Choose your options based on whats important too you from either 1 or 2.
You may notice my bias so please suggest other poll options and I will (possibly) add.|||Modding and mapping support are essential for me.
I don't need 4 or 6 tanks but more than one would be nice. And the old FA research system is way better because you can actually scout what your opponent plans. Just limit the engy assist and it is fine.
More poll options should be:
FA - I like that map control and expansion is important.
FA - I want a game that stays interesting for a long time.|||Mod support and map editor are what FA did right/better. Supcom 2 wins in all other fields.|||FunkOff|||Supcom 1/FA had the better idea, but supcom 2 was implemented better.
I still like FA more, because it was more fun to play, and things like mass-assisting, unit diversity and mod support helped it in that respect. Though I admit, as a game, supcom 2 works better, it's still not as fun for me.|||I actually moved back to FA after playing supcom2 for like 3 or more months.
Was a complex decision, of course map editor, balancing and stuff is important, but i think the main reason for that was FA feels like im waging a real deal war out there.|||I bought SupCom2 and the Infinite War battle pack when the steam special was on. I'm actually pretty happy with it, but I do think they should have released it in that state, plus mod support. If they released it with the maps and experimentals that it has with the DLC, it would have got much better reviews. But they rushed it out for whatever reason, which obviously hurt sales and review scores. You live and learn I suppose.
I do think its a much more playable game than SupCom 1. Much easier to engage in, much easier to just pick and play. Thats what it was designed for I suppose. Same epic scale, no masters degree required. I can actually play the game without having to micro manage my mexes to improve their output. Teching up is far easier, and I actually like the research tree. It gives a way to simulate a progression to T3 without actually having separate tiers. The one problem is that experimentals might start getting outclassed by regular units once they are fully upgraded. I'm guessing here though.
The campaign has more personality than the first one, but its writing is too cheesy. Plus I hate how slowly things are unlocked - the first 4 missions all you have is basic units, then in the last two missions suddenly everything becomes unlocked.|||Col. Jessep|||It's easy. Supcom: FA is the best of all. Supcom 1 had an awful UI and awful balance. Supcom 2 doesn't feel like an RTS at all, it feels like I am pushing lego around on the bedroom carpet with my 6 year old brother. Feels so cheap, like all the units are incredibly flimsy and made in China. Oh, and almost all of the realism has gone (Instant upgrades in the middle of battle, I mean, come ON).
FA will rule. Forever.
PS: At least until we see KnC
|||Mr Pinguin|||BulletMagnet|||Mr Pinguin|||I thought the mex. upgrades missing from Sup2 was worth of a poll option. Personally, I like the idea of building targets. It's far more strategic than having everything of equal value and capable of equal things.|||I'm with duncane on this one. The whole mex upgrade thing was very tired and required a lot of micro. Engy assisting is a pity, but I realize why they did it - in this economy model, things are paid for as soon as construction begins. That would mean there would be no drawback to engy assisting, you could pump things out as quickly as you get mass in to make them.
Mass would your constraint, so I suppose what would happen is that you would produce a unit in a few seconds, and then have to do nothing for a while until your mass builds up again. So not entirely unbalanced then, but it could make experimental rushes quicker and more dangerous. At least build times have been reduced which makes up for the lack of assist.
The other thing I like is the general pace of the game - its a lot easier and quicker to get to even the most expensive experimental units. Once you have unlocked them via RP, they are (compared to SC1) quick and cheap to build. Whats the point of putting a Paragon in the game if they never get built?|||IMO Research is better than tiers. not because of how is is made, or how logical or "lifelike" it is or anything, but because of the result. if you make a mistake - you suffer. that is the weight of choice that was nearly absent in SupCom1/FA. there was counter for anything in every field for every race. no matter if you focus air, land or navy, each of them has counters for every type of weapon enemy can throw at you, so it is only matter of performance, not a strategic thinking. at least it is not what i think "strategic thinking" is|||FunkOff|||BulletMagnet|||Ancalagon|||Unneccessary eco micro, less interesting 1v1 metagame, pathfinding umpteen times worse.|||spuddyt|||duncane|||duncane|||I like research because it means T1 units never become useless. Also, it means I never have to build a T1 factory, upgrade it, and then upgrade it again to build units. In SC2, I just build factories and they can pump out my upgraded units. Much simpler, lets me focus on other things.
I'm also a fan of upgrades in games, in general. I dont know why.
I suppose it does create the problem that you cant tell where an opponent has spent his RP. If I see a horde of rockheads heading my way, are they fully upgraded, or just a waste of mass? On the other hand, in FA, if I see monkeylords heading my way, I know exactly how dangerous they are.
But I suppose to spend mass on something you havent spent RP on would be a waste. The only thing you might do is build the units while you are still getting RP to upgrade them, in which they would not be fully upgraded.|||For me:
SCom2 Pros:
- Nicer weapon effects and explosions for normal units.
- Runs much better on my PC.
- No mex/factory upgrades
- Gameplay favours many factories to be built
SCom2 Cons:
- Requires unit zigzagging & other unit micro tricks
- UI is unsatisfactory
- No modding to fix the UI.
SCFA Pros:
- Better sense of scale when looking at battles.
- Large weapon effects (nukes, T4 beams) are nicer.
- UI modding available, thus UI is better.
- Replay & Mod Vault.
SCFA Cons:
- I don't like mex/factory upgrades.
- Balance & battles should be focused mostly on T2, but they're not.
- Runs poorly on my PC.
----------------------
There's only a couple of things that would have made SCom2 absolutely better than SCFA for me. I'm very bitter that, as it stands, both things have equal amounts of good & bad, making me unhappy that I have to choose.|||On a final note, something I meant to originally say.
GPG, and most of this here forum, seems to have one thing cocked up;
- interpreting symptoms of problems as problems.
The flux economy was never the problem... the exponential growth of said economy as you tech'ed up was the problem. Of course, knee-jerk reactions are what causes drastic, and unneeded, changes to be made. But nobody fixes broken things any more, we just throw them out and replace them wholesale and repeat that when we realise it's broken too.
Ancalagon
No comments:
Post a Comment