|
Taffer posted:Man, I'm so stoked for this. TA was the video game that got me addicted to video games, and has made me a total RTS man from my early days despite lots of FPS'ing. It's been almost a decade and a half and there still hasn't been an RTS game that's scratched that TA itch. gently caress balanced annihilation. They took AA and said "ah, well the problem here is that metal makers are too expensive so you can't just build millions of them" and promptly destroyed the careful expansion based balance that caydr had been working towards for years.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
So...which Spring version is closest to just being TA except in 3D?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
Basically OTA. Nobody plays it though, so you'll have to play with bots. I've never actually played it so I'm not sure what its state is. http://springfiles.com/spring/games/basically-ota-6
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
I always liked NOTA since it was a TA inspired game with pretty good balance without being annoying to play. Although no one plays it :<
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
Drone_Fragger posted:gently caress balanced annihilation. They took AA and said "ah, well the problem here is that metal makers are too expensive so you can't just build millions of them" and promptly destroyed the careful expansion based balance that caydr had been working towards for years. Yeah something about it felt really wrong to me. I think it was how powerful T2 units were compared to lower tier stuff. The first game I played I built a huge wall of heavy laser towers and it got absolutely run over by 3(!) goliaths. No way in hell that would happen in TA. I like NOTA too. I'm not really sure it's any more similar to TA than BA is but it felt more reasonable to me. T1 stuff mostly stayed relevant throughout the course of the match, while T2 stuff was powerful but required some teching to get at. Knowing the Spring community though 99% of them will still be playing BA on 24/7 deltasiegedry servers with 10 players a side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
It wasn't even that T2 units were too good for me, it was that they made it so metal makers cost like 60 energy to run, so suddenly building fields of metal makers and turtling was a more winnable strategy than expanding carefully and trying to defend valuable positions, which was the style that Caydr trying to put forward with AA. Also AA tried to cut down on unit bloat (Units for the sake of units) something that BA never really did very well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Hey guys just an FYI, there's a bunch of new modern day features, engine updates and added value updates for the original TA that people compiled into a mod-compatible patch: http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42656 TA runs like a dream on modern computers with Windows 7, and it had native support for widescreen resolutions back when it came out so that's not a problem either!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Vertigus posted:Hey guys just an FYI, there's a bunch of new modern day features, engine updates and added value updates for the original TA that people compiled into a mod-compatible patch: http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42656 Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Vertigus posted:Hey guys just an FYI, there's a bunch of new modern day features, engine updates and added value updates for the original TA that people compiled into a mod-compatible patch: http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42656 I tried this patch yesterday and it caused my game to crash three times in a row during a skirmish. I honestly don't remember TA ever crashing before. Dumped the patch and its running fine again. It's the GOG version that I have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
SupCom was a good game in that it let you build lots of robots and run them at each other. If you spent the game in strategic level zooms then that is your own fault.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
This thread on Uber's PA forums has a complete list of all the features that the developers have either confirmed for the game or are under consideration (and a few items that are likely not to be included.) Some of the confirmed features: -LAN play and single-player skirmish mode, both without DRM -Mapmaking and map sharing -Multi-player will use a client-server setup, which should allow for substitute players, easier reconnections and best of all, the match won't be limited to the speed of the slowest connected computer. -Only 2 tech levels like TA, with similar upgrade paths: T1 engineer->T1 factory->T2 engineer->T2 factory. Possible experimentals, but less than SC. -D-Gun on commanders  -Only one faction, everyone gets identical units. Some possible stretch goals: -Naval units -A single player campaign Some things that probably won't be in: -Space combat, although they are talking about including satellites in some fashion. -Shields -SC-like base building with efficiencies based on structure location. In general, it seems that they intend to stick closer to TA's design than SC's. Thewittyname fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Aug 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Wingless posted:So...which Spring version is closest to just being TA except in 3D? I'd say XTA. Although it was a long time since I played any spring games (the community is horrible unfortunately).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Thewittyname posted:-Asynchronous multi-player, which should allow for substitute players, easier reconnections and best of all, the match won't be limited to the speed of the slowest connected computer. Okay, perhaps I'm getting the term mixed up, but isn't this similar to play-by-email and the like? The only real-time games I can remember seeing with asynchronous multiplayer were DEFCON (at 1:1 time scale) and Neptune's pride. The former was fairly simplistic, and as I recall you still had to stay in the game client at all times, and the latter's games literally took weeks to months, and it was also simple. Not sure how that would work with this game, unless they mean a really large, really slow game mode. (That would rock, by the way).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Lprsti99 posted:Okay, perhaps I'm getting the term mixed up, but isn't this similar to play-by-email and the like? The only real-time games I can remember seeing with asynchronous multiplayer were DEFCON (at 1:1 time scale) and Neptune's pride. The former was fairly simplistic, and as I recall you still had to stay in the game client at all times, and the latter's games literally took weeks to months, and it was also simple. Not sure how that would work with this game, unless they mean a really large, really slow game mode. (That would rock, by the way). I'm pretty sure they said TA was Asynchronous, most other RTS's are Synchronous and that Planetary Annihilation was going to be Client-Server. e.g. You run a dedicated server and clients join to play. I'm not sure how A/Synchronous lines up with Client/Server but that's the way they presented it in the text I read. Kickstarter page posted:Other than Total Annihilation, which was asynchronous, most Real-Time Strategy games use a synchronous networking model, which means that all the computers in a given game are held back by the slowest machine. The Planetary Annihilation engine uses a client-server model so that the “heavy lifting” can be done on a game server, freeing up gamers’ machines to engage in bigger battles with more players!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
I'm just a tad concerned about having one faction, but I bet modders would be able to do that, right? Also gently caress yeah, D-Gun is back!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
BillyJoeBob posted:I'm just a tad concerned about having one faction, but I bet modders would be able to do that, right? Also gently caress yeah, D-Gun is back! Issue is they don't have the manpower of Blizzard and 3 years of dev time available to properly balance several factions. Seeing as this is multi-player centric that would be kinda important. Maybe in an expansion later, hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
BillyJoeBob posted:I'm just a tad concerned about having one faction, but I bet modders would be able to do that, right? Also gently caress yeah, D-Gun is back! Perhaps they could give certain things different upgrades so while each side has the same stuff, they can be different in certain ways (weapons/speed/ect) as well as allowing for switching around your army based on the situation at hand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
Squibbles posted:I'm pretty sure they said TA was Asynchronous, most other RTS's are Synchronous and that Planetary Annihilation was going to be Client-Server. e.g. You run a dedicated server and clients join to play. I'm not sure how A/Synchronous lines up with Client/Server but that's the way they presented it in the text I read. Okay, so it is just a misunderstanding as "Asynchronous Multiplayer" usually means something completely different. They're just going to use a dedicated server setup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Okay, so it is just a misunderstanding as "Asynchronous Multiplayer" usually means something completely different. They're just going to use a dedicated server setup. Yep, got it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Okay, so it is just a misunderstanding as "Asynchronous Multiplayer" usually means something completely different. They're just going to use a dedicated server setup. Yeah, client-server is correct. I've edited my post to remove some confusion. Squibbles posted:I'm pretty sure they said TA was Asynchronous, most other RTS's are Synchronous and that Planetary Annihilation was going to be Client-Server. e.g. You run a dedicated server and clients join to play. I'm not sure how A/Synchronous lines up with Client/Server but that's the way they presented it in the text I read. I think a/synchronous are forms of P2P matchmaking, while client-server is just that? I don't know for sure. BillyJoeBob posted:I'm just a tad concerned about having one faction, but I bet modders would be able to do that, right? Also gently caress yeah, D-Gun is back! I do hope that one of the stretch goals is some unit differentiation, but I would be satisfied if we ended up with one faction but with a wide variety of units. Something like how TA was after the two expansions - for example you had regular tanks, hover tanks, submersible tanks, paralyzing tanks, mobile artillery and suicide bombs. Even though not all of these were equally useful, it was still cool as hell to have so many options. One of my biggest letdowns in SC was how it trimmed down the unit tree (although the experimentals made up for it somewhat.) Modders should be able to add new units/sides though; I know it was possible in TA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
There was unit differentiation. Brawlers were better than Rapiers. Correction: Peewees, Flashes and Brawlers were better than their equivalents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
There was a lot of overlap, and a lot of units that were basically exact counterparts, but even most of those played differently: AK vs peewee, instigator vs flash, etc. And then there were a ton of units that didn't have counterparts. goliaths, penetrators, morties, sumos, etc. T2 is where the big differences became more apparent. The sad thing is that most 1v1 games, which is where RTS shines, didn't make it to T2 because it was too risky and resource intensive. Those are the kind of balance differences that I hope we'll get to see in Planetary Annihilation. It would be a shame if there only ended up being one faction, that makes things pretty static.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
They just announced the stretch goals and unit differentiation/factions doesn't seem to be among them unfortunately. Edit: Oops they only announced 2 of the 5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
I'm really thrilled that there is a good chance a new Total Annihilation successor will become a reality. There is no RTS that wasted me and my friends time in my childhood like TA. The first 2 stretch goals look pretty interesting. I'm a little confused by what exactly the second goal would really add to the game but surely it would be interesting. I'm far more excited about the first - when Core Contingency came out Water only maps were really different and fun and I just want a game that lets me ambush people with seaplanes again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
The greatest part of TA that I won't be able to replicate in Planetary Annihilation sadly is that I had a Pentium 200 and my friend only had a P120. When my fleet of Brawlers or Advanced Stealth planes would lift off it turned his computer into a slideshow so he was completely unable to do anything but hope and pray his automated defences were good enough to fend off my attacks. I fear we'll never see such glorious times ever again 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Naval combat (and water planets) is a stretch goal which means I'm psychic. The other stretch goal that's been announced so far is gas giants and more orbital units. I don't think any orbital units have been announced so far?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Discounting the initial three day surge of orders, PA is bringing in about 45k a day. Even assuming it drops to 40K and stays there, given the remaining number of days it should clear the first two stretch goals easily, ending up with about $1.5 million. FWIW, Kicktraq is projecting an end total between $1.6 and $3.0 million. Also, I wasn't saying TA didn't have unit differentiation, I was talking about how both the Arm and the Core each had a wide variety of units. If the one faction in PA ended up with about as many units as the Arm or Core did, I'd be super happy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
sgnl05 posted:Naval combat (and water planets) is a stretch goal which means I'm psychic. They've said that there will be orbital units (satellites), although I don't know of any specific units. Also, I think it would be nice if radar was blocked by planetary bodies, allowing you to build secret bases on the dark side of the moon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Thewittyname posted:Discounting the initial three day surge of orders, PA is bringing in about 45k a day. Even assuming it drops to 40K and stays there, given the remaining number of days it should clear the first two stretch goals easily, ending up with about $1.5 million. FWIW, Kicktraq is projecting an end total between $1.6 and $3.0 million. If I had to guess I'd say that they probably made the decision to only have one side in order to save money in terms of time being invested to balance multiple factions against each other. Also saves time in designing more units and leaves a door open to future expansions/dlc with new factions I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
What does all this high-fallutin' fancy-pants server talk mean for us players not in the US? Are we going to get stuck with lovely connections and inherent delay? e: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 10:51
|
|
|
The first time I play this game, I'm not gonna use any of the planet-ramming abilities. I'm going to fight a slow, grinding campaign across the entire solar system, take every planet with conventional forces, an inch at a time. And then when there's only one enemy planet left I'll launch all of my planets at it simultaneously. (And then probably never play the game again, because there's nothing left to do). Speaking of which, what happens if you and someone else launch planets at each other simultaneously? Just circle each other, like wolves?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 11:16
|
|
|
WreckSov posted:What does all this high-fallutin' fancy-pants server talk mean for us players not in the US? Are we going to get stuck with lovely connections and inherent delay? It sounds like it will be more like the good old days, anyone can download the server software and set one up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 13:03
|
|
|
One of the great things about TA that I hope they have in PA is that when your main base got overrun you could always have one or more secret bases to run off to, full of experimental robots and weapons, ready to rebuild and fight back. In this case, unnoticed asteroids from which you can plot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
WreckSov posted:What does all this high-fallutin' fancy-pants server talk mean for us players not in the US? Are we going to get stuck with lovely connections and inherent delay? A good developer would allow people to run their own dedicated servers, especially since they've put so much emphasis on how it's going to run on dedicated servers, not P2P. In fact, it's easier for them that way because they have to run fewer, if any, of their own official servers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Canadian Surf Club posted:Although space battles may be out, hopefully the idea of a "satellite" layer won't just include moons and other cosmic bodies but actual things you can throw up into orbit that circle around a planet. A Low Orbit Ion Cannon, even? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Does no one else think that having game play features be the stretch goals is kind of a lovely thing to do ? Sure different factions I could probably understand, but naval units and two different planets for $400k?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Sendo posted:Does no one else think that having game play features be the stretch goals is kind of a lovely thing to do ? This seems more like a Kickstarter thread question, but seriously where do you draw the line with 'gameplay features'. Everything takes time to produce. Their overall concept has lots of potential but they can only run with that concept as far as their cash reserves will pay their salary. It's not a ransom, it's if we get this much, we'll be able to spend time doing this feature.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
New Q&A video on Kickstarter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1v0qwjpky0 Featuring: Cavedog mug
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Sendo posted:Does no one else think that having game play features be the stretch goals is kind of a lovely thing to do ? Game development is expensive. You need $200K for naval units/naval buildings/ocean planets, yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
Sendo posted:Does no one else think that having game play features be the stretch goals is kind of a lovely thing to do ? So figure that $400k is buying you roughly 8 developers/artists/etc for 6 months. Which, for something as big as "all the assets, design, tech and testing necessary for an entirely new facet of combat" - sounds about right. If anything, it's a bit on the low side, unless they're really careful with scope and don't make ocean combat too crazy different. Shalinor fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Aug 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 20:41
|
|
