If this dream will ever fully reach reality is hard to tell just yet but they seem set on it
So I came here to ask people what they think?
What did you like about SupCom: FA and what was good and bad?
What needed changed?
What do you like about SupCom 2?
Is there anything that was a good change and you think should be taken into consideration?
Just a few queries
Speak your mind, say what you want even if you think people will disagree, heck especially if you think people will disagree
But the more comments the better|||A lot of different units as in fa, scale as in fa, economy as in fa,
a lot of different experimentals (not just final tech) as in supcom 2 (but they must be pretty deadly as in fa)|||What was bad about FA was the tier balance. And the redundancy in units and game concepts. Then the balance problems come after. The only true flaws of FA were tier balance (T3 > all else), theater balance (T3 air > all else), and unnecessary layers of complexity (adjacency, storage, air fuel) that were mostly due to poor implementation and turn what could have been good ideas into hassles (storage, T1 air fuel), no-brainers (mass storage adjacency), or trivialities (pgen adjacency, T3 air fuel). There were the unit redundancies and overly-niche units, but they often stem from tier imbalances. The economic problems of the game were also tier imbalances with income growing exponentially with the tiers.
SupCom2 had problems primarily due to the way research was implemented, both in gameplay and in UI. The research window was too obtrusive, but was a good idea since all research was in one unified window. I still think research could use normal resources rather than research points and take time to prevent RP hoarding and then rapid research, but the current system isn't too bad in my opinion. And have more varied research options.|||FA pros: the emphasis on map control (easier expansion), the importance and ease of raiding, the com upgrade system, the intel system (stealth, smaller radar fields allow sneaky stuff and make scouting important).
SupCom2 pros: the unit upgrade system, the pathfinding, the ability to actually micro effectively (sort of an extension of the pathfinding), easier to access experimentals.
Indifferent: the air/land/sea balance.
Both could use transports being looked at (they probably should remove ghetto gunships in FA and increase the pickup time in SupCom2).
I may add more later.|||X-Cubed nailed it as far as FA goes.
In Sup Com 2, the research is really nice. The problem is, it encourages only going one tech tree, and therefore discourages the use of combined arms (Land/Air/Naval). In FA, I could get a few land factories and then get some air to give support. But in Sup Com 2, your way better off just sticking with land due to how the research system works.|||X-Cubed|||Its fine to like complexity, but a bit silly to like *unnecessary* complexity.
(ie. complexity which does not add to depth.)
x-cubed already explains some reasons why those features didnt really work so well, so I wont elaborate.|||Personally I thought the two biggest problems were that the transitation to Teir 4 from Teir 2 was awful and that the coding became extremely inefficient bogging the game down after barely any time at all|||_Golgoth_|||That's not his problem, brandon. It's the fact that T2 was used so little and T4 only made occasional appearances while T3 became dominant on large maps. The transition of T2 -> T3 -> T4 is problematic. So FA revolved around T1 or T3, not much in between. This is a problem of tier balance.|||Teir balance was the core gameplay problem of FA. I'd say it was the only gameplay problem of FA.|||But a massive one at that since tier balance affects almost every part of the game. The economic growth of the game is tied to tier balance as is unit balance. You mess around with how tiers interact and you have to change the way the economy works and how the game is played.|||Exactly.
Nerf the strength, and cost of everything above T1 and the game gets much better.
If you look at Sup2, that's actually what they did. The economy change and research were entirely uneeded IMHO.
Storage and adjacency is a brilliant idea, but didn't work in execution because some options gave incredible bonuses, and others gave worthless ones. Mixing things up so that everything had some sort of worthwhile benefit would have made everyone happy.|||Adjacency giving efficiency bonuses is not cool. It penalizes players for not doing annoying base micromanagement.
As I've posted numerous times, adjacency could have been very effective as a system for controlling resource availability: instead of an adjacent resource structure giving bonuses, it would simply remove equal amounts of its own production and any consumption of the adjacent structure(s) from the primary resource pool; in essence, creating per-producer local economies.
So if you have a pgen that produces 100e, and a factory that's draining 150e, building them adjacent would result in a pgen that produces 0e toward the global resource pool and a factory that consumes only 50e from the resource pool. While the factory is inactive, the pgen would behave normally and produce 100e toward the global pool. This would keep shields etc online regardless of the status of your global economy, and would reduce the need for ridiculous amounts of energy storage capacity.
This would also remove the need to perfectly align all adjacent structures corner to corner, making adjacent placement much simpler. You could even implement an area adjacency system or manually-specified point-to-point adjacency, because you're no longer dealing with ridiculous magical efficiency bonuses, and there is no longer a necessary limit on the number of producers a consumer can connect to.|||Mithy|||Your going to need to first know that itll be very hard to make a game like that.
this will take a while to write out, ill think about it over the day and get back to you after school,|||Stin|||ok
this is if your wanting to make a FA2 not FA with better pathing and gfx
id go with a sins style system, where you have to build a certain # of research stations, then pay for the research itself.
For the units, make research that improves and adds on like supcom 2 does.
for stronger units make exps, that are cheap to build, but can be upgraded over game, it slowly gets more powerfull and more expensive and scale with the game easily.
id use FA flow eco, and scale, supcom 2 style pathing, and maby the research style.
(this would very much make the game not even supcom i know, but i brainstormed for a while and came up with a concept for ya.....)
Edit: for the eco you would just add a string of slowly more powerfull eco researches down the research tree.|||Strategic Zoom was really usefull in FA and because of Tiers 1,2,3 strategic icons were really informative. Now With tech tree in Supcom 2 strategic Zoom has lost this information feature because it's not possible to display strategic Icons that would inform about the tech enhancement units have, it's not possible to display units vetrancy and so on. So I definitly would like to have Tiers 1,2,3 back. FA was all about trying to get as much information as possible thanks to scooting and strategic zoom icons and also radars. This should be back.
Also Flow economy, but maybe not with bonus adjacent.
Also FA scale was really better than Supcom 2 (lower and gave better epicness)
Experimentals which were not easy to produce very quickly even if a good player could manage to bring a galactic colossus to life within a few minutes.
In Supcom 2 Experimentals come too quickly in the game.|||Lots of people like to talk about 'epicness' but they can never quite explain what this is. SC2 has bigger, flashier battles with more (and more types of) experimentals in play - how is that not more 'epic'?
And SC2's experimental balance is much better than FA's. FA experimentals (other than the occasional Monkeylord) never saw the light of day in a competitive match because of the extreme cost, and most were poorly-balanced ACU-sniping tools that were easily countered by and less effective than equal mass in T3 units. SC2 experimentals aren't pseudo game-enders, and can actually be built soon enough to be a major factor in how the whole game plays out. They also offer unique advantages over standard units (such as range, raw DPS, sometimes survivability, and/or unique abilities) other than 'gets veterancy so quickly that you can only fight it with T3 bots' or 'unless you scout it your ACU is automatically dead'.|||Whilst I dont care particularly, it is true that FA has a better "epic" feel to it.
Its hard to pin down but I think it has something to do with the sizes of the units relative to the features on the map. SC/FA has smaller units, making the map look larger.
It's easily seen by looking at Rake's videos for SCom/SCFA vs his half completed one for SC2.
The SCom1 videos look more like a vast landscape with huge armies, whereas SC2 has a much more intimate and closeup feel, purely because the units are more clearly visible.
So there's pros and cons for each. But FA's scale just looks less "toylike" for some reason.|||I get you, and I would say that's more a factor of some of the bad SC2 map design than anything else. While overall the SC2 maps look nicer than FA maps, the excessive use of platforms and narrow bridges and such makes them feel really cramped.|||Also the scale of the features are skewed in opposite directions. SCFA skewed its scale in one direction, with 81km maps based on the entire world or Australia etc.
Whereas SCom2 had 10km maps set in a single Fortress or mining complex, etc.
So SCFA was all like, "OMFG you're fighting across continents!" whereas SCom2 is like, "you're locked in a fortress!"|||Well considering there's no map editor we're done with this
|||Mithy
No comments:
Post a Comment