On a similar note, its hard to instantly tell whether demigods and creeps are allied or enemy.

I would also be very happy if there was a hotkey mapped for Demigod selection. When you play a general it could be quite handy... Regarding the size of Demigods I think it's okay. You already have the small circle to recognize a "small" Demigod and as DatonKallandor says, Demigod's small size can be an advantage. 

I said the same thing in a post of my own.  Someone responded that I should use the minimap but I think that's entirely inadequate.  The minimap is too imprecise to be a good solution.  There needs to be some kind of color coding or something to make it easier to distinguish between opposing factions.

Color coding would be great .  It is almost impossible to target the vampire in the middle of the creeps same with some of the other Demigods

Completely agree.  Demigod feels rather like a war of tiny insects with Demigods being rather larger insects than the rest.  Only really big heroes like Oak and The Rook truly stand out.  I feel like GPG needs to work on what Blizzard likes to talk a lot about with their games - distinct unit silhouettes.  Every unit should be clearly visible and it shouldn't be hard to tell different units apart.  It should also be very very easy to tell Demigods apart from regular units, and from each other.

I don't expect this game to have WC3 proportions, because they were quite large, but something in between WC3 proportions and the current ones would be nice. 

I don't expect it to happen, though.  I understand this game is from the developers of SupCom and that that game was a similar Ant War.  It perplexes me why a developer would choose to make a game in this fashion, since it seems to me like they spend a lot of time trying to make these cool, highly detailed units only to have the vast majority of the detail lost on the player because everything happens to be really tiny unless you're zoomed way way in to a miopic level (in which case you can't play very effectively).

Yes, Daton, maybe that's true.

But guess which game is more competitive and popular: SupCom or Starcraft?

I hope the answer is obvious to you.

Interesting is subjective.  Popular, however, is not.  Starcraft is FAR more popular than SupCom (and is much older).  Also, on the contrary, competitive does equal popularity, at least in terms of online play.  There are a lot of strategy games that are very popular amongst the single player crowd.  But only competitive strategy games have any kind of significant following or longevity in online multiplayer gameplay.  Furthermore, only very competitive games are played at events like the World Cyber Games.  If a game isn't competitive enough to be at the World Cyber Games, then it will have a much harder time maintaining a serious following.

As for the "fun and interesting" versus "competitive" debate, I've had this discussion before with people.

The developers have stated, quite clearly and quite often, that their intention with this game is for it to be a competitive game.  The term "tournament staple" was even used a couple times, if I recall.

My point is simply that with the current scaling, this game will not be nearly at the level of competition for it to be considered anywhere near on par with a game like Starcraft.  Maybe you think it's more interesting with tiny units on a massive scale, watching the battle unfold from afar.  But that hurts the player's ability to distinguish themselves through skill, particularly micro skill.  Since this game doesn't have you managing resources or controlling a lot of units at once (even as a General) macro skill will not come into the picture to a very large extent.  Therefore, in order for it to be adequately competitive, micro has to play a very significant role. 

Strategy obviously needs to come into play as well, but strategy can be easily learned over time by almost anybody.  That creates an increasingly even playing field in the long run.  Micro has to be practiced in order to be developed and maintained, and some people are simply better at it than others.  This allows the best, most dedicated players to distinguish themselves, meaning the playing field will become increasingly less even between average players and great players.  This is what is necessary for the game to be competitive.

I'm not asking for Warcraft 3 level proportions.  Units are huge in that game because there tend to be very few in use at one time.  However, I think making the units more on a size level of Starcraft would be good.  Minotaurs = Zealots and scale from there.  Demigods ought to be at least as large proportionally as a Battlecruiser or a small building.  This keeps their "epic" quality.

Micro and reflexes are two completely different things.

You obviously don't understand competitive RTS play if you think micro is about reflexes and strategy is all that matters.

Coming from someone who wants to keep the old comic proportions of RTS that's a little hypocritical, don't you think?

Yes, in the old "competetive" RTSes Strategy takes a backseat - that does not mean that's the way it should be. Micro is an artifact of the birth of RTS, not something that was intentional.

Those proportions serve a very good purpose, unit identification.  I can play Starcraft and spot most units in seconds, I can play DoW and spot the heroes in seconds (and the big units are still much larger than them.)  I can play warcraft 3 or DotA and instantly recognize the heroes.  These weren't trained skills, they were something a newbie could instantly see.  It is just good design.

The sense of scale you offer is something players will very easily dismiss once they begin playing the game and can be extremely easily justified by saying "they are demigods, they are big."

Good visual communication is a huge issue in games and demigod is lacking in this department right now.  Most of this is due to the demigods being so small.

Age of Empires 3 has been played at WCG, yet it is not a game with a very large fan base.  I highly doubt Ensemble Studios had more money to throw around than GPG, even if it was backed by Microsoft.  After all, Ensemble Studios is shutting down after the release of Halo Wars.

Look at a game like DoW, however, which is a lot more popular than Age of Empires 3.  It has not been played at WCG and likely will never be because the game design downplays micro skill and resource management.

So your argument that money / popularity = competitive support is weak.  I will admit, however, that having funding certainly does help for marketing a game and developing a playerbase, which in turn helps to maintain the game as a competitive staple.  It is not, however, entirely necessary.

P.S. Let's be honest, Starcraft is not just a "decent" game.  Perhaps it isn't your preferred style of RTS, but it is one of the greatest RTS ever.  Yes, perhaps that is just my subjective opinion.  But I believe you'll find it's one held by the majority of non-ultracasual RTS players.

Actually, DoW was played in the WCG for at least one year.  The problem was they completely dropped the balance ball at one point and never got it back.  The game was never in the WCG since.

I think you're confusing *scale* and *scope*. Halo, Diablo or Warcraft had great scale. You were a small part of a massive, living world. Starcraft, Supcom or the Total War games had scope. You're a general leading a massive force to victory through superior strategy. Demigod's scope would be, uh, nil. It's scale is awesome though.