They basically don't care for the C&C Tiberium lore at all. They just use elements of it at random and the art designers seem to be completely lost or with no proper direction. This is why (2) and (7) are 100% correct.
They've chosen to cut map scrolling to improve the user's 'real time' command response. This is why (3) is wrong. I don't think they are planning to have bigger maps at all. Although I do not agree with the removal of map scrolling either, because it forces map design to be very poor, making (1) happen. Here's how they respond to this matter and some other gameplay changes:
Do you consider this game to fit, in terms of its core gameplay, into a lineage of previous games, or do you feel this game is looking to be distinguishable enough from the mainstream of RTS that its success would found a new lineage?
A new found lineage. We're trying to define what a good RTS is on mobile, and that requires it to be fundamentally different in order to be optimized for that experience. If given the choice between playing on PC (with an emulator, for example), and on a mobile device, if we've done our jobs right, you should choose mobile. So this means things like box selecting lots of units, requiring incredible precision of input / controls, etc, jumping between different areas on a really large map via a minimap, 15+ minute session lengths, etc, aren't appropriate for this platform. This also is why, related to the above question, we're not trying to replace PC RTS, we're trying to provide a different experience that can co-exist alongside it
Balance is something that may improve over the time so, right now, it seems that Nod is stronger indeed (5). However, a part of it will continue to fail over time due to the use of microtransactions and progression system with items that directly affects the ballance, such as units and maybe some kind of boosters, although there will be caps and thresholds to reduce the disaster. I do not know exactly how loot boxes will work with this game, so I cannot comment (4) yet. Their attempt to counter balance problems with microtransactions and progression system as mentioned below doesn't convince me at all. Platinum threshold will practically be pay to win. The others will be somewhat umbalanced as well.
I understand that you want to make a competitive and fair RTS for mobile, how do you hope to strike this balance with the future inclusion of micro transactions? How much will the gap be between a paying and non-paying player?
There's a couple systems we are tentatively planning on introducing to ensure the game is fair and competitive. I'd love your guy's feedback on these (do they solve the concerns? why or why not?)
• Unit Caps - we're going to be introducing unit level caps per skill division, so people cannot spend a ton of money and out level you, it'll down-level their units to the cap for that division. The cap will be tuned so that skill always wins out, the better player should win.
• Challenge Matches - even with a level cap, you might still face someone with marginally more powerful units, which can feel bad and unfair. If you're fighting someone whose unit power is within the cap, but still above yours by a margin, the game will present this match to you as a challenge match, meaning you'll lose no medals on losses, and gain bonus on winning.
• Win Streaks - These will earn you bonus medals for consecutive victories, helping to accelerate people who are outside of the skill bracket they should be to where they are suppose to be more quickly.
• Safety Thresholds - We want to make it so that when you reach certain skill thresholds (bronze, silver, gold, plat, etc), you cannot lose medals beyond these points. This will make safe places for people to be able to finish bounties, experiment with other decks, and generally not feel as much anxiety about recently crossing over into a brand new division.
It's our commitment that microtransactions should be able to accelerate your progression though the game, but should never be able to do it by making the outcome of a match pre-determined. You should not be able to pay to win.
Regarding Kane's terrible retro image (6), I couldn't agree more.
And I have no opinions about (8).
