a couple of their live streams of gameplay and it looks really fun, and really different from traditional RTS games in a lot of ways. Blizzard hasn't really had much competition in the RTS field for a long time (LoL and DotA aren't RTS games).
the general problem between those games is games like total annihilation SupCom and Planetary annihilation are all about macro .. basicly you build up you economy build numbers of units weak or very powerfull and steamroll your enemy with them .. in starcraft you do the same with the difference that all your units are weak AND powerfull depending on how exacty you use them .. and they are rather limited so you can´t just throw them into a general direction ..
another huge difference - units in TA, SupCom and PA behave almost like their RL Parts .. swarms of interceptors and airsupperiorty fighters are hard to control once in battle cause they start to fly arround try to dodge enemy fire by themselfs it´s quite a nightmare to select your interceptors and single enemy flyers to attack midbattle while gunships are more responsive once the are near a targed they start rotating around it ships like battleships or destroyers while very powerfull are not only slow but also have very slow turnrates..so it takes longer for them to get to a position to launch fire .. in starcraft every flying unit is basicly a floating gunship/hovercraft equivalent to the groundunits all of them move rather quick and have very short turnrates .. which alows them to be more responsive.. on the flipside almost all units in Starcraft have to stop moving in order to fire .. while in TA SupCom and PA almost all units can fire while moving ..
what else? behavior of warheads and gunfire .. TA, SupCom and PA use semi-realistic physics this means almost any gunfire is dodgeable be it artilery missiles or laserbeams and deppending on tarrain can be blocked by trees walls and cliffs .. in starcraft on the other hand almost any normal fire hits unless it´s a spellcastertype projectile .. best example siegetanks in siege mode .. you don´t see a projectile beeing fired from it .. it fires and basicly insta hits with any delay of impact no matter where the enemy unit stands you don´t even see a balistic flightpath of the projectile ..
TL, DR: depends on the preference on scale..the bigger the scale the more redundant unitmicro becomes in TA, SupCom and PA the scale grows exponentionaly with time progressing..this means mirco is only important at the very early stages of a match..once there are hundreds of units roaming around single mircobattles become rather insignificant .. i wonder how players would like a starcraft that has the eco- building- and physicsystem from TA but the scale, UI and unit responsivness of SC ..
.. one thing i also wondered about starcraft is if there ever is a drawcondition.. in TA, SupCom and PA your general mission is to destroy your opponents commander .. it can sometimes happen that there is a Comm on Comm battle with the possibility of both comms being severely weakened .. so it can happen that when one commander is destroyed while the other is near him the other commander is destroyed aswell due to the damage caused by a commanders deathnuke which ends up with both players losing their comm and the match into a draw .. would the same happen in starcraft if say two players had just a weakened raven launching seekermissiles that would destroy each other? ..
PA 3v3 teamplay drawsituation skip to 2:10 for epic BOOM (short explanation bout teamplay: 2 or more commanders per team - Commanders share Eco and army which is different then alliance where each commander has his own Eco and army)
On June 15 2013 23:56 MrTBSC wrote: minimaps as far as i heard won´t be a thing... though you will be able to put up multiple widows for multiple viewpoints...mutimonitors will also be possible and here is quite a big intresting feature ... ChonoCam ... this allows you to rewind the game like a replay while playing beeing able to see what happened on a specific time on a viewpoint you choose and then go back to actual match as it continues..
Actually, they were saying they're planning on trying out minimaps in some of the upcoming builds of the game, although it's not exactly a priority so it will probably be a while before we see it. But Mavor was saying, at least theoretically, that he'd like to do some kind of minimap. Although I can't imagine how that will work with multiple spherical planets being represented on a 2D map. Maybe it will be some kind of thing where it shows one planet at a time, and you can choose which type of map projection you want to use.
yeah they mentioned something on their last livestream .. iirc populous 3 did something at least for one planet .. maybe that could work .. but who knows ..
Starcraft has draw conditions. Since you have to kill all enemy buildings instead of killing the enemy commander(s), any scenario in which both sides have buildings but nobody can rebuild their economy or kill the opponent. The obvious scenarios are when one side has no ability to mine or produce, and they kill off a Terran who floats one building to the corner. It can also happen if the Terran has enough air forces that the enemy can't kill their remaining building. But it can also happen without any Terrans in the game, for instance in a crazy ZvZ where nobody has drones or 50 minerals, and both sides have enough spines to defend their hatchery. I think the actual programmed conditions are that if nobody mines minerals or gas, produces a unit or structure, or kills an enemy unit or structure for like 5 minutes or something, the game goes to a draw.
Obviously TA, SupCom, and PA are a lot more macro focused than Starcraft, and don't allow for micro very much. But PA is going to have to appeal to some of the SC community, I think, if it's going to be a significant name because RTS isn't that big a genre to start with, and the vast majority of RTS players are connected to the Starcraft community in one way or another.
On June 15 2013 03:45 LaNague wrote: its a big deal because they are basically selling their kickstarter funding on the steam main page, im just as annoyed by valve as i am by the game publisher.
And rightfully, a lot of people got annoyed as well.
Imo, they should just have offered 3 offers on steam, with pre-order at 40$ being the first presented on the store. Then in it, show other options at 60 and 80 for pre-order + beta or pre-order + beta + alpha. In the end it's the same but it would have probably helped the massive hate/wtf that were the forums when this game was offered on steam.
Or maybe just skip the alpha offer at 80$ on steam, or reduce it and offer other stuff for KS backers at this price point. Or steam should make a separate crowdfunding section.
Looks like a very bad first time experience to potential buyers to me.
On June 15 2013 03:45 LaNague wrote: its a big deal because they are basically selling their kickstarter funding on the steam main page, im just as annoyed by valve as i am by the game publisher.
And rightfully, a lot of people got annoyed as well.
Imo, they should just have offered 3 offers on steam, with pre-order at 40$ being the first presented on the store. Then in it, show other options at 60 and 80 for pre-order + beta or pre-order + beta + alpha. In the end it's the same but it would have probably helped the massive hate/wtf that were the forums when this game was offered on steam.
Or maybe just skip the alpha offer at 80$ on steam, or reduce it and offer other stuff for KS backers at this price point. Or steam should make a separate crowdfunding section.
Looks like a very bad first time experience to potential buyers to me.
Hope they are better developers than marketers
that´s exactly what they wanted actualy ... if you visit the uberstore you see offers for all be it alpha or beta accses or a prerelease order... i heard steam don´t put stuff in that ain´t close to release ... currently alpha is running therefore the early acces offer ... i imagine once the game is in beta steam will have a beta accses sale ... i personaly don´t see the developers at fault ... it´s steam who manage their sales on there side if they chose to put them in.. not the devs or puplishers ... in other words valve themselves caused the hate on uberent.
generaly people get pissed because they don´t understand, and more often then not they don´t even bother doing research .. they basicly insist on beeing uninformed ...
... don't allow for micro very much
not true ... the physiksystem of the warheads and the fact that units can fire while moving itself already allows far more micromanagement.. for example micromanging kbots allow running cycles around a tank ... kbots constantly hit while tank misses ..just add active specialabbilities to them .. the thing is that micro is rather redundant in mid to late game ..
In Supreme Commander mid to late game they added experimentals and tier 3 squads of various kinds to promote micro. Units that matter once economy moves past the spam of weak units. Drops of weak units are often good even late game.
Micro loses importance late game because it is too hard to do everything at once, not because it doesn't matter. In the large battles micro isn't all that important after positioning and one or two important units, same as in SC2.
PA needs to do something similar to make late game units more important than throw aways.
"A needs to do something similar to make late game units more important than throw aways."
probably this is what you mean .. they have to make t1 units still viable late game .. they do this by limiting the techtree to 2 tiers make t2 expensive but not too powerful that there would be a big gab in power like say in supcom fa between t1 to t3 bcause that was quite rediciulous .. experimentals while micromanageable were actualy to powerful and being offen countered by your own TX or T3 spam didn´t realy add much to strategy and tactics of the game and experimentals like in supcom 2 don´t make even sence since they were pretty much the T2 of that game .. 2 tiers can be better balanced imo .. they should realy avoid to add to much unitlayers of power into the game .. i do hope they also don´t add to much into orbital but just production,transportation and scouting then offensiv or defensiv units ..
Micro loses importance late game because it is too hard to do everything at once, not because it doesn't matter
no body says that micro doesn´t matter at all..for one there always will be some micro depending on the unit you use...your commander itself with it´s importance and ubergun is basicly a microunit ... it´s just that micro becomes less important the more units are available on the battlefield since as you already said it becomes significanly difficult to manage multiple smaller teams or squads then putting them all in one big platoon ...
I'm in the alpha, it's an amazing game. I'm a five time masters, first two hots w toss last three wol terran. I love starcraft but it's going to fall to the waste side. This game is too epic. My highest sc2 match was 8 base vs 8 base at masters level and it doesn't even hold a candle to this planetary annihilation game and galactic play isn't even in alpha yet. If cheese annoys you switch, because in this game it's harder to cheese than to hold the cheese. I'm living every second of planetary annihilation. I hope blizzard takes some notes from these guys, because till I can have a 200000 main army, harrassing armies in the hundreds all at different spots, launching reinforcements from the moon, I'm not comming back to sc2 seriously. It seems pathetic and childish in comparison, and I loved sc2. Never in a million years did I think another rts would top it, but this has. I can't wait for galactic warfare and planetary destruction mu ha ha ha picked out the perfect screen name for this game to, that is gaurnteed to be mine since I'm in the alpha.........judicatorofgenocide mu ha ha ha plus having the masters sc2 background makes it so ready to out micro and macro your opponents lol, no one has figured out concaves are good yet its so funny, as of right now the quickest I've taken over a WHOLE PLANET is 26 minutes.....that's epic so the game length doesn't have to be outrageously long, I'm think in when in is put in I'll be able to destroy whole planets in 40 minutes to an hour.......I've had 40 plus minute games in sc2 where I never got over 130 units and I sure as hell didn't destroy a planet.......blizz is gonna have to step up there game if they want me buying lov or
EPT
