|
New livestream is up on YouTube and demos a lot of the planet tech.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
Baloogan posted:If you want to fellate the devs go post on their forums. I'm wondering how you didn't know this - one of the questions in the FAQ on PA's Kickstarter page is "Will Uber continue to support Super Monday Night Combat?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
And the fact that it got mentioned almost everywhere the KS project got mentioned, including here, multiple times. With a lot of "Well, they kind of screwed up SMNC, but..." posts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with SMNC, how exactly did they screw it up?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Breetai posted:I'm not familiar with SMNC, how exactly did they screw it up? Released early, the game was basically in beta but they decided to not include a beta tag on the early release, so people were fronted with a 'complete game' that had bugs out the wazoo and missing features. This meant that newer players had a hard time swallowing what the game offered, and the veteran players who had played through the bugs were more than tempered enough to annihilate the new players. This, coupled with the fact that the existing community prior to release were mostly venomous douchelords meant that new players had to accept: 1) The game was buggy 2) The game was difficult to learn 3) The game was inhabited by toxic assholes whose M.O was to ruin your experience In short? SMNC was a game with tons of potential and had every right to be a successful and amazing. It was just handled badly and essentially killed itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
New update today and I'm really starting to like how the games art style is panning out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
The aesthetic on the metal planets is fantastic. I hope the gameplay can stand up to the art direction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Their Friday livestream this week is going to be the first in-game engine thingy demonstration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
I loved the original Total Annihilation. I'm so excited for this. The art style is fantastic! Does anyone know if they've started the alpha/beta yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
I think we're still quite a ways from alpha.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Yeah still very much in the prototyping stage right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 11:43
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugz7I8Z1bkI Has some stuff about alpha at the end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Anyone else notice how Mavor's face goes from normal at the beginning of the stream to reddish on the side by the middle of the video then to super ultra RED AS HELL by the end of the video? I thought his head was about to explode, nobody in the comments seemed to notice it
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
It looks really weird to see a TA like game not be based on a grid at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Giggily posted:It looks really weird to see a TA like game not be based on a grid at all. I don't know if the grid added anything in TA or SupCom. You can still have buildings snap together even if they are not on a grid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
PITT posted:Anyone else notice how Mavor's face goes from normal at the beginning of the stream to reddish on the side by the middle of the video then to super ultra RED AS HELL by the end of the video? I thought his head was about to explode, nobody in the comments seemed to notice it Probably has something to do with the floodlight aimed at his face for 20 minutes, some heat reaction or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Combat Demo (Starts at 7:10) Looks suitably TA-ish.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
It's really amazing how far they've come in the last couple months, from barely having a terrain system to something that could almost pass for a playable game if you don't look too hard. Looking forward to the beta this summer.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Not a single bit of micro. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
I liked the music they had in the background, I hope that that was from the game's soundtrack. It sounded nice and TA like, so it should be pretty snazzy when it's orchestrated.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Not a single bit of micro. Yeah, I noticed that. I like lining up my units and having essentially line infantry. It looked very 'blizzard' or star craft 2 with the way the units all bunched up. That isn't what I want 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Yeah, I noticed that. I like lining up my units and having essentially line infantry. This is an early Alpha to the point that there aren't even win conditions coded, you know.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Yeah, I noticed that. I like lining up my units and having essentially line infantry. Oh, I wasn't saying that as a criticism of the game, just the players.  It seems like it has room for some good micro at least, things were slow but I'm just assuming they were running everything at the lowest possible speed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
Only Kickstarter I ever backed, super glad I did. I'm sure I'll be horrible at the game but it just looks so amazing I just can't wait to screw around with it for a few weeks.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
So given this is still on a shoe-string budget compared to the big names in the genre, are we expecting there to be quite a few rough edges in the final product? Given they've made the game on only $2.2m and it only cost me $20 I'd be happy with an ambitious but flawed single player experience, but anyone know if there's an outside chance they could still develop a halfway decent and properly balanced multiplayer experience?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 09:45
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:So given this is still on a shoe-string budget compared to the big names in the genre, are we expecting there to be quite a few rough edges in the final product? Given they've made the game on only $2.2m and it only cost me $20 I'd be happy with an ambitious but flawed single player experience, but anyone know if there's an outside chance they could still develop a halfway decent and properly balanced multiplayer experience? There is only one faction specifically to ensure that it is balanced. It is being designed multiplayer first, with single player as a nice bonus for getting way more than they goal.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Not a single bit of micro.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:So given this is still on a shoe-string budget compared to the big names in the genre, are we expecting there to be quite a few rough edges in the final product? Given they've made the game on only $2.2m and it only cost me $20 I'd be happy with an ambitious but flawed single player experience, but anyone know if there's an outside chance they could still develop a halfway decent and properly balanced multiplayer experience? The single player campaign will basically be a randomly generated set of skirmishes with some kind of meta game, from what I understand, so no need to hire voice actors or anything. There is only one faction, cutting down on artists. Similarly, the game should be more or less procedurally generated, so that should save on cost in the long term. Maybe? Also they apparently had a lot of the engine done ahead of time.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Grey Fox V2 posted:I'm so glad there isn't much of that so far. Nothing turns people off more to RTS games then complicating things. Wait... what? How does micro complicate things? Also, the only RTS game that ever got popular was massively centered around micro so that's pretty much objectively false.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
Grey Fox V2 posted:I'm so glad there isn't much of that so far. Nothing turns people off more to RTS games then complicating things. You truly have no clue about RTS games, do you?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
I hope they do have formations and steal conveniences from Supreme Commander like synchronizing attacks, setting patrol routes and adding units to them and all that stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:You truly have no clue about RTS games, do you?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Talkie Toaster posted:He's right, though. Plenty of people don't play multiplayer because needing micro to not lose horribly is a faff- it cuts out casual play and fundamentally /isn't/ why a vast swathe of people play RTSes (the S stands for strategy, after all). Sure, there's large groups who like fiddly micro but just compare the playerbases of say TF2/COD and more intensive FPSes. I think we're due a more accessible multiplayer RTS. It'll still be the same. The kind of people who don't like micro are the kind of people who want to build a huge base uninterrupted and build their giant army then a-click the enemy base. People who know how to manage lots of things at the same time will still completely roll over the kind of people who hate micro, even if the game isn't centered around micro. The solution to the problem is a decent matchmaking system, where people can play against others that are at their level.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
But then it's more understandable, less frustrating and easier to improve on? Consider stealth TML assassinations in Supcom or whatever; as a new player, you can understand the problem easily (not enough air patrolling) and it's a challenge that fits into the game you think you're playing- a strategy game. When they roll over you with an equally-sized army because they were playing an entirely different game to you (ordering individual tank targetting priorites, say) you don't counter by changing strategy- you either go 'well okay I guess I'll play a strategy/fast-paced whackamole game' or 'this is not the game I thought I was playing' and quit. TA/SC avoid this by having units like commanders and experimentals that're large, distinct, and you're clearly expected to micro to an extent; whilst you're not expected or required to micro Cannon-Fodder Tank #57784.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
I do so love the apples and oranges comparisons. Just because people like to lump Starcraft and TA into the same genre doesn't mean they play similarly. Skill ceiling pretty much requires that the required actions per minute increases as you climb the ranks, otherwise it would be a turn based strategy game. Match making is much more important, as long as the game is fun at lower levels and players are matched appropriately at the lower levels, it doesn't matter if micro is required to succeed at the higher levels.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
What I really want is a game that plays like Spring; where unit positioning means something but my units will try to position themselves automatically.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
This argument is why RUSE is one my favorite RTS games ever. You could play RUSE like a craps table stickman, shoveling masses of units across the play field and making large sweeping tweaks to battle lines, drag selecting entire battalions and moving them around. It was a great feeling, and this is looking like maybe it'll support long fight tactics and strategy rather than intensive micro. Not that micro is a bad thing, mind, but I just want RUSE again.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
It's the same thing with any multiplayer RTS game, from TA/SupCom to Command & Conquer to Starcraft. The "strategy" might be different, but the required skillset is the same: whoever can micro best, wins. Me, I'm the type of player who gets bogged down and distracted watching all the gunfire and pretty explosions while my units do their thing. Consequently, I always lose. I'm not too worried about competitive high level play, but it'd be very good for players like me if at least the skirmish AI in Planetary Annihilation was accessible enough to play against without excessive micromanagement.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
That's such bullshit. The main skill that separates a regular ladder player from a Masters player in SC2 is their ability to macro.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
Double post
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 06:23
|
|