Forged Alliance Forever

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-26T17:47:02+02:00

I think this thread has run it's course.

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 26 Feb 2012, 17:47

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-26T17:45:09+02:00

Anaryl wrote:
Just FYI, Christ taylor stated that SupCom original was actually a financial success.

Was it an unprecedented success? No, but that's using faulty logic just because more people bought something does not mean its the best.

Also Starcraft 1 took something like ten years to get asymmetrical factions right. Starcraft 2 still hasn't after what a year of release?

So stimpack - go back to starcraft II, tell us how balanced it is.

Idiot.

agree, mercies are more balanced than starcraft.

Statistics: Posted by Stunner — 26 Feb 2012, 17:45

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-26T02:53:49+02:00

Supcom was successful enough for ANOTHER company to buy out the franchise AND create a sequel, AFTER a fairly successful ADD-ON.

Statistics: Posted by thygrrr — 26 Feb 2012, 02:53

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-18T01:51:44+02:00

I agree with most of what uberge3k stated on his first post especially:

uberge3k wrote:
To use a personal example - I hate having to counter auroras, but I've changed my opinion from some months ago when I suggested they be nerfed. After practice, I have learned to exploit the weaknesses of auroras, and adapted my gameplay when facing them.

About time! I remember you arguing all the time in gpgnet lobby and nothing would convince you otherwise.

However I don't believe this is a fair statement:

uberge3k wrote:
The 3599 Seraphim restoration field bug could not be effectively countered, either by micro or by mass. Hence, it was unbalanced, and should be changed.

But that discussion doesn't belong in this post.

Statistics: Posted by Gunseng — 18 Feb 2012, 01:51

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-12T20:46:20+02:00

Supcom has been the most enjoyable video game I have ever played in my life. Sales numbers, faction art, or anything else doesn't really matter to me. I've had a great experience with the game.

I'm not able to play supcom much, but after the 1,000,000,000th thing in my life has been taken care of it's the first thing I do with my free time. I'm glad there are still people around to share my hobby and remind me how out of practice I am. So lets stop all this bickering and have a big group hug while our mercies fly in beautiful formation above.

Statistics: Posted by Antoninus — 12 Feb 2012, 20:46

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-12T19:31:42+02:00

stimpack88 wrote:
No the argument doesn't fall apart, we are the hardcore that's why we are still around - because we see potential in that half-baked potato that supreme commander and FA were.

stimpack88 wrote:
The point is there is a severe lack of fun and that is why players left

I wouldn't be here, nor would anyone else I know, if we weren't continually having fun with FA.

Considering that fun is completely subjective, I think further discussion is pointless...

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 12 Feb 2012, 19:31

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-12T17:19:12+02:00

uberge3k wrote:
stimpack88 wrote:The horrible turn out of players for supcom and FA multiplayer are more then proof enough there is something fundamentally wrong with the design, anyone who disputes this is living in a fantasy world.

Your argument falls apart at the seams when you take into consideration the fact that we have such a large and amazing community, to the point where a driven few created an entirely new lobby and community for it. I guess we must all have terrible taste in games to be clinging to FA and dedicating so much time to it! Or maybe I'm missing all of the other 6 year old games with far more support than this.

But we've already gone over this, so I guess you are simply smarter than everyone else here.

No the argument doesn't fall apart, we are the hardcore that's why we are still around - because we see potential in that half-baked potato that supreme commander and FA were. They are incomplete games with some great ideas poorly executed that needed fixing.

The point is there is a severe lack of fun and that is why players left, if we can't be truthful and identify where the weaknesses are and what is missing then we can kiss games like supcom in the future goodbye to dumbed down consolified garbage. The point is to get at what is wrong in the design and be able to articulate it since GPG wasn't up to the job it's left to those who know there is potential burried beneath the incomplete designs of supcom 1 and FA.

Statistics: Posted by stimpack88 — 12 Feb 2012, 17:19

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-12T14:37:13+02:00

stimpack88 wrote:
The horrible turn out of players for supcom and FA multiplayer are more then proof enough there is something fundamentally wrong with the design, anyone who disputes this is living in a fantasy world.

Your argument falls apart at the seams when you take into consideration the fact that we have such a large and amazing community, to the point where a driven few created an entirely new lobby and community for it. I guess we must all have terrible taste in games to be clinging to FA and dedicating so much time to it! Or maybe I'm missing all of the other 6 year old games with far more support than this.

But we've already gone over this, so I guess you are simply smarter than everyone else here.

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 12 Feb 2012, 14:37

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-12T14:33:05+02:00

The goal of FAF is to get FA as good as it can. Saying that it's a total failure is not really helping.
So, stimpack88 : Last chance to get to the point (because I can't see any) or shut up before a post restriction on the forums.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 12 Feb 2012, 14:33

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-12T14:23:19+02:00

stimpack88 wrote:
uberge3k wrote:I'm a game developer as my day job. So are several other members of this community...

So the hell what? Being a game developer does not mean you have any clue what you're doing. If this were true games like supcom 2 would not be made by "experienced game devs". A better question: How can a game developer f*** up as badly as GPG did when you're given a second chance to do the game right? They a got a second chance to do supcom right and they blew it again.

When you f*** up as bad as supcom 2 you need to separate engineering ability (how to put a game together) from understanding the underlying principles of fun.

The horrible turn out of players for supcom and FA multiplayer are more then proof enough there is something fundamentally wrong with the design, anyone who disputes this is living in a fantasy world. Successful games breed people playing your game because their is so much *fun* to be had. You can make a technical masterpiece that is boring as shit to watch and play and gaming has a lot of greatly engineered games that are boring as watching paint dry.

All the great successes in multiplayer gaming still speak heavily in favor of quality being synonymous with large player bases even though there are a few exceptions to the rule, supcom is not one of them. If your RTS can't even muster a decent number of players, what does that say about your 'game design skills' in terms of knowing what is fun for the end user? It says while you may be a good programmer or modeller, you all but suck at knowing how to come up with a fun game.

troll^^

Statistics: Posted by Kryo — 12 Feb 2012, 14:23

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-12T13:44:30+02:00

uberge3k wrote:
I'm a game developer as my day job. So are several other members of this community...

So the hell what? Being a game developer does not mean you have any clue what you're doing. If this were true games like supcom 2 would not be made by "experienced game devs". A better question: How can a game developer f*** up as badly as GPG did when you're given a second chance to do the game right? They a got a second chance to do supcom right and they blew it again.

When you f*** up as bad as supcom 2 you need to separate engineering ability (how to put a game together) from understanding the underlying principles of fun.

The horrible turn out of players for supcom and FA multiplayer are more then proof enough there is something fundamentally wrong with the design, anyone who disputes this is living in a fantasy world. Successful games breed people playing your game because their is so much *fun* to be had. You can make a technical masterpiece that is boring as shit to watch and play and gaming has a lot of greatly engineered games that are boring as watching paint dry.

All the great successes in multiplayer gaming still speak heavily in favor of quality being synonymous with large player bases even though there are a few exceptions to the rule, supcom is not one of them. If your RTS can't even muster a decent number of players, what does that say about your 'game design skills' in terms of knowing what is fun for the end user? It says while you may be a good programmer or modeller, you all but suck at knowing how to come up with a fun game.

Statistics: Posted by stimpack88 — 12 Feb 2012, 13:44

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-10T14:31:46+02:00

Ze_PilOt already summed it up, but I do take great offense at this comment:

stimpack88 wrote:
It's not about hating the game, it's about mourning wasted potential that is lost on most of the gamers that frequent this board because they just aren't passionate enough about games to even have an inkling of a clue of what was wrong with supcom and why it wasn't as fun as it should have been.

I'm a game developer as my day job. So are several other members of this community, some of which you've probably already been talking (and disagreeing) with. So I think we have a better-than-average understanding of game mechanics and how they fit together to create fun - or maybe we're just being paid to work on those things because of a strange series of accounting errors or something.

You seem quite sure of yourself, so it begs the question: what are your qualifications?

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 10 Feb 2012, 14:31

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-10T14:04:30+02:00

And how that system is bad ?

Faction diversity is one thing, and hardly a must-have. Look at civilization, ruse, total war serie, ....

On the contrary, supcom offers some features that you don't see in any other game.

I prefer to have dynamic projectile calculation than having different kind of pew pew effects.

So, faction diversity is already here (hovering and one role unit aeons, stealth and speedy cybrans, defensive UEF,....).

I think that your problem is that they play the same.
Do you really think that it will help adding different game mechanics (resources gathering, making unit,..) by faction ?
The game is already hard enough to learn, and even more to master (I don't think there is a single player mastering it -never crashing his eco or waste a single energy point at some point, ...) to add that layer. I think Taylor was clever not going that way.

Also, one of the key point of FA is the "easy to use" interface.
All is done for the player to not have to think about making engies, put them on crystal and going back and forth between the frontline and his base, and only concentrate on his strategy and tactics.

Adding a differentiation in factions will remove that feeling.

It's what I hate about starcraft actually. The faction don't look and play the same, that's true.
But the strategies are the same, and overall, the game mechanics are not that different between factions. But you have to learn how to play every faction just because it's not the same shortcuts and order loops.
This is for me, for a strategy game, a really bad design. But it's good for an action game (and that's what starcraft really is, in my point of view).

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 10 Feb 2012, 14:04

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-10T13:31:19+02:00

It's not about not liking FA, it's about you people being too close to the game. Supcom could have been greater then starcraft but that potential was cut short by bad game design.

From the mouth of chris taylor himself

Our goal from the beginning was to have all the units of the UEF, Cybran and Aeon clearly differentiated, have them move differently, have different-looking weapons, and feel like they had different philosophical fighting styles. That was the hardest thing of all to do, and in the end we sort of fell back to tanks and artillery - but at least we tried.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/18 ... commander/

They did not meet this goal at all, they spent a lot of resources on art when they just managed to clone all the sides. That speaks volumes about how they missed their own design goals.

This is proof that taylor and co had no idea what they were doing and just slapped stuff together in a half baked manner because they had no theory behind how to do unit differentiation. Then supcom 2 hit and was a huge abortion in terms of design as they consolified the game even though they got a second chance to do the game right and they blew it again, proving they still didn't know wtf they were doing.

It's not about hating the game, it's about mourning wasted potential that is lost on most of the gamers that frequent this board because they just aren't passionate enough about games to even have an inkling of a clue of what was wrong with supcom and why it wasn't as fun as it should have been. The low player turnout online was because something was inherently not too fun about the basic design.

I wanted supcom 1 to be more fun then it ended up being and FA didn't fix that, all it added was a completely redundant faction (sera) when they should have spent those resources differentiating the factions (as was their intended design goal).

Statistics: Posted by stimpack88 — 10 Feb 2012, 13:31

Re: What does "balanced" mean?

2012-02-10T09:16:56+02:00

Yes, let's close this discussion. Nobody will change his mind.
But one thing is sure : if you don't like FA, here is really not the place to be.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 10 Feb 2012, 09:16