Discussion about making games on big maps faster to play is just lol. If you want a map where rapid unit movement and 'rushing' is possible, then just play a smaller map. The whole point of a large map is that things take a long time. You have to plan ahead. Also, it is true that some of the problems that people see in games on large maps stem, in part, from the decisions of the faf community.
IceDreamer wrote:
SupCom's core workings are designed around the biggest maps, the problem is the balance which we, the community, who enjoy the slightly faster gameplay of smaller maps, have imposed on the system. 81K maps are already fun with a group of friends, so zone control elements with transport and intel options available could form a really neat sub-game, IF it can be done.
Lionhardt wrote:
Nah, if they (the workings) were there'd be way more logistical options. Like way bigger transports to actually be able to transport whole armies in without te needs of dozens of transports, that get downed by enemy ASF in an instant and a huge load of micro needed to pull it off. Also there would need to be a much higher unit cap and even more UI features that make controlling the game on large maps feasible, which as it is, it isn't. On top of that, tell me, if it was designed around big maps, why are there so few big default maps? Only 3 80km ones and just a hand full of 40km. Also tell me why they chose Seton's as the flag ship map for the game, which is a 20km map? No, I think it's pretty obvious it was not. It also has to do nothing what so ever with balance. It has to do with mechanics and units that are not there. Even less it has do do with our special FAF balance, as the situation is not different in SupCom and FA vanilla. No... Convince me otherwise.
Icedreamer is correct that the game was meant for large map play. If you look at the literature about SupCom since before its release, as well as the concepts the developers talked about, you can hardly argue otherwise. When considering where Icedreamer is off, and where the problems that you are noticing stem from, there are a few factors that we have to take into account:
One, the developers had limited time and money to develop the game. If they had more time and resources available we probably would have seen some of the features they proposed for large-map game play (such as teleporting through quantum gates) actually implemented. That we don’t have features such as this, far from being an indication that large games are unintended, demonstrates the kinds of goals we as a modding community should have if we really want to get the game into its ideal form.
Two, they had to market it to a wider audience. Remember, most RTS players learned the genre on Starcraft and similar titles. They are used to games that are relatively short and focus on a smaller, tactical scale. Even dedicated SupCom players do not necessarily normally have the time for an enormous battle – if I want to play a game on a weeknight after work, I need a game that won’t likely go over an 45 minutes to an hour.
Three, they had very limited precedents for their concept. (Which was/is undeniably a rather ambitious one.) We saw the developers talking about things like icons for individual units seamlessly merging into icons for whole formations as you zoomed out, and Support Commanders that would automate your base management so you could focus on bigger picture activities as the game size increased. But what could they draw on at the time as a model for these? They had to make a lot of stuff up. Just look at some of the useful tools we see in SupCom2. When they made that game they had some info about what worked, what didn’t, and what would be useful that they could draw on to implement their ideas. This was lacking when they made the original SupCom, but it doesn’t mean they didn’t do a pretty good job to begin with.
You said to convince you otherwise (although that will prove essentially impossible, as your mind is already made up) so let’s go through what you’re claiming point by point:
Lionhardt wrote:
Like way bigger transports to actually be able to transport whole armies in without te needs of dozens of transports, that get downed by enemy ASF in an instant and a huge load of micro needed to pull it off.
Compared to the amount of micro you need to use transports in other games, there is already an incredibly small amount of micro needed to use transports in FA - The ferry icon was incredibly innovative. There are a lot of issues with the specifics, but the concept is sound and works for transporting units over large distances. I don’t know why you think that a large number of transports should be unnecessary to transport a large army to begin with though. Also, the ease with which they’re intercepted can be problematic, but you’re not necessarily meant to be attempting drops in contested airspace in general. In my experience, on a big map it is not particularly difficult to get a group of transports where they need to go even when attacking an enemy base. You just need to scout out where their radar coverage stops, get your planes in position, then draw off most of their airforce with a diversion first. On 40x40s drops are often even more powerful than on smaller maps, because enemy forces are more dispersed, and on 81x81s you’re generally building forward bases to get your land units nearer to the enemy, not trying to fly an army all the way across the map to your enemy. There’s a reason that half the factions have mobile factories.
I won't argue with you that the transport distribution is ridiculous, because I agree, you're absolutely right. But the larger your army becomes, the less it matters (you can't lose all of your mobile shields in one go, for example, if you have six transports worth of them) and if you're not putting your transports in harm's way it's usually not a problem. So I don't know how you put that under the "make the game infeasible to play" category.
Lionhardt wrote:
Also there would need to be a much higher unit cap and even more UI features that make controlling the game on large maps feasible, which as it is, it isn't.
More UI features like what? You have the icon system, the shift order overlay, editable orders and waypoints, factory assisting, movement indicators that intuitively show how many units are issued that command, dual monitors, color-coded range indicators, automatically rebuilding structures, and strategic zoom, to name a few. The game already is packed with innovations that map controlling the game on large maps feasible, and these are just what comes in the box! If you look at what the SupCom community, and faf specifically, has added with UI mods - hotbuild, resource and economy managers, mex managers, fab managers, advanced strategic icons, now even target priority control - what are you thinking is a critically missing piece of UI that would make things better?
I’m curious to hear what makes it infeasible to control the game on large maps for you. I typically do not have a different experience than on any other size in terms of controlability. All I've seen you actually offer as evidence of how it's not realistic to control the game on large maps is this transport issue, which is peripheral at best. Everything else you brought up has already been addressed by the community - well within the game's architecture too.
Lionhardt wrote:
On top of that, tell me, if it was designed around big maps, why are there so few big default maps? Only 3 80km ones and just a hand full of 40km.
Because they take a lot longer to design. Remember what Hawkei said – you can make sixteen 20x20s for every 81x81. Since they are going to be played relatively less , as I discussed above, of course the developers will have made less of them.
Lionhardt wrote:
Also tell me why they chose Seton's as the flag ship map for the game, which is a 20km map?
Part of the reason it is the flagship map is the same reason it is so popular in the first place: It has specific areas that showcase specific aspects of the game. Also, advertising your game by saying “You’ll spend hours playing a single game!” isn’t going to go over well with most of your potential customers who aren’t going to want such an intense and time-consuming experience.
Lionhardt wrote:
It also has to do nothing what so ever with balance. It has to do with mechanics and units that are not there. Even less it has do do with our special FAF balance, as the situation is not different in SupCom and FA vanilla.
Balance, and our community balance in particular absolutely plays a role in the viability of larger maps. We have adjusted units that are meant to be seen primarily in large maps so that they’re much more common in smaller maps and almost too common in large maps, and we’ve taken away or marginalized a number of units that are meant to make factions more effective on larger maps.
Lionhardt wrote:
Saying at the same time that the Devs knew real big scale wasnt possible due to hardware limitations and therefore cut it down and that the game was designed around real big scale makes no sense to me.
It's a pretty straightforward concept, actually. If you really can't wrap your head around it, look at those new classes of American warships. (The carrier and destroyer.) They don't have any laser or railgun weapons on them, because that technology isn't ready yet. But the underlying architecture of the ships is designed to accommodate such weapons. SupCom is much the same way. The game is clearly designed around huge battles, it's just that a lot of the things that they really felt would make that gameplay work to its full potential couldn't be prepared in time for release.
You're right that it means a few more changes than simply adding teleporters might be in order to make it ideal for gameplay on maps that are very large, but it hardly means that they're unplayable either. It's also a clear sign of what we as a community could have as goals for how we tweak the game as we continue to alter it. Look at the very thread you brought up. You weren't just saying, "This is pointless, look how messed up it is," you were saying, "How can we fix this?"
Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, this community has the idea that SupCom is 'meant' for or 'best' for only certain types of games. IceDreamer, perhaps you've had a change of heart recently, but remember when you said this in response to my comments about the Mavor's viability and how your proposed changes to the Mavor would affect its balance on larger maps:
IceDreamer wrote:
PS: Anyone using the "But Range" argument here should realise that until the Community begin playing on 40K maps, that argument is invalid.
If what people like to see in large maps is considered irrelevant, they're hardly going to be encouraged to play large maps, now are they? The people who are seriously involved in making changes to the game around here, especially the 'pro players', are typically fairly disdainful of the idea of playing larger maps at all, and certainly the idea that the game should be balanced with them in mind. This is, I think, part of the reason we've seen things like spammable SCUs, reductions in SMS range, discussion about making carriers into T3 cruisers because they 'have no purpose', etc.
Large maps will always be played less than smaller ones - they just take so much longer! It's a difficult issue to deal with, because most of the people who are really interested in large maps also aren't that interested in maintaining the core game. Look at the 40x40+ games you see hosted at any given time. The vast majority of them will be using blackops, xtremewars, etc.
Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 08 May 2014, 15:56
]]>
