Fakshunal dyevircitee

[RocketRooster]

So, uh, while we're at it.

Faction diversity. Is it such a big deal?

An argument could be made (and it stands to reason, dunnit, because I'll be making one) that it's overblown.

Yes, it's nice to have variety. Variety is the spice of life and all that shit. When I think back on all ther many happy hours spent playing Starcraft 1, I fondly remember the cool backstory and the factional differences that spiced it up. Zerg playstyle was completely different from Terran as that was from the Protoss.

The thing here is that the factions were completely different in fundamental mechanics and frankly it was a thing of beauty and genius in how Blizzard had cooked it up.

What I'm getting at here is that it is perhaps a fool's errand to try and cook up factional diversity in the (perhaps subconscious) attempt to emulate such a thing. When you get down to it, Supcom's economic mechanics are identical for everyone, and while its simplicity is part of its genius, it also locks everyone into the saming basic playstyle. I recall the excitement I had when I heard about the release of FA and the fourth new race, hoping that it'd be something completely different. Turns out they were just more of the same. And unplayable for me at least because everything looks the same due to the heavy use of chrome shaders.

Trying to shoehorn factional diversity into this framework is rather pointless I'd say - or perhaps I should say that /factional/ diversity is the wrong kind of diversity to aim for. I'll argue that variety in playstyle is much more desirable.

Think about what the end result has been - Cybran ferinstance have a paper com when the aim of the game is to kill other coms and not be killed in turn. From the get go the dice are loaded and it's arguably an unfair situation. But hey, it's "factional diversity" and to make up for it Cybran have stealth and a cheap killy experimental, good bots and navy and so on.

It is all just a variation on the same theme and, paradoxically, it doesn't create variety, it limits it by pigeonholing the playstyle of any particular faction into certain outcomes. Facing Cybran? You will be facing monkeys. Facing UEF? You will be facing Percies. That sort of thing. It's all very predictable and I think you will get where I'm coming from.

Now, of course when you play against Zerg as an example, you'll be facing hydralisks. That's not the point. Starcraft has different development, proliferation and combat mechanics for each of the races and it's justified in the end by a completely different feel for each race. Supcom doesn't even begin to come close to it. Every race plays the same in fundamental ways and what it boils down to is a grouping of available units under four different banners and now it's "diverse".

It's not. It's less so.

Personally I couldn't care less for the supcom backstory and factions. It's tinsel and window dressing over what remains the best RTS foundation ever. It was made that way in order to flesh out an engineering concept in order to sell a commercial product.

Many months ago I made a thread called "FAF dream team", the premise of which was to investigate the idea of getting to pick and choose whatever you liked from everything available to all factions in the game, including com upgrades. The idea being that games would become highly tense and unpredictable affairs since you couldn't rely on known strengths and weaknesses, or the strategies to exploit them.

It would be the true arbiter of the Supreme Battlefield Expert since a completely level playing field is guaranteed.

Now, I know this will never happen to the official canon, but a mod can be developed and when I have some time it will be my next project.

[biass]

what am i supposed to say to this besides go to pa?

[RocketRooster]

Pa? What means pa?

I'm yer pa. Come to daddy.

[biass]

pa is Planetary Annihilation, a successor title
Introduces a bunch of neato mechanics but only one "faction" just recoloured and thus the game is incredibly dumbed down

if you cannot understand what having 4 factions brings to the game i suggest you check it out and then come back

[RocketRooster]

Perhaps you could explain what it brings instead of making an argument via assertion?

I will make it clear right now that I fully grasp the difference between fluff diversity and playstyle diversity. They're not the same thing. And if you think that Cybran playstyle is different to that of UEF, well, it's an illusion. The playstyle is the same for all factions, it merely leans this way or that in terms of offense and defence and whatnot because "diversity". There's no diversity here except in terms of fluff. If you took away the fluff and factional backstories, the groupings would seem entirely arbitrary.

Perhaps it's my lack of right-wing authoritarian tendencies that makes me prefer having the freedom to do whatever I like given a gamut of choices.

[biass]

And if you think that Cybran playstyle is different to that of UEF, well, it's an illusion.

im not granting this a legit response, if you're incapable of seeing what works and what doesn't with each faction maybe you're just bad at the game, truth hurts

i suggest you have a look through maybe some wiki tutorials here: http://wiki.faforever.com/index.php?tit ... ing_SupCom
(i wrote some of these guides!)

Heaven also made some video tutorials relating to each factions strengths and weaknesses here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJYYaF ... vgJAqrhC2A

Keep cancerous political statements out of video game discussion if you wish to keep what you say still "valid"

[FtXCommando]

And if you think that Cybran playstyle is different to that of UEF, well, it's an illusion.

No, 900 Cybran playstyle is no different than 900 UEF playstyle. Totally different thing than Cybran and UEF playstyle, which are in fact very different.

Why don't you go around and ask people what their least favorite type of match is. You will get two answers: people that don't like aeon and people that don't like mirror matches. The former tends to be people that haven't figured out how to beat auroras yet while also fluctuating depending on the percentage of 5x5s each person played on ladder. The latter comes from the fact that the gameplay just gets boring.

Also I'd argue that a "battlefield expert" is truly tested at those moments when they don't have the tools to answer a problem. Where they actually need to innovate and create a solution using only what they have rather than robotically finding an automatic counter.

[RocketRooster]

And if you think that Cybran playstyle is different to that of UEF, well, it's an illusion.

im not granting this a legit response, if you're incapable of seeing what works and what doesn't with each faction maybe you're just bad at the game, truth hurts

i suggest you have a look through maybe some wiki tutorials here: http://wiki.faforever.com/index.php?tit ... ing_SupCom
(i wrote some of these guides!)

Heaven also made some video tutorials relating to each factions strengths and weaknesses here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJYYaF ... vgJAqrhC2A

Keep cancerous political statements out of video game discussion if you wish to keep what you say still "valid"

A disciple of another sect once came to RocketRooster as he was eating his morning meal.

“I would like to give you this list of youtube links”, said the outsider, “because I want you to be happy.”

RocketRooster took the paper that was offered him and put it into the toaster, saying: “I wish the toaster to be happy, too.”

[PhilipJFry]

Not everyone who has an opinion that differs from yours is in a cult.
If you want to be taken serious you should at least try to argue instead of dismissing the points that other people make.
Also ftxcommando has a point: if you want to see how a game without factions plays you can just play a different game where no such thing as different factions exists or just play custom 1v1 games with both players having the same faction.

[RocketRooster]

Erm....