Usual caveats: Pre-alpha here.
But you can see the individual gravity channelers on this unit, the Artemis, which allows it to hover. The Artemis is the mainline Post-Human missile unit.
This is at the start of the game so its secondary weapon, a long-range missile, isn't enabled (the black disabled piece in the middle). Players can upgrade their units via the tech tree (all this is subject to change based on play testing for fun and pacing).
Now, mind you, this is an extreme extreme close up. The artists are going to kill me for zooming this close as these are supposed to be small units (i.e. a big map might include thousands of these guys).
How you put your groups together matters though. It's not just about cranking out lots of units.
The other thing I wanted to convey here is how much attention we are giving to being true to the lore. We don't simply have units that float. There is a reason for them and a lot of background on the limitations of gravitational channeling.
How we clean posts
[
I agree I have seen the zoom out on the latest founders videos and it is quite far, I think the topic got a little confused. I think the assumption was that you would be tied into a very tight narrow point of view only. But there appeared to be a nice amount of zoom in and out.
My problem is not the missing zoom -as indeed it seems to be there in some way-, but actually the missing icons. In SupCom:FA as well as PA I play with icons "always on", meaning even at the lowest zoom level I see icons on top of the units. Icons are SOOOO much more readable from every zoom level.
Even when frogboy was zoomed in I was feeling "damn I want icons to make those tiny units more readable".
Icons are not a big deal at all if you can see and manage your armies in an easy way. we just have to wait for the alpha and few patched to see how the game plays without those icons. i think Oxide is doing something really interesting and new here. so lets wait a few more days.
Thats my point ASADDF.
100%
We can sure pass the old icons,to something diferent .
Yes after watching the video It wasn't quite what i thought it was. As long as i have the ability to move around the battlefield to different areas quickly im not concerned so much with icons. Good deal.
I will wait until i play the game before giving judgment.
3D models size and apearance.
I think that PA and forged alliance have one of the worst 3d graphical differentiation of units at high zoom levels. Most units textures are 100% covered in team color. And its hard to distinguish a sniper unit inside a blob of tier 1 tanks or tier 1 bots, they do look good and cool but not functional from a distance, Total annihilation on the other hand had an average amount of units that at high zoom levels could be distinguished from far away, it also made important units bigger than swarm type units.
Sins of a solar empire is also a good example of a game that the icons on the units are above them they dont 100% replace the units, and you can also see Captial ships as big units in the mist of the figthing. I guess the so called meta units should be larger and more flashier than the regular grunt units etc...
Note to ColaColin
ColaColin mentioned that the total annihilation community couldnt wait to implement strategic zoom with big ICON`s, i myself played TA and made mods and games using the free Spring Engine which is based of the original TA engine, and i can say that 50% of player`s hate it and the rest love it.
From a design standpoint id rather start small use this Alpha period to test things out see if Big icons and super zoom levels are required, and if it truly makes for a better game implement it, if not just go with a smaller zoom or invent a more simplified UI.
Everything is pretty much open at this point.
OK then, time for me to get involved here...
I am a long-time RTS player, introduced to the genre by the likes of C&C, AOE1, and Homeworld. In the mid-2000s though, I, like so many others, was shown the future by Gas Powered Games and Supreme Commander. I've stuck with it ever since. Since that day, every single time I have tried another RTS type game, without exception, I have found the gameplay and experience frustrating to the point of infuriating, because not one single one of those games has managed to take on board just what SupCom achieved in terms of user interfacing. Just got Homeworld Remastered in the summer sales, and it's a glorious as I remember. And yet... ARRRGHHHH, the lack of Strategic Zoom. It's so incredibly frustrating!
And now this... Suffice it to say that Ashes of the Singularity has very much caught my attention. We have flow-based economy. We have grand scale. We have great looking maps and units. We even have a simulated physics engine! I squealed with delight. Here, at last, is an honest-to-goodness effort to reinvigorate the true RTS genre with a game which may, finally, take the mantle from SupCom:FA.
Imagine my disappointment when I read this thread through... It's like the lesson simply hasn't been learned. So while I recognise that I have no authority, or influence, or any of that around here, I'm going to make this post and be absolutely clear and resolute:
This game needs Strategic Zoom. Without it, the game will flop. It may be a financial success, but if that's all you're going for here, then the potential is already wasted entirely. This game has the potential not just to be financially successful, but to be the RTS to beat, the yardstick, the top of the pile.
Without Strategic Zoom, it will fail in this regard. End of story.
Yes, it had been done before, but SupCom showed the way forwards in a way which has never been replicated, before or since. Only Sins came close, and even there IMO it was inferior. A player should never have to pan the camera. Ever. It's slow, cumbersome, and gets in the way. A player should only have to flick his finger to have an absolute overview of everything going on. Icons are a necessity to this game's success. Yes, they are ugly sometimes, but gameplay > visuals any day of the week, and as SupCom has proven unequivocally, icons are the best possible option for gameplay. They are the fastest way of getting data about what is going on to the player's brain such that they know what to do next.
I'll go further: The minimap, as a concept, is outdated and utterly without merit. Having it as an option is fine, especially if there's a cartographic mode. Making it necessary for gameplay because the importance and power of Strategic Zoom was dismissed or underestimated is just going backwards 15 years. It takes up screen space, it's never as detailed or flexible as a fully realized zoom, and with zoom around you'll find that very, very few people have any need for it. That, alone, should be reason enough to abandon it as your route and go the SZ route. Dual monitors is one thing, but once again please look at what SupCom tried to do, and just do it right: The second monitor shouldn't be a minimap as such (Though the option to have different modes should absolutely be there), it should simply be a fully realized second display port, also with full strategic zoom available if you want it. It's easy to move around and re-position inside it, it gives you exactly the info you want, and it's incredibly intuitive.
You have more than 30,000 potential hard-core RTS fans just itching to transfer from SupCom:FA to this game. For a simulated RTS game, that's an incredible number of players, more than any has been able to hold on to since SupCom. FAF is growing by the day thanks to community support, development, and promotion, and as a member of their development team I can say the future there looks extremely bright.
Don't throw all that away with one avoidable decision. Please... We all want this game to be the next step in RTS. Make it happen!
Hmm... This disturbs me a bit, got to say.
You keep saying this game isn't a SupCom clone. Well, of course not, but that doesn't mean you should be ignoring all it achieved. Additionally, the very players you are targeting with this game, the fans of this genre, they want heavy influence from SupCom. Why? Because it just did things better...
As far as projectiles in SupCom goes, reading what you just wrote makes me think you've never actually looked at SupCom's projectile engine. I've been modding SupCom since its release, and develop for FAF now, and I can tell you that there are 0 instances of "calculate whether a shot would miss and then show a particle effect missing". Every projectile in the engine is its own complete entity. There is no pre-calculation. The unit's weapon calculates the expected position of the enemy unit based on the enemy's known velocity, then fires a projectile with a determined velocity and arc to hit that position. If the enemy changes direction, you miss. If something gets in the way, it hits that instead. Each projectile can be individually scripted to do fun or unusual things. They obey gravity, they have ballistics, they have mass and weight. You can make them change behavior based on physical size, or speed, or direction. If someone wanted to introduce wind factors into a map, they could absolutely be affected by wind.
SupCom also has true LOS. It's fully calculated by each unit and for each weapon, and the engine is supposed to check for collisions with ground to prevent units just firing at the floor the whole time. Parts of the lua allude to this. However, it appears that there are some bugs in the C++ engine part which handles this, and it doesn't always work, but we can still mod the lua around it to force the behavior. That's just a bug, not a lack of intention.
It was advertised as a fully simulated game engine for a reason: It is one.
That post sure had a lot of definitive statements. The gist is that SC:FA was the pinnacle of RTS gaming, and everything that follows must copy many of its components, or it is a flop. If that is what the SupCom community thinks, seems rather narrow minded, even if there is experience to back that up. While I also liked SupCom, I'm looking forward to some new ideas, or at least some mashup of pre-existing ideas that have worked. Given the team involved, I think a little trust at this early stage is warranted. I'd like to see this game in a beta state before forming a conclusion.
I like strategic zoom too, but only for the purpose of gaining battlefield context. I'd rather not control units in icon mode. Doing so in SupCom and GalCiv2 was a novelty at first, but then I started feeling like I was playing a board game, not a modern video game, and that takes away a good deal of the fun for me. If we're not going to be controlling individual units like you do in SupCom, individual unit icons are not needed. I think some level of battle group abstraction is needed at max zoom-out, and I can't wait to see what they come up with.
wow its so funny to see close minded people that talk so much about how they want the game to be made at the same time so negative about AOTS.
You guys should take it easy and give AOTS developers an opportunity to show us all what they have in mind for the game, like i said before.AOTS may be an awesome game the way the developers envision it, its a new kind of RTS that take things from (TA, COH, and Soase) and that for me is something really good.
or
AOTS may be a really bad game and the developers need to do a lot of changes to make it good.
The only way to find out is not by looking at some pictures or some videos, but by playing and trying the game.
So do that first that them start writing what you like and what you don't like about AOTS. but do not expect that the first alpha build will give you that at all. You will need to wait a few more month for the Devs to start getting the game together.
I am getting part of the founders because i really want to support this game that got me really excited, then after i play it, i will decide how good is this game for me and write my opinion.
Wait till the game get in our hands, play it like crazy and then start commenting about in in the founders Forum, the Devs are listening to make it better.
P.S. For me the Strategic zoom is not a must at all!, i don't care about it as long as the game plays well.
I think a lot of comments here are how i want the game to be, not how Ashes team wants or project the game..
Forget the icons ,they dont want i dont want and you will see will work very well without it.
Keep in mind that this is a game hows this team wants and so obviously its the way have to go.
Try to imagine a game, produce it and show the public that you want to be interested, you'll see in your imagination that many agree and disagree,its part of this industry.
I think also there has been more discussion and opinions about this subject, because there isnt mush more to talk about the game, when the first version comes out will be more subjects to talk.
AOTS for me, I can be wrong but it seems that will be one of the best rts of the genre to be released in these last years.
[quote who="tatsujb" reply="91" id="3563993"]
that's not very clever of you, the beta and alpha were free. I partook. Plus you had plenty of media coverage allowing you to easily asses that it was just a Starcraft clone. I think you have only you to blame on that one. "money grab Taylor"? ..... I'm speechless. How badly he got torn up in the wolves of wall street's den should be testament enough to the opposite of that. But all the times he was on video and teamspeak that are right there, for you to access on the web, where you can clearly see what type of man he is makes me wonder at your towering ignorance...[
/quote] Your towering ignorance amazes me too. Im supposed to know in advance that no multi player games will ever be hosted online before its released to the public? no im not. More importantly, you showed me your ignorance yet again by saying you actually believe everything you hear and see online in the first place. Supcom 2 was made simpler than the original to attract noobs for more money. Plain and simple. Its odd how cavedog went out of business, then again so did thq. Do you think attempting to sell incomplete products has anything to do with it? Once he got his money he simply walked away and left the game to be ruined by ignorant fools such as yourself. I bet your a mod at faf arent you?
Quick, release the alpha before a fist-fight breaks out!
I told you already. I don't care what he says. Hes a salesman! The proof is in his results. You already proved i should not address you because you believe everything little thing that a used car salesman tells you.
Ok. Just to make this easy:
If you liked Supreme Commander you will absolutely hate this game.
There. Now, any similarities between the two will be coincidental and unexpected.
Oh no, I just bought the game 2 days ago!!! lol All good.
As a former avid sup com player I do understand the frustration behind opinions coming from other sup com players. This is an issue within the community itself where everyone is narrow minded and set on their ways. On the contrary though, I had an old discussion with another player where we were discussing the issues with PA and the concept of having a round battlefield. He stated, by having a part of the player's view cut off you are cutting off information, information is what is needed to make an informed decision. Now PA may have solved this, not sure, haven't played it since the beta, but the concept still holds, if you want a player to make the most informed decision possible they must be given the most information possible. This is also why when you talk to a higher end sup com player that usually tell lower end players to not zoom in so much or get tunneled vision, you are strategically severing yourself. A game like starcraft where strategic zoom doesn't exist, they are putting an artificial restriction on information that does not add gameplay value. One could try and argue that fog of war is an artificial information cap, which is true, but players can actively negate this by scouting or building radars(in sup com at least, no idea if they exist in sc2) which adds some sort of gameplay mechanic. Now strategic zoom is only 1 solution to this problem, it's a good solution imo, but it's not the only solution. A minimap is what a majority of classic rts games use, which works in some respect, but does not stand in terms of presenting as much information to the player possible. If you guys have another solution that works better, that's great, but you must keep in mind the whole concept of it. The dev team is definitely more versed in the concept than me, but this is just a reminder to both the dev team and the people in the thread the core purpose strategic zoom, minimaps, etc. hold.
We mainly want people to give our game a shot before they try to have us turn it into some other game.
With GalCiv it's always the MOO fans.
With Sorcerer King we have the AI Wars fans.
And with Ashes, it'll be the SupCom fans. It seems like SupCom fans have Planetary Annihilation to migrate to.
Ultimately, we're going to make the game the best we can. But when people start out, without even knowing what the game is like, insisting that we clone SupCom it naturally makes us a little skeptical of their feedback.
We're not hostile to strategic zoom (as I'll be saying over and over, Stardock was using it before GPG was and every single Stardock strategy game since 2006 has had it. What we don't want to see mainly are endless icons on the map. We aren't against having some other abstracted zoom out concept but it won't be endless little icons.
I'm just seeing a disconnect between what you saying ("we're not hostile to strategic zoom") and what you are saying ("we absolutely are not doing strategic zoom").
If you don't do strategic zoom, your replacement had damned well better be awesome. Yeah. SZ might have a lot of icons. So improve on that. Abstract them somehow. Do single icons for solo units and a bigger icon for your meta units. That would be acceptable and if done well could be an improvement. It just sounds like you're trying to say "wheels have too many facets so we're going to use octogon shaped wheels so you don't get overwhelmed." No. Just plain no.
People aren't saying you should clone SupCom, they're saying maybe you should be aware of it's mechanics before making claims what it did or didn't simulate or have. Your insistence that SupCom worked on faked FX and dicerolls (buddy, you're describing Homeworld 2, or indeed SupCom 2, not SupCom) or the claim that you invented Strategic Zoom (Homeworld 1 beat you by more than half a decade) are ridiculous. And dangerous when you're making deep game design decisions based on these false assumptions.
Also, if you're concerned about Icon-ocean issues, I recommend having a look at SupCom 2 - it already started a consolidation process based on common orders (groups of units with the same order would have their individual selector icons replaced by a single icon with unit count. This is basically the perfect starting point for what you'd need for a Kohan (or Achron, or hell Earth 2150 - you didn't invent Meta Groups either) style meta formation control scheme on a strategic zoom layer. Single icons conveying compound information about a small-ish number of battlegroups when zoomed out. If your maps are so big, you can even consolidate again as you approach max zoom - multiple battle groups consolidate into single icons displaying compound information (ie. This Grouping contains X Air Groups, X Cavalry Groups, X Assault Groups, etc.).
Did you consider to change Icons in relation to zoom distance. Like showing less Icons e.g. just the meta units when zoomed out and more detailed icons when you zoom in?
Let`s try to summarize the previous discussion on this Topic:
Frogboy: We are going to try something new concerning strategic zoom that might differ from previous games
Feedback: naa, do the old stuff with those icons and you should take that opinion into consideration (so do it!) otherwise it´s going to be a disaster
I would say, try something new and be openminded. If the new concept works it`s fine by me. If it doesn`t be honest and don´t rule out the possebility of using the established contempt.
What I`ve seen up until now looks quite good for an alpha and seems to work. So keep up the good work.
A short off topic question:At which stage off development are you going to focus on the AI?
Best
That's not correct. Planetary Annihilation developers turned SupCom fans down entirely the same way as AotS ones, by embracing orientation towards TA pros.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
