Game engines use mathematical algorithms to produce results. FA was known as a system killer because of the bottlenecks produced by the engine's algorithms. SupCom 2 simplified these algorithms by simplifying gameplay in the hopes of reducing bottlenecks and no longer being a system killer.

From the mathematical point of view, even with the new graphics subengine, it is very likely the case that if SupCom 2 used all the same elements of gameplay of FA, then the same bottlenecks would reappear and even SupCom 2 would be a system killer.

Insulting me or saying that something is pointless is not proving me wrong. You are voicing a subjective opinion in the hopes that it disguises an inability to discuss the immediate topic at hand. How a game engine works is not a subjective opinion.

I couldn't care less that you like the game. There is nothing for me to prove in that. But there is plenty of things that I have put forward that anyone who is a mathematics major with specialty training in algorithms should be able to counter.

They didn't simplify gameplay.

They made it much more strategic and complex.



Oh don't get me wrong I could rip you apart, but I prefer not wasting time and just cut straight to the insults.

That was my point! Your big head is useful for something.

FYI: keep me off of any gift list especially if you have to distribute rings of power. ie. don't do me any favors.




Also, this entire discussion is about YOUR subjective opinion.

madface, I think your whole theory is a pretty moot point. You are saying, "If I put FA in the SupCom2 engine, it would be the same." Well they both use the Moho engine. If I put SupCom in the TA engine, it would still have the TA engine's flaws. FA in the SupCom2 engine would perform somewhat better I think because GPG did a bunch of other optimizations other than the renderer, FF, and lua (did you think rendering, lua, and flowfield were the only optimizations GPG made?), but because they are similar engines at the core, they will share the exact same flaws. SupCom2 still has the same problems as FA, just reduced in severity. FA shared the same flaws as vanilla, TA:CC shared the same flaws as OTA (Core Contingency actually degraded pathfinding). Your hypothesis seems a bit ridiculous since any good sequel is supposed to make considerable improvements to an engine, and you want to throw out those improvements just to prove that the improved performance is due to those improvements?

Personally, I think you're talking out of your *** when you say you are a mathematics major. Someone who loves SupCom 2 this much to defend it against someone who happens to not like it would use every possible avenue of attack.

Haven't you noticed that we're on page 10 in the thread and that your insults are in vain? That I am mocking your insults? But you just admitted who is the real troll here! You would rather insult me than to discuss the mathematics of the engine, which I have repeatedly asked to be discussed.

ITS NOT ABOUT THE ENGINE
ITS NOT ABOUT UPGRADES
ITS NOT ABOUT DOWNGRADES
ITS NOT ABOUT REUSE OF MOHO
ITS NOT ABOUT YOU!!!
IT IS ABOUT A FUN FUN GAME AND THAT YOU ENJOY PLAYING IT
IF YOU DONT, GET OFF OUR FORUMS!!!!!!

You make a very good point, and I agree to an extent. Everyone, including myself, would like to see GPG succeed. But what your point suggests is that GPG is forced to reduce the engine's capabilities in order not to keep producing system killers. If they keep producing system killers one after the other, then they are finished as a company. So, it's not just about creating new innovative games. A large part of the company's decisions are in consideration of what the engine can't handle.

When you are in the game lobby for SupCom 2, there are all sorts of things you can select to exclude from gameplay (just as in FA). Would it really be that hard to put a check box to allow for things such as deficit banking or adjacency bonuses for those of us that want it? After all, it is a SUPREME COMMANDER game.

Mod support will not be enabled because as soon as it is, the community will do a complete overhaul to FA and will demonstrate that SupCom 2 is also a system killer, which would clash with the publiclity that GPG has been putting out for the game.

CT, the guy who gave us TA 13 years ago and is the authority at GPG, said in an interview that he was thinking about a way to provide SupCom 2 mod tools to the community that were slimmed-down versions of their versions. Steve, he's talking about the game not being moddable!!! There is a clash between what is technically possible vs. what public perception should be.

I don't want to see GPG go down like other companies, and that's why I want to discuss the possibility, that at the root of it, not much is being done to correct the engine. GPG is using a band-aid approach to address the limitations of the engine when in fact a ruptured jugular vein is spewing blood all over the place.

When you look at Blizzard (yes, let's look at them because they are successful), both the original WarCraft and StarCraft used the exact same engine. But even in those days, Blizzard managed to create two very different games without the need of limiting the engine's capabilities. And limiting the engine's capabilities is not a matter of requiring less-demanding resources of the computer but rather design flaws of the engine that will prevent it to work on even the most high-end computers capable of giving it all the resources it needs.

Feel free to start another thread and discuss those topics that interest you.

Yes, I think it would be a lot of work. Why does everyone seem to think options are just a matter of checkboxes? Talk to theshadowlord. He did an FA conversion and I remember that putting in the flow economy wasn't a matter of checkboxes, nor was it easy. The framework might be there, but implementing the system is not easy at all, and I don't think the FA conversion has reached the level of FA in terms of its economy.


CT promised that we would get mod tools for SupCom vanilla. That never came to fruitition. He also talked about naval transports and nuke-created tidal waves in vanilla. Those didn't show up either. CT said that Supreme Commander would support multi-core processing for the foreseeable future. SupCom can only effectively use 3 cores. He is just the creative director, his engineers are the ones who put ideas into reality. And just because he says something doesn't mean it will come true. CT doesn't have the final say, he is not the supreme authority. The publisher is. If Square Enix doesn't want mods, then there won't be mods, simple as that. Also, map tools will never be available since GPG licensed several proprietary tools to make their maps. By the way, Steve is one of the lead designers of the game (according to a KnC videoblog, he is the campaign lead). Eric does the game balance. The real engineering leader in GPG I remember is John Mavor (of Mavor experimental artillery fame).

Warcraft and Starcraft did not use the exact same engine if I remember correctly. I saw a page where they showed an alpha build of Starcraft using the Warcraft 2 engine and it was nothing like the Starcraft engine.

Remember, GPG had only a little more than a year to develop SupCom2. SE wouldn't have it take any longer. You can't rebuild an engine as complex as Moho in 12 months. If GPG had 2 years, or 3 years, or 10 years, and $50 million, then SupCom2 would have no excuse not to be the greatest game on the greatest engine. But my suspicions are that SupCom2 had a budget lower than that of SupCom1 (which had a budget of $10 million dollars according to some sources). $10 million isn't a lot.

Vanilla has lua it's not quite the same as the galaxy editor but then again this isn't a game where there's a million custom maps to play.

Starcraft is based off the warcraft 2 engine but it was totally overhauled.

I would love to discuss the mathematics of the engine, but just not with you. I saw that you were a troll from page 1, while other people are only now starting to realize that they have been wasting time.

Btw you aren't "discussing", you are just stating your opinion on stuff and then disregarding everybody else's opinion as irrelevant, obscure and stupid.

So yet again I will call you a complete and utter retard. Go troll somewhere else.

Not hard to figure out why not based on all your comments so far. You're still stuck on page 1 of this thread.

Nope, I'm pretty sure I've found the next page button.

Shame you haven't found the log out button though.

You make an interesting point about pathfinding that a possible new algorithm could use a probability-based distribution function based on cellular automaton theory. And up until this point, I thought all of your comments were useless.

Or you could just use geodesic equations.

The geodesic I wish some on this forum to traverse would utilize the entire manifold, not just the simpler Euclidean subgemoetry. It's easy to explain from the geodesic I'm on the backwards perihilion precession of Mercury, therefore demonstrating the limits of Euclidean geometry.

What's with the bold text?

Also, maps are now impossible to "create" in a terrain sense by community mappers because maps in SupCom2 are 3D models, not flat heightmaps like in FA. Additionally, the global illumination model in SupCom2 uses proprietary tools that GPG licensed, so creating new maps for SupCom2 is impossible. They can be scripted to do different things, like what fransotto is doing excellently in Trelleach Jungle and other maps, but creating new terrain is impossible.

Why do I have the feeling you are greatly underestimating the amount of time and effort required to do anything, and are discounting the amount of bureaucracy that exists in the gaming industry? I have done some programming and even the most logically simple of changes can take hours of rewriting code. And I never created a program that was a thousandth as complex as Moho. Another thing to note: GPG can't patch the game without Square Enix's approval. Don't you know what happened with FA? GPG had a patch all ready to go, yet THQ refused to do QA on the patch for over a year, then released an unsupported beta patch. That's the way the industry works, even if GPG wanted to port FA over to the SupCom2 engine, they would have to get approval from SE or whatever publisher they have first.

Re: bold. Quoting of quoting of qoting of quoting plus commentary looked like one big quote. I bolded just to bring the attention that there were comments. That's all.

Re: maps, and 3d modelling in general. I'll defer on this one as I know practically nothing on it. Steve said that they use Max, so I figured it's just 3d modelling but now of the maps instead of just the units. If that was the case, then many modders who have created their own units using 3D modelling software could just start making maps. If it's more complex then that, then I don't know.

Re: complexity in programming. If things are too complex in order to keep pace with the competition, then you're out. That's the harsh reality in the business world. There's no sympathy in the marketplace, nor should there be. Products should only exist if they are worthy to exist. Make it or break it.

@ SteveB

Hi Steve and GPG, thx for replying with such patience over and over again, even in such detail.

I just want to state "my" opinion, you as GPG never failed me.
SC1/FA and SC2 are pure awesomeness and deserve much more success.

Am sad to see that you take your time to respond to certain people here, but in the end it is your fault? lol

Just laugh about it, he never was or will be a customer, or a good customer.
I read the whole thread and I was not sure if I should start crying or laughing. ^^
I didn't want to make a single post either, cause this here is plain stupid.

Rock on guys!!!

@MadFace...since you know so much and you know everything better...

Where is your company developing awesome games? Where is your famous RTS game? Where is your crazy game concept? Where is your Uber-Gameengine?
Why haven't we heard from you yet?
I mean, you should be a busy man working your *** off, developing games?
You should be too busy to post here because hundreds of headhunters want you!!!

I play video games for recreation and really like the TA-SupCom franchise, until SupCom 2. I'm not a game developer by profession, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the underlying principles of game development. I have done a lot of programming for my area of research that is all simulation-based and that involves developing efficient algorithms to solve complex systems of equations.

I'm not a "yes-man". I give criticism where it should be given and I am providing feedback to GPG.

YAY!!! Another customer loves SupCom 2. Woo-hoo!!! Crank up the graphics!!!

vs

Oh s**t, we don't have any physicists/mathematicians on our pay role and this guy is willing to spend the time and effort to give us feedback for free how to improve our engine.


I am probably more of a loyal customer to GPG than you. I am the only one of my friends who would rather play SupCom than StarCraft (1 or 2). The only way I could get my friends to play SupCom instead of StarCraft is to actually buy them copies. Yes, I actually went out and bought copies each of SupCom 1 and FA so that we could have 8 full copies for ultimate multiplayer games. I only bought 4 copies of SupCom 2 during the Steam special to have a test run of multiplayer experience, since I found the demo disappointing.

I'm actually trying to give GPG some feedback so that they can improve their engine. So all you "yes-men" can shove it when it comes to supporting GPG.

This has nothing to do with Yes-men...thats bullshit.

Do you even read the forum, did you even realize how many threads there are/were about this game and not many here are Yes-men. This is simply another thing you made up.

You don't give feedback...you just know it all. Thats why I am surprised you are not in the gameindustry. Actually, am surprised you don't take a flight to Washington and help CT directly with your advice.

Feedback would be telling the guys what you think is wrong (even though, not working there or having developed SC2 by yourself) is kinda impossible. You simply don't have the necessary insight. You know nothing, not even the real salesnumbers from SC1/FA or SC2...
Back to the feedback...you deny all answers from the GPG staff and imply they are liars.

Other than you, am really done with you and this thread and I definitely won't come back like you do all the time. ^^
Just to mention your freedom of speech thingy in the middle of this thread...am also taking my freedom of speech to just shut up. Cause thats also an option, to just go away and shut up. ^^

Over and out.

I'm not in the game industry because to me it's just a hobby.

As for the GPG staff providing answers - sure, we got a little bit of insight, but not from the guy who programmed pathfinding, or created the new graphics rendering subengine. And the answers we got seem conflicting. Is the engine capable of mod support or isn't it? Well, it looks like it's a licensing matter with SE.

When a game goes from $50 to $3 in 9 months, and the competitor is still pushing at $50, with 2 expansions locked in at similar prices down the road, yeah, I can guess what the sales numbers are like. If you don't have any criticism at this business model, you are most definitely a "yes-man".

Reality check: GPG is not sustainable as a company if all their games just end up in the discount bin in less then a year.

It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls
It was a roll
It was a roll
They were rolls

I concur.