Is SOMETHING wrong with supcom 2, and what is it?

[:1]You have any issues while playing supcom2?
do you feel like something is missing, or wrong\?
Do you think that you have a good idea that HAS TO be in the game
say so here!|||bioemerl|||Quote:|||Point he is making is that some things can completely wreck you unless you get a counter in time. Especially minor experimentals are hard to counter unless scouted. There are indeed some things that cant be countered, but that is only on high level play. Still, for people who dont know EXACTLY what theyre doing, a simple megalith rush or ACU rush is very very frustrating. Things like that have soft counters, but really lack a hard counter that can be produced in time. Thats in the end all design choices, that some people like and others dont. Definately distantiates the game from its predecessor, but hey, lets not go over that again..|||yeah 1v1 in supcom 2 is actually GREAT
unfortunatly there is still more to supcom than 1v1, just look at a 4v4 game, it seems like most of them are won by a single unit mass reproduced, while fun, I belive supcom should enforce you to put some diversity. Im thinking alot that it is the scale of everything now.
I get what your saying about flow eco, but ive found spring to be a very unsettleing game, I dont know how exactly to say it, but you have to play supcom FA to get the true feeling, download the demo. The main reason i say that is that you have much more ability to controll your economy. "oh crap they have a nuke" proceeds to tell EVERYTHING to build that nuke defence, or missle.
(im working on my grammer, sorry about all my errors, Im a sloppy person when it comes to periods, and other things)
Id like the devs to note that in the next game (without FIVE recources id really like to see flow eco again it makes your games original GPG)|||First off, in FA, large games were 55% ASF spam and the other 40% was eco spam with 5% being other stuff. Unless of course, "no air, no nukes, 2x res" was on. So the problem of "spam 1 unit, win the game" exists in both games.
Also, if you really play FA, you will know that assisting anti-nukes is pointless unless you have monstrous legions of engies to spare. And if you do, may God help the pathfinder. So your statement about putting everything into building anti-nukes only applies to building the structure, not the missile.
Also, FA has no demo and the vanilla demo was lame.|||Well, in supcom 2 we can consider there to be at least 10 resources. These include mass, energy, rp, time, space, attention, build power, initiative, units and unit experience. Space for example, becomes more and more restricted as the game progresses. Build power is the sum of your ability to convert the other resources into units. Initiative relates to your ability to use your units to gain the other resources and deny them to your opponent. Having a flow economy alters these conversions qualitatively but not quantitatively.
I don't think either pay up front or flow is better. However with pay up front you tend to pay attention to a cost at the moment it is applied. In flow econ you have to consider the cost for its entire duration of application. This obviously takes attention away from the battlefield and makes the learning curve that bit steeper.
In my opinion GPG haven't got the transition from basic units to experimentals quite right and don't have quite enough diversity in the basic units. The relative cost between the two unit types is just a little high. The economics of the game might seem more fluid with the ability to build more, less productive mexes for cheaper. It also seems strange to me that they are limited entirely to land.|||FA 4v4's: Side players rush experimentals, back player goes ASF spam, Front player goes heavy T1 spam to get the reclaim then rushes an experimental.
EVERY TIME.|||X-Cubed|||spuddyt|||Yes, there was Thermo too. Oh wait, those 2 maps make up 90% of 4v4 games.|||Yscgun|||X-Cubed|||im just saying, dont turn this into a troll war!
i just feel like supcom2 has gotten boring, and is now missing something. Trying to figure out what. supcom 2 is a great game aside the point, but .....
now im feeling that i should never have said this, ill think on my own, can someone lock this?|||Why lock it? because Cygnus got in? Please, there nothign wrong with ignoring that guy and carrying on.
Myself, I got bored of SC2 after I realized I do practically the same thing every game, build lots of the same tank and crush the enemy. Admittedly this was never in rank or anything, but I have no interest in ranked, so it'll never be accounted for in my opinions.
Mike|||As troll said, you dont HAVE to spam the same tank all the time. You just CHOOSE to because its the easiest thing to do, and frankly, the most effective for how much APM you put into it. So while there may be a problem in gameplay (some strategies being encouraged a bit too much), it may also be a problem in mindset, as people dont like to try new things. Uncertaincat, for example, always managed to come up with exciting weird strategies, effective or not.|||FA 4v4s: I nuke everyone on my team, then I nuke everyone on the other team|||_PINK|||_PINK|||wow, did he do that out of hate for his team or for 4v4 games?
well, since the community wishes, returning title to original form|||I think there are a few things wrong with FA and SupCom2. Both games are very enjoyable and to me have fewer flaws than most. A game that is the combination of the best features must be waiting for us a few years down the line. Kings and Castles may be the fantasy version but I'm even more excited about the tanks, ships and planes that will hopefully be in a further out title.|||I'm joining the 'SC2 only needs minor tweaks' camp, I think. FA made some huge fundamental mistakes that couldn't be corrected without completely re-evaluating the role and stats of every unit in the game (or at least all those above T1), while SC2 really only needs a few units and techs shifted in cost and/or effectiveness to make them viable and balanced.
With Neph's mod, I don't feel like there's any particular unit or strategy that's too desirable nor any that are not worth using at all. Sure, some are better on certain maps or in certain situations, but it's nothing like FA where the vast majority of the tech tree is necessarily ignored or skipped over (all-T1 clashes on small maps, and all-T3 eco-micro on large maps).|||I usually hate threads with titles like this. Dont like the game, dont visit the forums. If you dont want to troll, DONT MAKE THREADS WITH TITLES LIKE THESE (Madface?). Theres nothing "wrong" with this game. Theres just people bitching that they liked FA better.

Now, in response to Mithy:
- I specifically tried with my mod not just to make OP units less OP and cybrans a playable faction in the mean time, but I also tried to remove annoyances, smooth out gameplay, create new options for strategies and repurpose units to make every faction play more unique and fun (read: no no-brainer rushes to fatboy / megalith / teleport)
- One thing that I do think GPG didnt take into consideration enough is the differences in map sizes. Compare Treallach Island 2v2 to, say, Etched Desert 2v2, to be extreme. Its impossible to perfectly balance particularly air units vs ground based AA like this. If I make AA strong enough to make air not the only viable strategy on Etched Desert, air would be completely useless on other maps. Etched desert 2v2 should therefore be a 3v3 or 4v4 map, simply to make sure there isnt too much open space. Air is the simplest of examples, but when you are dealing with a bit more constant map sizes and just different layouts of strategic aspects (CNC, Starcraft), it becomes way easier to do things like this.
Also wanted to add that theres NOTHING wrong with the supcom2 economy. Its actually brilliant. Easy to manage, no redundant factors like upgrading individual mexes and storage, no stalling economy. Easy for veterans to manage and easy for noobs to get used to.|||If I have a remaining complaint, it's the mex/mass conversion ratio, but I think you're already doing something about that. And yes, map size does make things difficult in several ways, conversion being one. Some maps are large enough where you still get a little bit of that SC1-like runaway fab economy, complete with the need to build massive bases with hundreds of pgens, and it's actually a little more irritating due to the constrained build space in SC2.
Spending 1/3 of my game placing pgen strings and hitting Alt-M isn't really my idea of 'fun', but the problem usually doesn't reach those levels on the smaller maps, and eliminating the massive gains from mass converters will probably help. I'd like to see converters themselves be a bit more expensive / larger as well, but maybe an output reduction will be enough.|||Since I didnt want to destroy MC completely, I have now nerfed its effectiveness by 25%, so that theyre on par with mass extraction. I might do something with cost or blast radius in the future..