Because I think you would have fun playing it. Thats all. But sounds to me like you dont have your ego in check. That s OK too.


Its not all about playing competitively. Its about having fun.
FA fans consider FA as much FUN as it is competitive.

I think everyone who enjoyed FA gave Supcom2 a good and fair go but didnt like it as much.

I fall under this, I gave it a completely fair shake, despite already being disheartened but the pre-release stuff we did see/hear about.

Obviously for me modding played into it as well, but if I had fun with Supcom2 I'd still play it at least a bit, instead I haven't played in months upon months...

Mike

Are you kidding me? I played Fa a TON. Single player. I DID like it. Just not everything about it. This thread is about the design of the game, and I am njust stating my OPINION (not facts obviously), about what I think works, doesnt work, and what would work better. In SC2. I think SC2 has a lot of improvements that are important for a competitive game, even though it turned out to not work out in the greater scheme of things, therefore I find it a better game than FA (because in this thread im looking at it from a competitive viewpoint. As I stated.)

Now, I also dont see how this has to do with ego, its more like conflicting opinions. Dont be butthurt because I point out that I hate certain design decisions in FA, I heard FA was better over 9000 times by now.




Well, then perhaps not playing FA online has prevented my expectations from getting too high? I dont know. Ive never quite understoof the outlash FA fans had towards SC2. I mean... The story was enormously disappointing, and the game was and still is imbalanced. But the tech tree added a lot of diversity (in everything but 1v1), so I simply enjoyed the game more than FA.
I enjoyed SC2 a lot casually, not just competitively. We played more FFAs than I care to remember with all the lads on TS. Good times.

What happened was that all the FA fans were expecting Supreme commander 2. Not a whole different game. We wanted a game with the same large feeling fun of supcom FA with better path-finding, a new story, the tech tree, cool unit abilities, mod support, map support.

We got very few of these. Ive played supcom 2 competitively and it is very fun, but it is not SUPCOM 2.

Also many of the things that changed was exactly what people loved about FA.

If GPG had kept the things that people loved and made a completely different game out of the other parts, then people wouldnt have been as annoyed.

Yeah, but does everyone still have to be butthurt over that 2 years after release?

Well, as a great man once said, time heals all wounds except butthurts.

Amen

Butthurt became the default opinion, no reason to change it, since it was at least somewhat justified what with the gutting of original supcom mechanics.

Dont be butthurt that FA is so much a better game than Supcom2, that 2 years on a great many people still think its a far better game

Oh and you're incredibly critical of FA fans who you think have not played Supcom2 multiplayer. I think you'll find that a great many of us have given Supcom2 more than a fair crack of the whip, tying our very hardest to like it.

You on the other had have not played FA multiplayer. Perhaps you should.

The main reasons I havent tried FA multiplayer were:
- The lack of a good computer at the time
- Absolutely horrible internet at the time

Right now, I just couldnt try it because things I now take for granted just arent in there. I'd get annoyed to death by the terrible terrible pathfinding. I found that out when I reinstalled FA half a year ago. Also I dont like the tier system and flow economy, the things you guys see as the holy grail of FA

When have I stated FA is a bad game? I dont think I have - At the time it was the best RTS ever made. I have recommended it to all my friends, and enjoyed it a lot. Ij ust dont understand why some people consider it a FACT that FA is better than SC2. It has different flaws from SC2, but I prefer coping with SC2's flaws over those in FA. Personal preference.

I dont mind you having a bad opinion of SC2. But please, ill ask again, can we talk about SC2 in an SC2 thread in a way that doesnt end with "make it into FA!"

If FA is the left extreme, and Starcraft / C&C is the right extreme, then SCom2 is middle-left.

So obviously fans of FA would consider it naturally superior, since it contains more pure "supcomness" than SCom2. And despite TA lacking strat zoom, I'd say FA contains more "TAness" (pun not intended) than SCom2 as well.

Also, harsh but true, TA/Supcom fans have always been features > gameplay sort of people. They love stuff like ghetto gunships, coordinated attack, and other cool things, even if those things have negligible or negative gameplay value.

The fact that SCom2 removed custom maps, easy modding, and eviscerated most of those little cool features, is also a negative.

As a long time TA player, we have always wanted our cake and to eat it too. The reason we flocked to CT games was he offered scope far beyond what anyone else did. I played fun games of Star Craft every day while I dreamed of playing a good game of TA that I bought at a discount resale store long after release and still couldn't run at 100%. The modding community pitched in on the balance and bug fixing end. 10 years after the release of TA I played some of the most amazing games of TA:CC:UH that have ever been played in the history of war games. That's why people are still playing knockoffs on Spring Project. It's epic.

Personally, I really like Supreme Commander 2. I like the engine. I like the tech trees.

Some people don't like the tech trees. I get that. It's not necessarily better if you want diverse forces. That's a real problem with the system.

I think everyone wanted more cool gimmicks like the transports from FA, but it was a fair trade for an earlier release. I still believe the biggest failing in Supreme Commander 2 was not enough expansions and strategic development (Balance, Maps and Campaigns).

Since we seem to have reached a conclusion here:

What lessons do you guys think that GPG should take from both FA and Supcom2? (And I guess AOEO if you're into that)

That community content makes a game far better than any developer and budget can ever do.

I doubt GPG needs to learn this lesson, however. If only publishers would learn this...

Hang on.. Community content can't fix a game. Its an issue but not the main one.

Here is my lessons for GPG in order of importance (after starting this thread and reading every post):

- People LIKED the complex econ in Supcom1/FA, but not the exponential nature of it. Supcom2 went too far in simplifying the econ. Mass and power seem largely irrelevant.
- While the research system UI was nice, the system lead to tactic lock in and research points was not a good replacement for tech levels ***
- The new map system looks good, but the reduced unit scale and that it disallows community map making (plus no built in mod support) sucks b@lls.


*** SIDENOTE: I think just reducing it to 2 tech levels of econ may have been a win.

I never said that my list was exhaustive. There's plenty of room for others to fill in.

Fair n'uff

My list was "arwsome" insightful right?

;-D

i also think, that two tech level would be perfect, just like TA, also i want my tech 2 engineer to build directly tech 2 factory , like in TA

other things that i want in an hypothetical supcom 3

-no assist(i think supcom 2 did it right) i hate having one factory with billion engineers and the inability to build more tech 2 facts(because it's more efficient to make just one with 100 engineer in FA, than upgrading all your factory to tech 2, and i hate that)
-no adjacency, it's annoing
-keep two tech, plus a tech 3 for experimental(they should feel potent like in FA)
- make a more serious design units, like in FA, not like in supcom2 where they were basically lego...
- make tech 1/2 units bigger like in TA, i hate that in supcom they looking like ants, they are too small in comparison to the Commander
-keep only two upgrade for mexs like in TA, 3 are too many
-no free intel, reduce the radius drastically
- also on shield, i'm with the guy that said they should be removed(they encourage camping) or reworked in some way
-half the range of a possibile heavy artillery, so it dosen't shoot from your base(i know that in bigger maps this does not happen, but no one play 40x40 or 81x81, they are too big and they always lead in a camping game=boring for me)
-factions diversity
-tech 2 units should not replace tech 1, tech 1 should remain useful even in late game

these two last points aren't easy to execute, i know, however i can live without them...

this is all, i hope there will be a good supcom suquel...

I too kind of like the idea of 2 tech levels.
Although I think there might need to be a wider variety of units to use.
I'll have to see some arguments for/against and contemplate the posibilities before I can say either way.



OK so maybe engineer assist went a little too far. Thats no reason to remove it entirely or even go as far as Supcom2. I like having the ability to move my engineering workforce around and rushing items that I need urgently.




I have to disagree here too. I like adjaceny. I think it adds an additiona strategic depth. Do you take a little extra care when placing a structure to maximise its output? Or do you just place it wherever your curser happens to be at the time and focus on other things?




I agree here though.

the problem with adjacency, is that you can't use it really, because of the chain destruction(i'm talking about the one regarding fabbricator/pg3/SMD/SML) if we want to keep it, the chain destruction should be nerfed, what's the point of adjacency if my opponent just need to snipe one buildings and kaboom, my entire base disappears?

If you built your base so that the entire thing is just 1 chain reaction away from not existing well, you pretty much deserve to have it happen ;p

Mike

Risk/reward

too risky, and low reward, imho

Then dont do it? problem solved.