One of the things I hope gets changed now that we have more graphical power is making things a more realistic size on the battlefield. Most of the stuff was fine but I think we can all agree the Elephant and bases could do with a more realistic size.
> 2533274884112686;1:
> One of the things I hope gets changed now that we have more graphical power is making things a more realistic size on the battlefield. Most of the stuff was fine but I think we can all agree the Elephant and bases could do with a more realistic size.
Scale of something doesn’t really come that much down to the graphical power.
In an RTS you will want everything to be managable. Unless it’s a really special unit, the screen shouldn’t be blocked by one or two large units, and at the same time, you’ll want even the smallest units to actually be visible and distinguishable.
Buildings don’t need to be large because they have specific purposes and you don’t want to create an overly large map for a few players just because the buildings themselves need a alot of space.
lol scarab is the height of the arbiter.
> 2533274848663644;3:
> lol scarab is the height of the arbiter.
Exactly. Things like that need to change.
> 2533274799527886;4:
> > 2533274848663644;3:
> > lol scarab is the height of the arbiter.
>
>
> Exactly. Things like that need to change.
I personally didn’t mind this, scale wasn’t a problem for me. Although realistically the TUGs or whatever bought in supplies to the supply pads would take up the screen, we don’t want that, we want an easily managable army that we can control. I mean different things for different people bur its easier this way. And the elephant was bigger than a factory that built main battle tanks… LOL.
> 2533274799527886;4:
> > 2533274848663644;3:
> > lol scarab is the height of the arbiter.
>
>
> Exactly. Things like that need to change.
What are you talking about? The scarab was large. The arbiter was about the height of those Gremlins.
Do you perhaps mean the Locust?
