Spring RTS Engine

Machiosabre wrote:cause you get xp for shooting stuff?

Right. So instead, you just give them XP for existing, tripling it when they're closed.

Pxtl wrote:Well, you could make the "solar->advance" be based on something other than spending metal/energy/buildtime. Maybe age? If you have a solar for more than 10 minutes, it auto-morphs into an advanced solar? Maybe just give it a morph button that is free, but it takes two minutes and they get no energy in that time? I mean, solars can't get experience, so experience-based morphing isn't possible... but you could "fake" experience with age.

Thats a really terrible idea. Auto-self-upgrading economy over time? Jeeze. No.

the-middleman wrote:make a poll in caupdater

We dont put gameplay stuff up to public poll, and certainly not up to public vote.

...despite evidence to the contrary... >_>

I dont think there is need for a between structure... just because you already have lots of solars doesnt means that making a fusion is the only way to increase your energy production significantly :)

Self evolving eco..why not...all ca players shout all the time that now ca has less eco micro..this way it will have even less..

I just noticed that t1 and t3 labs cost the same whereas t2 lab costs more. So its easier to start t3 than t2.

The middleman: except for the MASSIVE lead time to get even a single T3 combat unit out. Well, except you can build the combat engineer, but it only build T2 units.

does seem like a noob trap.

Gota wrote:Self evolving eco..why not...all ca players shout all the time that now ca has less eco micro..this way it will have even less..

Micro was removed with oversdrive but players still have control. They can choose whether to invest more in E to get more M, it's the same thing as mohos but less micro.

Self evolving econ removes the micro required to build econ(not much) but it also removes a major player decision.

Machiosabre wrote:does seem like a noob trap.

It can build pw/ak and some of the t2 units aren't very expensive(>300). It's a viable start.

That said it is still easier to start t2 than t3 because the con costs 500.

I realise that I am a small fish around here, but I want to air my opinions as a player. I was attracted to CA by the wide variety of units and defensive structures. I like the steps taken to simplify the economy with the elimination of specialized underwater storage and the replacement of moho mines with mine supercharging. What I do not like is the recent moves to cut down the available units by making previously special abilities available to most units.

For instance, I want seaplanes back. Cutting out the Diplomat was an unusual and poor move. Making all Kbots amphibious and removing sub pens oversimplifies strategies surrounding water, as does the elimination of the Garpike and Habu. Heck, I'd even like the Muskrat back, while you're at it.

My examples only cover CORE, because that is the side I prefer to play, but I am sure that unit reductions have hit ARM equally hard. Pulling structures and units takes away from the flavour of the game and reduces its charm. Giving special abilities to all the units makes them not 'special' anymore.

Making all kbots amphibious seem kinda random to me. Why was this done in the first place?

We're removing units for two reasons:

• we don't want to give all options to both factions,
• redundant units mean a lot of wasted work since we need to remodel an re-script almost everything, in order to get rid of Cavedog intellectual property.

It's probably a waste to have units that are similar to other units except for their amphibious capability.

I think easy amphibious landings make battles more interesting. They give more attack paths to players and make sea battles more significant. But it's a concept we're testing, we won't keep this setup if it turns out bad for game mechanics.

GBscientist wrote:For instance, I want seaplanes back.

In CA, all air factories can be built on water. Planes are seaplanes. Having an a separate air factory and a seaplane factory was redundant. Your seaplanes can fly over land, and your airplanes can fly over sea. What reason is there to just have a separate factory?

GBscientist wrote:Cutting out the Diplomat was an unusual and poor move.

If you want vlaunch and you're core, build an advanced kbot lab and make a dominator. If you want a vlaunch vehicle, play as Arm. If every factory for every faction had units with every type of weapon, it would be boring.

GBscientist wrote:Making all Kbots amphibious and removing sub pens oversimplifies strategies surrounding water, as does the elimination of the Garpike and Habu.

This is in the test version but not stable. We're trying it to see how it works out. That's how CA works, we don't just theorize, we actualize and test in our subversion.

GBscientist wrote:Giving special abilities to all the units makes them not 'special' anymore.

I agree. Thanks for the suggestions.

I don't like the amphibious kbots because:


Too random - no storyline reason presented why kbots are amphibious and vehicles not.

Too common - don't have to invest resources in an amphibious landing plan by building a special amphibious factory. By giving this ability to every player, you reduce its surprise value. The only effect is to penalise new players who forget to build coastal defenses. Additionally, it makes things like amphibious transports pointless.

Too good - Kbots were already better than vehicles. Now there's another reason to forget building a vehicle factory.


My suggestions, again just opinions from a regular player:


Get rid of hovers. They overlap too much with other units and make the amphibious ability less special.

Combine the T1 and T2 air factories into a single air factory (with T2 cost). Get rid of the T1 fighter and T1 gunship.

Remove all amphibious abilities from current units, put together an amphibious factory from scratch.

Maybe add an 'insectoid' factory for existing and new spidery units. Or keep this for a new race.


The rationale behind all this?


To make each strategy require more commitment i.e. building a dedicated factory, giving more path-splitting in gameplay.

To give each factory, and each race, a more defined identity, with more similarity in the appearance and abilities of their units - something that has been lost with the accumulation of a mish-mash of third party units through TA history.

To limit Arm and Core options and make the addition of new races more easy. There are very few imaginable niches that are not covered by Arm or Core units. I feel that less is more for CA; decreasing the scope of each strategic route while increasing the diversity of routes would make things much more interesting.


My vision of a perfect future


Balance chickens and make other new races with unique identities and different strategic options.

CA is zigzagging its way to becoming a great strategic game but lacks that crucial racial identity and storyline that would make it more attractive to new players and more fascinating for veterans.

what i dont get is why remov eunits now?remove the "unneeded" units when u have all else remodeled and retextured...
Wouldnt that make more sense.
I play SA and i dont see how all those removed units are unneeded tbh.
Unneeded is one thing another thing is if YOU cant fit them in..
If SA could fit them in im sure CA can too.
Making many amphibious units is fail by the way since that makes many units less dependant on terrain types thus making maps less strategic.
I dont know though maybe i jsut cant see the upside.would be nice to know it.

Also,did you nerf kbots in other ways when u made them amphibious?or did u just buff them without any nerfs?
might be wrong but wont a unit tha twas balanced become unbalanced if u just add amphibious capabilities to it without adding cost or reducing some other attributes.

I think forcing a player to make a different factory for each strategy would just cause stagnation when the player needs to change strategies. The weapon of amphib assaults is surprise, giving the enemy lots of advance warning makes that less effective. Though I agree that having all kinds of land combat abilities available in amphibs makes transports less useful.

BasiC, Please learn how to make your wall of text readable if you want to post in this thread.

I agree that amphib assaults should cost something extra. Atm kbots can expand onto sea and land and raid sea and land. All reasonably well unlike hovers which are worse than both sea and land. Hovers pay extra for their diversity.

det wrote:BasiC, Please learn how to make your wall of text readable if you want to post in this thread.

13 lines is a "wall of text" for you?
its perfectly readable.
Instead of threatning me pointlessly and showing your fist answer my questions.

The more all terrian units The worse imo.
It ruins maps and strategy based on terrain.
and isnt it obvious kbots need a a nerf if they are suddenly made amphibious?
Its strange to me that that needs to be pointed out..
Less hovers and less amphibs FTW.

Go clean some pennies yan