I would very strongly disagree on this point - liberal use of unpausing (I don't pause my game; I tactically unpause my game) is what enabled me to go from winning 1% of my games to winning well over 30-50% (well, of the games I chose to play through - I've "lost" many that were certainly winnable because I was trying to unlock the Rock Cruiser and the Crystal Ship, and realised I was unable to from that point on).Wizzerzak wrote:I don't really see the pause thing a problem. I'ts not like pausing is a major 'element' to the game. Sure, some people use it pretty much all the time but you don't get any in-game advantage from it, it simply makes the game easier for the player. Thus having no pausing in the final battle will test how well you can make decisions on the spot - remember the other player also has this pressure of no-pause.
Removal of free-pausing changes the game from a tactical pseudo-turn-based game into a real-time twitch-fight. That may be enjoyable to some people, but I do not at all think that this is what FTL is "about". The central core of the game seems to be more about strategy and planning than reflexes, and that's something that I (and many others) like about it.
I'd argue that many of these games are not designed for minute control over every aspect of the action, though. Yes, in Age of Empires, you can select individual units and direct them one-by-one to fight specific enemies, but the game wasn't designed to revolve around doing that. FTL was, which is why there's a (relatively) small number of active elements that you control at one time.Wizzerzak wrote:Edit: Also, another point about the pausing:
many RTS games have pause in single-player mode and some people spend ages in pause readjusting troops, setting destinations etc. However these games do not have a pause button in multiplayer do they? It adds to the skill of the game, even if it does change the strategy a bit.
