StarDestroyer.Net BBS

While I understand the calls for more personality and soul within the game, the units can't really have any of it, namely because of the scale of this game. It's simply far too massive to have each and every unit shout out their own personal cries or orders and slogans without your audio being blitzed by just those sounds. I actually want to hear the soundtrack and whatever else may be going on, so having one army of hundreds of units drowning everything out doesn't work.

With CoH, it's much easier to feel for the game and be less disconnected. For TA and SC, you're essentially working in a WWI kind of war, where throwing a few hundred or thousand units to instant death is just part of the job and a means to an end.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Why anybody would expect some kind of engaging personality in this game is beyond me. This is essentially Total Annihilation 2 after all. It's based on the same selling points: Big battles with large numbers of faceless robots and big nukes but now with massive maps. After watching trailers, anybody can tell this isn't going to be CoH on a widescale. Even I didn't expect the mission briefings to be anything but similar to TA's old mission briefings.

I didn't expect it to be like DoH or Dow, I mearly said I'd been spoilt by units that are invested with some personality. I knew it would be like this, but I was suprised how sterile & lifeless the game seems.

I think the whole 'lol it's a feature if people don't like it they should have liked TA more' attitude is pretty funny. Many, many people have found SupCom soulless and boring all across the interwebs - but it doesn't matter, true TA fans love it. The problem is HARDLY limited to unit acks, and ignoring it as a problem for the game just because you're a TA fan is not a sensible attitude. WZ2100 is less boring, and it has exclusively remote-control vehicles who don't even say 'buzz'. It's worse when you consider that the betas are apparently much more fun - simply due to better maps, multi etc. Who else would have sacrificed the super-lame intro for a few more maps?

The robot explanation for blandness brings problems of it's own. Being networked robots should really allow for all kinds of initiative and coordinated action, but they're just as dumb as any RTS unit. Wow, the AI of the future in the palm of your hand. Nursemaid, nursemaid, but they don't respond because they're robots.

Stark wrote:The robot explanation for blandness brings problems of it's own. Being networked robots should really allow for all kinds of initiative and coordinated action, but they're just as dumb as any RTS unit. Wow, the AI of the future in the palm of your hand. Nursemaid, nursemaid, but they don't respond because they're robots.

I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for but as far as coordinated actions are concerned, you have the option of making coordinated attacks with multiple group of units. Faster units will slow down appropriately so all the groups will attack the specified target in a synchronous and timely manner.

You know, the way you keep saying things that are RTS standards like they are 'features' of SupCom is starting to irritate me. You've been doing it throughout this thread. Wow, groups that move at best-slowest speed. That's battle-networked coordination and initiative right there. You could AT LEAST point out the UI elements for groups or something - something actually NEW or NON STANDARD.

Stark wrote:You know, the way you keep saying things that are RTS standards like they are 'features' of SupCom is starting to irritate me. You've been doing it throughout this thread. Wow, groups that move at best-slowest speed. That's battle-networked coordination and initiative right there. You could AT LEAST point out the UI elements for groups or something - something actually NEW or NON STANDARD.

Wow. Games like Warcraft and C&C have coordinated attack commands? News to me.

Oh sorry, you specifically mentioned faster units slowing down - a feature seen for nearly a decade. If you're talking about the human-setup attack plans, I just don't see how that is robot-related.

Like I said, the units being robots is the excuse for them being boring, but robot units could have awesome network and coordination-related features to make up for it. Being able to use the awesome UI to make them do something hardly counts, wouldn't you say? It isn't my fault if you take my pie-in-the-sky musings personally.

Stark wrote:Oh sorry, you specifically mentioned faster units slowing down - a feature seen for nearly a decade. If you're talking about the human-setup attack plans, I just don't see how that is robot-related.

Are you just not reading correctly today or can you seriously not tell the difference between units in one group traveling in one direction at the same speed and units in multiple groups traveling from multiple directions in sync towards a target?

Like I said, the units being robots is the excuse for them being boring, but robot units could have awesome network and coordination-related features to make up for it. Being able to use the awesome UI to make them do something hardly counts, wouldn't you say? It isn't my fault if you take my pie-in-the-sky musings personally.

Amazing. You keep making statements about "awesome network coordinated features" without specifying a single example despite my obvious inquiry to what the fuck you're talking about.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Are you just not reading correctly today or can you seriously not tell the difference between units in one group traveling in one direction at the same speed and units in multiple groups traveling from multiple directions in sync towards a target?

Does this make your example more relevant to the 'soulless robots' complaints from users? No? Damn eh. You're talking about the UI when others are talking about the units. Still, I'm glad I can't be accused of being the flamewhore this time

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Amazing. You keep making statements about "awesome network coordinated features" without specifying a single example despite my obvious inquiry to what the fuck you're talking about.

Yeah, my initial post (which you quoted) was musing about initiative and coordination. Who knows what I could be talking about? Of course, you seem to be acting like I'm making concrete suggestions - doubtless because you cut the part of that quote you wanted to ignore - when I was simply pointing out that soulless robots don't have to be boring stupid RTS units. Now I have to design your game for you? How about machines that have some autonomy or present coordination or basic situational decisionmaking? Hint: I am not suggesting SupCom should have any of this - this is an example of how robots don't have to be boring.

But don't worry, keep insulting anyone who didn't enjoy playing the cutdown demo. It's our fault there's a tiny map, in which most players will never have to use the awesome tools the game gives you for coordination. They should all like it anyway because it's like TA, right? The beta is much more fun, but that doesn't affect most people and doesn't make up for the demo being poor.

EDIT - heh, you didn't even mention 'multiple directions' in your original post, hence my confusion with standard 'group move' functions. How could I have missed what you didn't type?

Stark wrote:Does this make your example more relevant to the 'soulless robots' complaints from users? No? Damn eh. You're talking about the UI when others are talking about the units. Still, I'm glad I can't be accused of being the flamewhore this time

Talk about a failure of comprehension. What makes you think I was talking about the UI? I was talking about your inability to distinguish between primitive coordinated movements and more complex coordinated attacks. After all, you're the one complaining about me pointing out features that have supposedly been in RTS games for a decade.

Yeah, my initial post (which you quoted) was musing about initiative and coordination. Who knows what I could be talking about? Of course, you seem to be acting like I'm making concrete suggestions

Despite their concreteness, they were still suggestions. Your inability to name a single example or idea suggests to me that you're backpedalling.

- doubtless because you cut the part of that quote you wanted to ignore -

Which is irrelevant since I was speaking directly towards your musings regarding unit coordination.

when I was simply pointing out that soulless robots don't have to be boring stupid RTS units. Now I have to design your game for you? How about machines that have some autonomy or present coordination or basic situational decisionmaking? Hint: I am not suggesting SupCom should have any of this - this is an example of how robots don't have to be boring.

How hard is this for you to get: I am asking what "some autonomy or present coordination or basic situational decisionmaking" means to you in the context of an RTS. And no, the fact that SupCom doesn't have these unexplained concepts is not an example of how robots don't have to be boring stupid RTS units. In fact, it says precisely jack shit.

But don't worry, keep insulting anyone who didn't enjoy playing the cutdown demo.

Having delusions of grandeur I see. I suppose asking for clarifications of complaints is now tantamount to insulting.

It's our fault there's a tiny map, in which most players will never have to use the awesome tools the game gives you for coordination. They should all like it anyway because it's like TA, right? The beta is much more fun, but that doesn't affect most people and doesn't make up for the demo being poor.

You speak as if I think highly of the demo despite the fact that I mentioned earlier that the demo itself was possibly the cause for the poor initial reception to the game. Your psychic abilities fail you tremendously.

EDIT - heh, you didn't even mention 'multiple directions' in your original post, hence my confusion with standard 'group move' functions. How could I have missed what you didn't type?

Oh wow, I forgot to mention that the multiple groups could possibly be located in different locations. You know, a little imagination doesn't hurt.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Talk about a failure of comprehension. What makes you think I was talking about the UI? I was talking about your inability to distinguish between primitive coordinated movements and more complex coordinated attacks. After all, you're the one complaining about me pointing out features that have supposedly been in RTS games for a decade.

What? You were apparently talking about the Supcom coordination tools, instead of the 'grouped units travel at the same speed' feature common to RTSes). Are you saying the coordination tools of SupCom aren't a feature of the UI?

Despite their concreteness, they were still suggestions. Your inability to name a single example or idea suggests to me that you're backpedalling.

I love it when people act smart after missing sarcasm. I just said 'initiative' and 'coordination'. The SupCom units have RTS-standard zero initiative and coordination, with everything being managed by the player. It has admirable UI tools to setup and forget many elements of management, but fully-linked robots should be a ballet of concerted action and battle management BY THEMSELVES.

And you mean 'vagueness', right? I never made ANY concrete suggestions, as anyone can see. Maybe that's why you don't know what I'm specifically talking about?

Which is irrelevant since I was speaking directly towards your musings regarding unit coordination.

Yeah, and you don't see the difference between UI-driven, player setup coordination and robotic, networked machines working together AUTOMATICALLY.

How hard is this for you to get: I am asking what "some autonomy or present coordination or basic situational decisionmaking" means to you in the context of an RTS. And no, the fact that SupCom doesn't have these unexplained concepts is not an example of how robots don't have to be boring stupid RTS units. In fact, it says precisely jack shit.

Er, what? Robots can be autonomous and coordinated. SupCom robots aren't. How is this 'precisely jack shit'? Sure, it's equally valid on any other RTS, but I was simply commenting that 'lol robots' might get you out of boring units, but it just means they're STUPID robots. Even Warzone had 'return for repair at x' or 'engage at x' or whatever, and none of the great tools SupCom has. Again, the whole thrust of what you've decided to get so angry about is simply that while robots are boring and don't talk they have other characteristics that are still interesting - thus, saying 'robot units therefore boring' is not an excuse.

Having delusions of grandeur I see. I suppose asking for clarifications of complaints is now tantamount to insulting.

Go fuck yourself. I'm not avoiding your questions: I just commented that you were insulting me, which you are. Meaningless, yet true.

You speak as if I think highly of the demo despite the fact that I mentioned earlier that the demo itself was possibly the cause for the poor initial reception to the game. Your psychic abilities fail you tremendously.

What are you even talking about? I'm making GENERAL STATEMENTS, and many people disappointed with the weak demo would not have been disappointed with the beta (or a more full featured demo). Does it make you angry when we agree?

Oh wow, I forgot to mention that the multiple groups could possibly be located in different locations. You know, a little imagination doesn't hurt.

LOL I apparently have 'failed psychic powers' but I must use 'imagination' to understand what you mean... and if I don't you go nuts? That's awesome. The best part is I don't even subscribe to the 'no talk = bad' argument, I was just thinking about it and trying to understand it by considering robot characteristics and what you could do with them without having them say 'yes boss' or whatever. QUICK PINTSIZE ATTACK!

Admiral Valdemar wrote:While I understand the calls for more personality and soul within the game, the units can't really have any of it, namely because of the scale of this game. It's simply far too massive to have each and every unit shout out their own personal cries or orders and slogans without your audio being blitzed by just those sounds. I actually want to hear the soundtrack and whatever else may be going on, so having one army of hundreds of units drowning everything out doesn't work.

That's where one hopes that programmers will do what they're paid to do, and find creative solutions to problems, for fuck's sake. For example, units that are grouped could have an "officer" unit automatically assigned, the same way the Total War games arbitrarily pick one unit to be the commander when there's no general present. That officer could then be the one to alert you of changes in the situation, request permission to take aggressive action, etc. Similarly, any large aggregate grouping of units might be identified by the computer and treated similarly, even if you haven't manually grouped them.

That took me around 10 seconds to think of. I'm sure it can't be that difficult for someone who's putting in real effort, but it's so much easier to just try and dazzle the audience with flashy graphics.

Stark wrote:What? You were apparently talking about the Supcom coordination tools, instead of the 'grouped units travel at the same speed' feature common to RTSes). Are you saying the coordination tools of SupCom aren't a feature of the UI?

While the UI is related to coordination commands, I was criticizing to your claim that slightly advanced coordinated attack commands are RTS standards.

I love it when people act smart after missing sarcasm. I just said 'initiative' and 'coordination'. The SupCom units have RTS-standard zero initiative and coordination, with everything being managed by the player. It has admirable UI tools to setup and forget many elements of management, but fully-linked robots should be a ballet of concerted action and battle management BY THEMSELVES.

And you mean 'vagueness', right? I never made ANY concrete suggestions, as anyone can see. Maybe that's why you don't know what I'm specifically talking about?

And I just provided an example of a minor yet advanced feature that isn't RTS standard. The fact that I don't have manage the movement of multiple groups from different directions towards a singular target like other RTS games is evidence of some non-RTS standard automation.

Which is irrelevant since I was speaking directly towards your musings regarding unit coordination.

Yeah, and you don't see the difference between UI-driven, player setup coordination and robotic, networked machines working together AUTOMATICALLY.

Stark wrote:"I think the whole 'lol it's a feature if people don't like it they should have liked TA more' attitude is pretty funny. Many, many people have found SupCom soulless and boring all across the interwebs - but it doesn't matter, true TA fans love it. Laughing The problem is HARDLY limited to unit acks, and ignoring it as a problem for the game just because you're a TA fan is not a sensible attitude. WZ2100 is less boring, and it has exclusively remote-control vehicles who don't even say 'buzz'. It's worse when you consider that the betas are apparently much more fun - simply due to better maps, multi etc. Who else would have sacrificed the super-lame intro for a few more maps? "

I see nothing in the blurb above that I ignored that has anything to do with the UI and unit automation or coordination.

Er, what? Robots can be autonomous and coordinated. SupCom robots aren't. How is this 'precisely jack shit'? Sure, it's equally valid on any other RTS, but I was simply commenting that 'lol robots' might get you out of boring units, but it just means they're STUPID robots. Even Warzone had 'return for repair at x' or 'engage at x' or whatever, and none of the great tools SupCom has. Again, the whole thrust of what you've decided to get so angry about is simply that while robots are boring and don't talk they have other characteristics that are still interesting - thus, saying 'robot units therefore boring' is not an excuse.

Have you even played the game? Aircraft will automatically land to refuel at any available station if they run out of fuel. Engineers who are 'assisting' buildings will automatically switch from speeding up the building process to repairing the building if and when it gets damaged during the course of the game. A queue of waypoints can be intuitively converted into a patrol command. Players can utilize the ferry command on transports to ease the management of logistics dramatically. Admittedly, these aren't huge leaps in unit automation but to say that SupCom has absolutely nothing unique in terms of basic RTS standard unit automation is a bold faced lie.

Go fuck yourself. I'm not avoiding your questions: I just commented that you were insulting me, which you are. Meaningless, yet true.

I am insulting you but not for the reasons you specified. I never insulted people who did not like the demo. In fact, even I wasn't impressed with the demo.

What are you even talking about? I'm making GENERAL STATEMENTS, and many people disappointed with the weak demo would not have been disappointed with the beta (or a more full featured demo). Does it make you angry when we agree?

What mode of thinking do you work on? You accuse me of insulting those who dislike the demo and then make disparaging statements about the demo that can easily be construed as sarcastic comments towards my general attitude. And now you're wondering why I didn't take your comments in a less hostile manner?

LOL I apparently have 'failed psychic powers' but I must use 'imagination' to understand what you mean... and if I don't you go nuts? That's awesome.

Does hyperbole mean anything to you?

The best part is I don't even subscribe to the 'no talk = bad' argument, I was just thinking about it and trying to understand it by considering robot characteristics and what you could do with them without having them say 'yes boss' or whatever. QUICK PINTSIZE ATTACK!

Sigh... all I was saying to begin with is there are some non-RTS standard automation involved. Is that so difficult to understand? Is there something I'm missing? Or am I somehow horrendously ignorant of some kind of advancement in RTS games where all the unique unit automation features I described above is now standard in all RTS games?

Darth Wong wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:While I understand the calls for more personality and soul within the game, the units can't really have any of it, namely because of the scale of this game. It's simply far too massive to have each and every unit shout out their own personal cries or orders and slogans without your audio being blitzed by just those sounds. I actually want to hear the soundtrack and whatever else may be going on, so having one army of hundreds of units drowning everything out doesn't work.

That's where one hopes that programmers will do what they're paid to do, and find creative solutions to problems, for fuck's sake. For example, units that are grouped could have an "officer" unit automatically assigned, the same way the Total War games arbitrarily pick one unit to be the commander when there's no general present. That officer could then be the one to alert you of changes in the situation, request permission to take aggressive action, etc. Similarly, any large aggregate grouping of units might be identified by the computer and treated similarly, even if you haven't manually grouped them.

That took me around 10 seconds to think of. I'm sure it can't be that difficult for someone who's putting in real effort, but it's so much easier to just try and dazzle the audience with flashy graphics.

I've long hoped for this, and wished they'd even let you build commander units to assign to areas or things like basebuilding. If I could tell one of my SubCommanders to handle basebuilding for me and choose from one of three AI 'build styles', I'd love that.

It'd be great if I could even give some very basic behaviors. Anything the computer AI can do, I wish I could tell my units to do automatically. Perhaps by assigning them a Squad Leader unit for just that purpose. DoW had a feature like that afterall, which allowed your units to pop on a commander for additional abilities. DoW's stances also gave them a degree of automation--at least fireteams and such. I could tell them how aggressively to attack, how far to go, etc.

Darth Wong wrote:That's where one hopes that programmers will do what they're paid to do, and find creative solutions to problems, for fuck's sake. For example, units that are grouped could have an "officer" unit automatically assigned, the same way the Total War games arbitrarily pick one unit to be the commander when there's no general present. That officer could then be the one to alert you of changes in the situation, request permission to take aggressive action, etc. Similarly, any large aggregate grouping of units might be identified by the computer and treated similarly, even if you haven't manually grouped them.

That took me around 10 seconds to think of. I'm sure it can't be that difficult for someone who's putting in real effort, but it's so much easier to just try and dazzle the audience with flashy graphics.

Well, it's more of a job for the game designers than the programmers to find creative solutions to those types of problems but I think the main issue here is that the designers for SupCom probably didn't think the lack of personality was a high on the priority list or that it was a problem at all.

Darth Wong wrote: That's where one hopes that programmers will do what they're paid to do, and find creative solutions to problems, for fuck's sake. For example, units that are grouped could have an "officer" unit automatically assigned, the same way the Total War games arbitrarily pick one unit to be the commander when there's no general present. That officer could then be the one to alert you of changes in the situation, request permission to take aggressive action, etc. Similarly, any large aggregate grouping of units might be identified by the computer and treated similarly, even if you haven't manually grouped them.

That took me around 10 seconds to think of. I'm sure it can't be that difficult for someone who's putting in real effort, but it's so much easier to just try and dazzle the audience with flashy graphics.

Given the TA experience, even with such proposals, they'd likely leave them out simply because it's not conducive to the type of game one expects from the series. The plotline also makes it less amazing given they're all machines, mindless robots of death which have all the personality of a toaster and simply obey. If it was a WWII RTS with this engine, then it'd look far more out of place to have masses of men and tanks and aircraft that didn't say a word. Because they're machines and this is "teh future!!1!", it's somehow less pressing.

I like the TW way of making legions that have one voice and where the group is well co-ordinated, though I just can't picture it coming into vogue outside any Creative Assembly product. The best you get in other RTS games is simply forming an amorphous group of various units that have trouble moving anywhere without good micro-managed pathfinding. I'd much rather the guys making SupCom produced startling AI that can do basic tasks as well as fight, rather than invest in identities for the units. I could forgive them that presentation for a more challenging, less face-in-hand experience.

Or, maybe, most RTS titles are simply suffering the generation problem of better graphics = better game, even if you played the same damn thing in glorious 2D a decade ago. Someone needs to look for innovation there, not appeal to the mindless fascination with ever more photorealistic imagery that adds nothing.

Let me see if I have this clear in my head.

Non-fans - units are boring
Fans - they are robots they can't have chat
Non-fans - they can be interesting in robot-like ways
Fans - PROVE IT RAR!!!

Oh, and 'hyperbole' is a great excuse for fans, but non-fans are held to a much higher standard. 'Aircraft returning to base' is automation? What the christ? Using the ferry command is autonomy when the player has to set it up?

Mike and Cov have interesting points about automation and unit initiative. Units when grouped should work as a group at all times, not only when I order them. Automatic changing deployment formation as a response to threats seems a basic need, but is nonexistent.

Stark wrote:Let me see if I have this clear in my head.

Non-fans - units are boring
Fans - they are robots they can't have chat
Non-fans - they can be interesting in robot-like ways
Fans - PROVE IT RAR!!!

Actually it's more like: "Robots can be interesting in robot-like ways but my ideas are just musings and I have no idea what the fuck I'm really talking about so don't ask for an example".

Oh, and 'hyperbole' is a great excuse for fans, but non-fans are held to a much higher standard. 'Aircraft returning to base' is automation? What the christ? Using the ferry command is autonomy when the player has to set it up?

Well, I'm sure in your alternate world, we can program games that can read your mind and figure out where you'd want to the transport to ferry troops over.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:

Stark wrote:Let me see if I have this clear in my head.

Non-fans - units are boring
Fans - they are robots they can't have chat
Non-fans - they can be interesting in robot-like ways
Fans - PROVE IT RAR!!!

Actually it's more like: "Robots can be interesting in robot-like ways but my ideas are just musings and I have no idea what the fuck I'm really talking about so don't ask for an example".

Robots can be interesting in robot-like ways. For example, maybe one of them sputters and jitters around as he stands while belching out smoke. That's right! The Monkeylord does that! The ML is a great example of a flavorful unit. It has style, it has a definite feel to it--that of a giant, smoke-belching mechanical spider like from Wild Wild West.

Sure it doesn't SAY anything. It doesn't really need to go "INPUT COORDINATES." It would be nice if it did. I'm not crying that it isn't, but hearing nothing but squeals and screeches doesn't give me a real good idea of what I just selected. I think it has a "Group 1, Group 2" notification, right? I never pay attention anymore.

Or, like, the Czar. Another great unit. Giant flying UFO with a Monument-Killer Beam? That's so classic. I love it! Why aren't the smaller units UFO's though? That'd be pretty cool. Why are they duplicates? Maybe they can change direction insanely quickly and fly around in Z shapes zig-zag routes and like to strafe things with down-facing beams? Maybe the Aeon ferry ship beams them up like a cow-mutilator would.

And that's the thing. The level 4 units feel great. Everything else feels like it was kinda tacked on. They all look basically the same. They all perform basically the same. Nobody has any special sounds or special abilities really--a few guys do, like how a Cybran Mantis and Siege Bot can help repair stuff. But it's not enough to distinguish things.

So really, it wouldn't be hard. Instead of all the tanks looking like little square bricks, make them look special! Sure, how special will they look with 8 billion of them on screen at once. Okay. If that's the case, then why make me spend all that time to get to Tier 4? Let the Moneylord-type of units be Level 2 or 3. Why add in all these layers of 'stepping stones' if they're not fun? Why give us 3 levels of power generation, radar, and mineral extractors if it just drags out the game and makes the entire thing feel like a mirror match against minutely different sides?

Otherwise, just make it all one faction. Then it'd actually be balanced.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:

Stark wrote:Oh, and 'hyperbole' is a great excuse for fans, but non-fans are held to a much higher standard. 'Aircraft returning to base' is automation? What the christ? Using the ferry command is autonomy when the player has to set it up?

Well, I'm sure in your alternate world, we can program games that can read your mind and figure out where you'd want to the transport to ferry troops over.

That wouldn't be totally necessary, but think about this:

There's various filters, yeah? The layers? Why couldn't I flip into, say, the Command Filter and then go over and drag a big marker on the ground. So I click on a spot and drag, making a big box appear from that spot.

Then a little circle appears over it. I click on that and a menu appears. I scroll down to 'Airlift Army 3' and click on that. It was past Airlift Army 2 and 1. That's the action I want. Then I click on the operational phrase box that appears and select 'all transports'. I could have also chosen a group, but I don't have my airlifts grouped. If I had given a general 'ferry' or 'move' command the all transports function would have included ships as well, unless I only specified airlift.

Now I've given a complex order that involves a huge about of stuff in a matter of seconds and my army springs into action.

Similar things could be done with enemy bases. Control zones could be emitted from enemy structures. In command they'd have tags over them like 'Strafe' or 'Avoid' that I could set behaviors to. I can also drag my own control box over them and say "Engage." Since I put my box over it, that's an order, not a passive behavioral response. In this case I choose "Engage on Command -- Army 3" on their base and another box in the same place that says "Engage on Command -- Army 1".

So I click on group one and move it over. It's my naval group, and I give them some move orders to head around some waterways carefully as Army 3 is airlifted into position. Once I get the navy there I click on their behavior and set it to 'Artillery' which tells them to stand off and fire. Ships that do not hav an artillery tag automatically then form up around those ships the same way formations in Homeworld 1 worked. Ships with the Artillery:1 in their unit file group to the center and move to the longest range possible. In the case of multiple types of artillery, they will only move to the medium range of the longrange artillery.

I then click 2, click shift+A and drag a box around the enemy base to tell them to attack. I've already set a few behavior tags on the enemy defenses (I did a control-click on their AA guns to do a 'behavior for all' function so I wouldn't need to tell them to evade them all manually. Clicking that many tags would suck!), so they know what to bomb and what not to.

I watch as they begin to get about halfway, then hit Cntrl-Alt 1 and Cntrl-Alt 3. That orders my units to go, and my entire attack springs into action.

I don't know about you, but I don't *want* my units talking back at me. I want them to do what they're told and not bother me when they're dying by the droves. I know it's not how many people play, but I personally spend most of time time semi-zoomed out so that I can see nearly all of my units. Add in radar, and I will know long before an enemy attack when and where i's coming from.

As an aside, Finn's Revenge is an AWFUL map. I can't believe they put that map in the demo. I would have expected Seton's Clutch myself. You know, that map that you saw in the previews, with the spiderbots and the nuke coming down?

I'll tell you what I like about the game. I like the scale, options, and speed of the game. The scale: they delivered what they said, bigger scale. Options. There's a whole lot of units, and a whole lot of ways to use those units. Speed: it's not rusher-heaven (though it may seem like that for some) and contrary to apparently popular belief, T4 units and/or nukes do *not* take an hour to get. It's a nice pace that isn't tediously slow, and itsn't mind-meltingly fast.

Still haven't played the demo yet, so I'll get it soon and probably post my comments on that.

What I never liked about TA and seems to have continued into SC, is the uselessness of Tier 1 units compared to the next Tier. Sure, I could build Light Tanks, but why bother when I can build the Heavy Tanks? Similarly, once you get an advanced KBOT lab up and running, why build anything other than Fidos?

It's retarded. The resource collectors are similarly retarded. Build a T1 metal extractor (sorry, they're called Mass extractors now) but you'll want to upgrade it later when you have the money in the bank. Um, why do I need to bother? I thought resource collection wasn't a part of the game? So why exactly can't I just throw down a metal collector and leave it alone? Now I have to upgrade it, but I can't upgrade it as soon as I get it because my economy slows to a crawl and nothing gets built.

And if people are happy with their robot army having no personality, why not just play chess and have pawns. And no, I'm not talking about the lavish chess sets that were hand-carved by an artist, go and buy $5 chess set made out of crummy plastic.

Some of us want to play simulations. That means having the personal touch. Are you telling me it's impossible to depict a military base having comm chatter from various sources? Fighter pilots communicating with each other or with the tower about landing/taking off? Tank commanders communicating to base etc? Having units on patrol can have a periodical "Nothing new to report sir" message. Or if they engage the enemy they let you know.

But it has giant robots and nukes. Well, TA had those things too, and look how far we've come.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Actually it's more like: "Robots can be interesting in robot-like ways but my ideas are just musings and I have no idea what the fuck I'm really talking about so don't ask for an example".

I love watching idiots like you act stupid. I'm sure you think you're really smart and cutting me down in some kind of debate, but I never claimed to have specific examples and provided some anyway. How you can claim that as some kind of 'victory' and an invalidation of your 'robots are inherently soulless and boring' is beyond me. Get this: networked robots should be able to work in groups in a holistic way without requiring you to do manual things like pull damaged units to the back, or manually encircle the enemy. Oh wait, more examples for you to ignore next time you decide to post 'lol stark claimed something and never backed it up even though he didn't and then he did anyway'.

Since you're simply ignoring everything I say, I will no longer respond to your mindless SupCom fanwhorish bleating. The funniest part is I'm not really harshing on the game, just saying robotic units can be interesting and have personality when you obviously think this is impossible. I repeat: PROVE IT RAR. It's amusing to me that you resist suggestions that might make SupCom a better game, just because they're coming from me.

Well, I'm sure in your alternate world, we can program games that can read your mind and figure out where you'd want to the transport to ferry troops over.

Listen fucknugget, 'aircraft returning for refueling' is NOT some huge step of automation and suggesting it's some advanced initiative capability is simply false. Using ferry commands YOU SET UP as an example on unit initiative is simply a failure of reading comphehension - made more amusing by your hysterical reaction to my earlier misunderstanding.

To spell it out for you, I'm not expecting such commands to be 'automatic' in some bizarre psychic way. I'm saying it's not a valid example of unit initiative, because the units are just following orders - the exact opposite of initiative. Do you understand now? PROVE IT RAR.

Hawk, the worst part about the map is that it's too small to show off the SupCom strengths. Most players will finish games without really experimenting with what makes SupCom an interesting game.

Remember, *I'm* Stark the hater who hates everything and Pintsize here is just a calm, rational fan. Right?

Stark wrote:I love watching idiots like you act stupid. I'm sure you think you're really smart and cutting me down in some kind of debate, but I never claimed to have specific examples and provided some anyway. How you can claim that as some kind of 'victory' and an invalidation of your 'robots are inherently soulless and boring' is beyond me. Get this: networked robots should be able to work in groups in a holistic way without requiring you to do manual things like pull damaged units to the back, or manually encircle the enemy. Oh wait, more examples for you to ignore next time you decide to post 'lol stark claimed something and never backed it up even though he didn't and then he did anyway'.

Thanks for restating your example you posted awhile ago... oh wait...

Since you're simply ignoring everything I say, I will no longer respond to your mindless SupCom fanwhorish bleating. The funniest part is I'm not really harshing on the game, just saying robotic units can be interesting and have personality when you obviously think this is impossible.

What. The. Fuck? Where the hell have I stated that robotic personality is impossible? I merely stated that unit personality was not important to this specific game, not that it was impossible. My point was that this game was aimed towards large battles, not little cutsie personality traits for each unit. I don't give a flying fuck if this doesn't cater to your taste.

I repeat: PROVE IT RAR. It's amusing to me that you resist suggestions that might make SupCom a better game, just because they're coming from me.

I'm not resisting suggestions that might make SupCom a better game. I am criticizing your claim that automation is lacking.

Listen fucknugget, 'aircraft returning for refueling' is NOT some huge step of automation and suggesting it's some advanced initiative capability is simply false.

I noticed that you ignored the fact that I specifically noted that refueling planes was not an example of advanced automated capability but rather an example that rebuts your claim that the units have lack any kind of automation. Thanks for the strawman. Try again.

Using ferry commands YOU SET UP as an example on unit initiative is simply a failure of reading comphehension - made more amusing by your hysterical reaction to my earlier misunderstanding.

Do you actually believe that ferrying requires no user interaction whatsoever? The point of the ferry system is to reduce the amount of management required, you idiot. It's not to completely eliminate user interaction, which is nearly impossible for such a specific task.

To spell it out for you, I'm not expecting such commands to be 'automatic' in some bizarre psychic way. I'm saying it's not a valid example of unit initiative, because the units are just following orders - the exact opposite of initiative. Do you understand now? PROVE IT RAR.

It was an example of automation, which according to you, is lacking. Let's look at the following exchange of posts which this is referring to, alright?

Stark wrote:Er, what? Robots can be autonomous and coordinated. SupCom robots aren't. How is this 'precisely jack shit'? Sure, it's equally valid on any other RTS, but I was simply commenting that 'lol robots' might get you out of boring units, but it just means they're STUPID robots. Even Warzone had 'return for repair at x' or 'engage at x' or whatever, and none of the great tools SupCom has. Again, the whole thrust of what you've decided to get so angry about is simply that while robots are boring and don't talk they have other characteristics that are still interesting - thus, saying 'robot units therefore boring' is not an excuse.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Have you even played the game? Aircraft will automatically land to refuel at any available station if they run out of fuel. Engineers who are 'assisting' buildings will automatically switch from speeding up the building process to repairing the building if and when it gets damaged during the course of the game. A queue of waypoints can be intuitively converted into a patrol command. Players can utilize the ferry command on transports to ease the management of logistics dramatically. Admittedly, these aren't huge leaps in unit automation but to say that SupCom has absolutely nothing unique in terms of basic RTS standard unit automation is a bold faced lie.

Must I reiterate myself again? By placing rallying points of factories to the beacons of ferries you enable the automation of transferring troops without manually filling in the transports and moving them one by one. Fueling depots allows the automation of refueling planes so players do not have to worry about refueling aircraft. The coordinated attack feature allows players to let the game automate the synchronous attack without requiring player management. This game is filled with automated behaviors. Do you get it yet, moron?

Remember, *I'm* Stark the hater who hates everything and Pintsize here is just a calm, rational fan. Right?

Explain to me why I should care about your general cynicism again?

Covenant wrote:Robots can be interesting in robot-like ways. For example, maybe one of them sputters and jitters around as he stands while belching out smoke. That's right! The Monkeylord does that! The ML is a great example of a flavorful unit. It has style, it has a definite feel to it--that of a giant, smoke-belching mechanical spider like from Wild Wild West.

Sure it doesn't SAY anything. It doesn't really need to go "INPUT COORDINATES." It would be nice if it did. I'm not crying that it isn't, but hearing nothing but squeals and screeches doesn't give me a real good idea of what I just selected. I think it has a "Group 1, Group 2" notification, right? I never pay attention anymore.

Or, like, the Czar. Another great unit. Giant flying UFO with a Monument-Killer Beam? That's so classic. I love it! Why aren't the smaller units UFO's though? That'd be pretty cool. Why are they duplicates? Maybe they can change direction insanely quickly and fly around in Z shapes zig-zag routes and like to strafe things with down-facing beams? Maybe the Aeon ferry ship beams them up like a cow-mutilator would.

And that's the thing. The level 4 units feel great. Everything else feels like it was kinda tacked on. They all look basically the same. They all perform basically the same. Nobody has any special sounds or special abilities really--a few guys do, like how a Cybran Mantis and Siege Bot can help repair stuff. But it's not enough to distinguish things.

So really, it wouldn't be hard. Instead of all the tanks looking like little square bricks, make them look special! Sure, how special will they look with 8 billion of them on screen at once. Okay. If that's the case, then why make me spend all that time to get to Tier 4? Let the Moneylord-type of units be Level 2 or 3. Why add in all these layers of 'stepping stones' if they're not fun? Why give us 3 levels of power generation, radar, and mineral extractors if it just drags out the game and makes the entire thing feel like a mirror match against minutely different sides?

Otherwise, just make it all one faction. Then it'd actually be balanced.

Well, I wasn't too impressed with the way tanks looked as well They could have put a little more effort in the 3D modeling department. The T1 tanks look almost the same as T2 tanks until you zoom in a realize that the T2 tanks have two barrels. The first two tech levels do perform similarly and most players will rush from tech 1 to tech 3 when upgrading. Generally, I agree that the tech 2 units are lacking.

That wouldn't be totally necessary, but think about this:

There's various filters, yeah? The layers? Why couldn't I flip into, say, the Command Filter and then go over and drag a big marker on the ground. So I click on a spot and drag, making a big box appear from that spot.

Then a little circle appears over it. I click on that and a menu appears. I scroll down to 'Airlift Army 3' and click on that. It was past Airlift Army 2 and 1. That's the action I want. Then I click on the operational phrase box that appears and select 'all transports'. I could have also chosen a group, but I don't have my airlifts grouped. If I had given a general 'ferry' or 'move' command the all transports function would have included ships as well, unless I only specified airlift.

Now I've given a complex order that involves a huge about of stuff in a matter of seconds and my army springs into action.

Are Army 1, Army 2 and Army 3 specified groups? I don't see how that's any more intuitive that giving a ferry command and sending the units to beacons on the ground or linking factory rally points to those beacons. That or I'm not entirely understanding the idea.

Similar things could be done with enemy bases. Control zones could be emitted from enemy structures. In command they'd have tags over them like 'Strafe' or 'Avoid' that I could set behaviors to. I can also drag my own control box over them and say "Engage." Since I put my box over it, that's an order, not a passive behavioral response. In this case I choose "Engage on Command -- Army 3" on their base and another box in the same place that says "Engage on Command -- Army 1".

So I click on group one and move it over. It's my naval group, and I give them some move orders to head around some waterways carefully as Army 3 is airlifted into position. Once I get the navy there I click on their behavior and set it to 'Artillery' which tells them to stand off and fire. Ships that do not hav an artillery tag automatically then form up around those ships the same way formations in Homeworld 1 worked. Ships with the Artillery:1 in their unit file group to the center and move to the longest range possible. In the case of multiple types of artillery, they will only move to the medium range of the longrange artillery.

I then click 2, click shift+A and drag a box around the enemy base to tell them to attack. I've already set a few behavior tags on the enemy defenses (I did a control-click on their AA guns to do a 'behavior for all' function so I wouldn't need to tell them to evade them all manually. Clicking that many tags would suck!), so they know what to bomb and what not to.

I watch as they begin to get about halfway, then hit Cntrl-Alt 1 and Cntrl-Alt 3. That orders my units to go, and my entire attack springs into action.

You're right. Those types of behaviors would be quite useful, especially with planes. In TA, you at least had the option of "Engage at Will", "Return Fire" and "Hold Fire" but in SupCom, that has been reduced to "Return Fire" and "Hold Fire". It's somewhat unfortunate.

Stofsk wrote:It's retarded. The resource collectors are similarly retarded. Build a T1 metal extractor (sorry, they're called Mass extractors now) but you'll want to upgrade it later when you have the money in the bank. Um, why do I need to bother? I thought resource collection wasn't a part of the game? So why exactly can't I just throw down a metal collector and leave it alone? Now I have to upgrade it, but I can't upgrade it as soon as I get it because my economy slows to a crawl and nothing gets built.

Resource collection IS part of this game. The other game you're thinking of is Ground Control. Difference being that Supcom and TA's econ model is different from the usual RTS's.

And actually you don't have to upgrade them. You can just go straight to t3 reactors and mass fabs. But upgrading one or two occasionally does help when I'm ramping up production to break into t3. By the time I'm close to hitting T3, I have secured all the mass deposits on my side of the map, the number of which would depend on the map, but in Seton's Clutch that'd be 20-ish, so upgrading a few at a time doesn't really hurt me that much unless I'm building lots of stuff at a time.