[Suggestion] GW Tech Uses CPU Rather than Tech Slots

I'm borrowing this idea from reddit.

What if the Galactic War Techs used CPU rather than tech slots? To me, that just sounds cooler and seems all the more fitting and immersive.

And on top of that, it allows some additional facets to the Galactic War. You can unlock additional CPU, and different techs use up different amounts of CPU.

This opens up even more possibilities. Like finding two or three techs on a planet. Do I pick a good tech that uses up all my CPU? Or do I get two mediocre techs?

CPU could then be tied into how many system you control. The more systems you control, the more CPU you have. If you lose a system to an enemy commander, you lose CPU power and may have to give up one of your techs.

There's a lot of possibility. Even if additional factors aren't added, I still think "CPU" sounds cooler and more fitting than "tech slots."

Could also call it hard drive space or something different. *shrugs*

Thoughts?

Could be interesting. I'd like to see a test build at least with that.

Was this supposed to be a lead-in to a "download more RAM" joke?
Or is it an engrish instruction manual?

"Unlock additional CPU and machine fax to inside for better hard drive."

Lorewise you could fab all planets as full of server farms as you would need. Invoking a image of all planets covered (if not converted) with computronium is a bit silly. I guess it could make sense as a fraction of CPU power dedicated "in the blueprint" for each individual unit (still would not make sense how code specific to energy generators should affect the CPU needs of bots).

It does seem silly why you would irrevocably discard technologies you have found.

Keeping things simple and abstract makes it more direct that it's for the sake of generating a kind of gameplay.

I like the idea...

...but yes, we all heard this before, we all know we want better mechanics for gw. Tech slots and tech, probably placeholder. It will probably be ammended

so, I agree, and yet this is definitely requested to death. Tsk, at least it isn't a thread about bringing back the stinger.

This isn't a request to improve GW.

It is a thread with ideas on how to improve GW.

Are we not allowed to make suggestions?

well the idea was good, I said that.

but tell me there isn't umptenth threads about planets storing tech and deciding tech slot number.

Or god forbid, shields.

That's a pretty neat idea.
It'd be worth a shot.

Yeah. I like how it opens up a lot of possibilities.

It also allows more versatility for modders.

so the more you lose the weaker you get? ... see the problem?

Id like the idea of customizing a commander like how you could in Blackops or Halo 4. Select Weapons, Techs and a special ability, and away you go

This is against the AI. The GW mechanics against the AI are different than the mechanics against players.

The idea is to make it actually detrimental to losing systems. Give incentive to protecting your systems.

And that particular mechanic doesn't necessarily have to be in there.

i would rather like GW both single and multiplayer to be kept similar giving players in multiplayer who have territory control a slide buff of sorts to have that incentive of fighting for those planets aswell ... but maybe also a handicap to even things out .. maybe an option to leave a subcommander on one planet for that protection for when you can´t be everywhere ...

Even in your description the players that control more territory get a buff, creating a disparity of force and a snowball effect.

In order for Galactic War to mean something, there has to be benefits for controlling more systems.

Along with that, there will be a snowball effect where the more you lose, the worse you lose.

I share your concerns about multiplayer gameplay and the snowball effect. So maybe with PVP galactic war, the only incentive to control more systems will be to win, and there won't be any tech/resource/whatever benefits for controlling more systems.

But at the very least, against the AI there needs to be some sort of benefit to controlling more territory, and a detriment to losing territory. This gives strategy to the turn based GW meta game, gives the gameplay diversity and enjoyability for increased replayability, and allows for more difficulty modifiers.

It is singleplayer first off.

second off... I already suggested anti snowball mechanics. I suggested, a +1 commander eco boost per system owned, and a -2 to it for every "move" he is away from his starting point, and same with tech slots, +1 every owned system, -2 every move space, meaning a defender has more blueprints and perks, than an attacker.

its not that bad a deal tbh, if you attack more close planets to build up strength, you can counter the negatives of attacking farther. Cap 4 planets, and attacking 2 spaces away isn't as bad.

I would like to see some mechanics added that depend on controlling systems. I would also like to see blueprint slots broken off to be separate from upgrade slots, but I don't think tying BP slots to systems controlled is the right answer.

I'd rather see a commander gain "levels" that provides more BP slots and perhaps some small passive bonuses like increased natural resource generation or commander HP. It could be written into the lore as commanders repairing themselves as the GW progresses, bringing more systems back online.

I'd also like to see BP unlocks be permanent, but you only have a certain number of slots to bring BPs into a match. I think this is really important for when we eventually have co-op and pvp GW, and we want to switch up builds while playing with friends. It adds human interaction.

Just throwing in more related ideas

1. Make sense of controlling more planets (as stated before). More planets = more slots.

2. After you conquered a planet - you will have access to some tech what defeated commander has. But not to all. Some of data was damaged/lost in combat maybe?
But using all techs will require a lot of slots, so you will choose what to activate first. Deeper into galaxy - more advanced tech and more commanders per system (more commanders defeated = less tech data loss).

3. As stated before: using CPU instead slots will balance techs. (Or whatever you call it. Planetary data centers maybe?) Obviously Advanced tech will require more CPU then basic ones. In addition CPU can act as mobile unit limit. If it’s too harsh - only t2 and constructor limit. More techs = less units.

4. Some planets should have bases already (especially factions' main worlds). Systems without enemy commander should contain only slots/CPU and with some chance - one of the basic techs. You should not be able to win battle on faction main world without decent set of techs.

RAM Space?
SSD Space?
QBit Space?
Tech slots just seems like the 2000's or earlier, seriously. Just anything but tech slots works better imo.