Forged Alliance Forever Forged Alliance Forever Forums 2015-09-04T21:59:42+02:00 /feed.php?f=39&t=10580 2015-09-04T21:59:42+02:00 2015-09-04T21:59:42+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=109352#p109352 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]>
=M.V.K.= wrote:
codepants wrote:
Morax wrote:Chris Taylor was reportedly going through heroin addiction rehabilitation while designing Supp Comm 2 - not an ideal setting for a game dev.



So... does that mean he was on heroin when making FA? :)


Well, at a time probably not so true really..probably more often then not (given lack of say further words still then to say said for "saying") in regards to place of interest for say "interest" of outcome would probably of "added" better "foresight" then the "reserve" of before.. (I was going to post something actually completely different but lost it and close as could get in the meantime, cause I probably won't get it back anytime soon if at all) especially in worth of "work place"..
Other then "thoughts" of "time"..hard to really say..
___________________________________________________

It's speculative..



...what?

Statistics: Posted by Zeldafanboy — 04 Sep 2015, 21:59


]]>
2015-08-25T19:31:16+02:00 2015-08-25T19:31:16+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=108447#p108447 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]>
Morax wrote:
Chris Taylor was reportedly going through heroin addiction rehabilitation while designing Supp Comm 2 - not an ideal setting for a game dev.


So... does that mean he was on heroin when making FA? :)

Statistics: Posted by codepants — 25 Aug 2015, 19:31


]]>
2015-08-25T05:49:54+02:00 2015-08-25T05:49:54+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=108402#p108402 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]>
Riser wrote:
i did hear CT was working on something secret which is why i'm exited,one can only dream :D


there was talk of something being announced at gamescon this year, but i couldnt find anything. Chris Taylor never announced anything that i could find

http://worldoftanks.eu/en/news/pc-brows ... interview/

Statistics: Posted by lynx_nz — 25 Aug 2015, 05:49


]]>
2015-08-22T13:55:47+02:00 2015-08-22T13:55:47+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=108254#p108254 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]>
Morax wrote:
Environmental effects is a great idea, Aulex.

Imagine if a player has a SMD and you don't want to risk using your nuke right on the base. There is a mountain behind the player. You could fire the nuke and create a MASSIVE rock slide that falls onto an opponent's territory.

Maybe in the sense of unit types like a ground and air force there isn't much but I bet there are bountiful amounts of ideas.

You know how Wagners submerge underwater yet it's only to conceal themselves from above-water fire? Maybe in a successor there are underwater structures like in TA's Core Contingency: http://totalannihilation.wikia.com/wiki ... sion_Plant

Imagine you expand upon that and there are better underwater structures, bases, defenses aside from torp launchers like a water-permissible laser?

I can think of many things...


nah that's just going too far,i would enjoy seeing physics in let's say particle and wreckage movement (experimentals being destroyed with every piece falling on it's own and maybe causing damage to the units under it,same as with air units) but deforming terrain isn't something i want to see in supcom that would be unnecessary and gimmicky like Col_Walter_Kurtz just said.

Statistics: Posted by Riser — 22 Aug 2015, 13:55


]]>
2015-08-19T21:18:37+02:00 2015-08-19T21:18:37+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=107926#p107926 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]>
Against "mods", think just say turning up the graphic settings alone can help and just alot of people don't..

Like you can't have "waves" that flip-over ships if there basically isn't any water on a water map cause the "graphics" "turns" it off..let alone "weather/weathering".."day and night shifts"...etc..

Like wreckage, if your graphics were on say a low setting at one time, you basically didn't have any wreckage if at all...worth reclaim since "ever"..

Just say the bare minimal for graphics increased for SupCom 2 and with it alot of say "gameplay"..

That and FA probably has like 100x the "compatibilty"..even if it just say "logical"..

I can even run SupCom 2 and still say when it is over it is debatable near all the time..

But compatibility and graphics is my answer...probably not right but still..

Statistics: Posted by =M.V.K.= — 19 Aug 2015, 21:18


]]>
2015-08-19T20:25:19+02:00 2015-08-19T20:25:19+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=107922#p107922 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]>
Imagine if a player has a SMD and you don't want to risk using your nuke right on the base. There is a mountain behind the player. You could fire the nuke and create a MASSIVE rock slide that falls onto an opponent's territory.

Maybe in the sense of unit types like a ground and air force there isn't much but I bet there are bountiful amounts of ideas.

You know how Wagners submerge underwater yet it's only to conceal themselves from above-water fire? Maybe in a successor there are underwater structures like in TA's Core Contingency: http://totalannihilation.wikia.com/wiki ... sion_Plant

Imagine you expand upon that and there are better underwater structures, bases, defenses aside from torp launchers like a water-permissible laser?

I can think of many things...

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 19 Aug 2015, 20:25


]]>
2015-08-19T19:59:25+02:00 2015-08-19T19:59:25+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=107921#p107921 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]> Statistics: Posted by Aulex — 19 Aug 2015, 19:59


]]>
2015-08-19T16:14:42+02:00 2015-08-19T16:14:42+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=107904#p107904 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]>
Morax wrote:
Personally I hope it's not TA 2. It's a fun, nostalgic idea, but something new and fresh would be a lot better in my opinion.

It's been long enough where there must be something that he's thought about over the years that will trump TA, SC, FA, etc. It has been nearly a decade since the SC beta was released to TA players...


I wonder how you could improve the concept of these games. Of course there are technical and practical improvements to consider like sim calculations server side, as in PA. But I fear that as soon as there are conceptual changes, you will get crazy stuff like "planets" or other ideas that are "new", but at the same time quite unnecessary and gimmicky.

I'm not CT, but I can't see anything replace FA unless it's an improved FA. I almost hope I'm wrong though.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 19 Aug 2015, 16:14


]]>
2015-08-19T16:03:33+02:00 2015-08-19T16:03:33+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=107901#p107901 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]>
It's been long enough where there must be something that he's thought about over the years that will trump TA, SC, FA, etc. It has been nearly a decade since the SC beta was released to TA players...

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 19 Aug 2015, 16:03


]]>
2015-08-19T15:53:33+02:00 2015-08-19T15:53:33+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=107900#p107900 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]>

Statistics: Posted by Riser — 19 Aug 2015, 15:53


]]>
2015-08-19T15:48:46+02:00 2015-08-19T15:48:46+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=107899#p107899 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]> Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 19 Aug 2015, 15:48


]]>
2015-08-19T15:41:50+02:00 2015-08-19T15:41:50+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=107898#p107898 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]>
Exotic_Retard wrote:
to develop a good rts it takes years of time (unlike the cnc4 crap which was made in just 11 months), so don't worry it might be a year or two before its announced


I remember when the other TA oldies and myself saw the first vid of Supp Comm in like 2003... It was well worth the wait until 2006/2007 for the beta.

I'd say if he's seriously developing TA 2 it won't be announced until 2017

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 19 Aug 2015, 15:41


]]>
2015-08-19T14:07:18+02:00 2015-08-19T14:07:18+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=107893#p107893 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]> Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 19 Aug 2015, 14:07


]]>
2015-08-19T11:12:58+02:00 2015-08-19T11:12:58+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=107879#p107879 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]>
Exotic_Retard wrote:
>CT is now working for wargaming
>wargaming bought ta licence
>wargaming was originally an rts company
>CT said hes working on something
>CT made ta 1
>wonder what hes working on


The news that Wargaming got the TA IP, is more than two years old now. The acquisition probably older. so I'm wondering why there is zero further news on development.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 19 Aug 2015, 11:12


]]>
2015-08-19T08:14:22+02:00 2015-08-19T08:14:22+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10580&p=107875#p107875 <![CDATA[Re: so...why FA and not supcom 2]]> Statistics: Posted by justmakenewgame — 19 Aug 2015, 08:14


]]>