Unit veterancy

Veteran structures creates slippery-slope mechanics.

Hilariously, in both directions. It's a double-edged sword.

If your structures get some experience under their belt, then it's easier for them to get more experience. And so on and so forth.

But also, when those structures explode and get re-built, they get re-built without experience. Replacements won't be able to do the same job as their predecessors, so they'll likely to be easily destroyed again and again and again.

I voted no because of three reasons:

1. It doesn't make sense. Gaining health or armor by shooting a fixed amount of units is so unreasonable, no one in this thread explained it (just because other games did it, doesn't mean it is good or makes sense to do it like this). It would be cool if you had some units that collect the wreckage and build up themselves with a nanolathe effect like taxman said. But that would be hard to balance and it would be a special ability rather than something every unit could do*. Now you could say: But what about better precision or enhanced turning rates? The software could learn and robots could reprogram themselves. That is correct but there are 3 things wrong with that: a) Why should it happen at a fixed amount of shot enemies and not gradually? Why is a unit with 4 kills as strong as a unit with 3 kills but much weaker than a unit with 5 kills? b) Shouldn't a future army collect the data from all forces and then enhance all software at once? So every robot would upgrade at once or at least every new machine you build gets the new software. c) Shouldn't scouts and fabbers be able to upgrade their software too? But how do you count their experience? Count the number of buildings scouted or things built? Again, that makes no sense.

2. It is not WYSIWYG. Enough people elaborated on this issue.

3. The player with the upper hand, becomes even stronger. You won't have so many comebacks. If one player wins some fights and gets some veteran units, it is most likely that he will win the next fight too. So even if you recover and build an army the same size as your opponent, you will lose because of this fight earlier. Steamrolling will be much easier. Look at the games now and imagine the incoming force becomes even stronger with every kill.

* I like the idea of such a "scavenger" unit that is weak and expensive in the beginning and builds up its power by collecting wreckage. But it has a lot of balance problems because once you lose a fight it becomes worse in the next one.

@igncom1 it matters for every unit.

the fact that they shine even though they are disposable and have no real reason to excell is amazing and should be rewarded and stand out a bit.

keep in mind guys, as I stated above. that veterancy at many of it's tiers made no discernible difference in combat. and at the stage where it made a difference the difference was only minor and didn't matter in the end.

so don't go imagining that it might be "OP" or something ridiculous.

So they should stand out a bit but don't make a discernible difference in combat? How would that work? You don't explain how veterancy works (and why it should be in game) and now you say we wouldn't notice an effect. So why do we need veterancy then?

Your units are tools, not people.

And if the deference doesn't matter in the end, then what is the point?

for one you can bear witness in-game to the success of a unit.

the first couple of veterancies in FA don't make such a big difference, a small health buff and he gets back a couple points of HP, it starts to climb up if the unit really keeps surviving. which remember he can only do through a great number of kills to his and his name alone ... in combat. so the chances of him dying are almost as high as his fellows. simply at a stage where he's full vet he should be worth two times his original self.

But that is pointless, these are machines not worth remembering, you are building carbon copy units on a mass scale.

This isn't a feature that was needed in FAF either, and it's even more pointless here.

I understand that you don't get it but as @taxman66 prooved above there are indeed people who do, i'd say they're quite a many.

the strategical depth that sprouts from this when the one drop of water is the one threatening to spill the vase is amazing.

this (with due talent) can mean the difference between a draw and a win the difference between a loose and a win

Yes to engine support of kill count or rudimentary metal destroyed count. Mods could implement veterancy or compile a summary of what unit types got the most kills, and other statistics. Robot of the match would also be fun to see.

WYSIWYG, etc.
Although I must say, a killcount would be VERY nice.

i just explained above that veterancy falls into the WYSIWYG

I got your point, but it really is YOU to claim that just because someone else disagrees with one of your magic FAF features that you are simply not understood, and that you have a large mythical amount of people who also agree with you.

Having units level up completely screws over the balance of the game by having units upgrade themselves in a way that ignores the whole point of the game.

Strategy should determine a games winner, not a levelled up army.

To be honest, it really wouldn't. In C&C it would place marks above units as to veterancy, but that only tells you that it's "leveled". It doesn't tell you how much the change is.

Which is one of the reasons units don't get sidegrades or upgrades. It also encourages microing because you'll try to keep units with a high kill # alive by moving other, weaker units in front of them.

That coupled with the incredibly low survival rate of units make it only worthwhile for things like the Vanguard/Inferno at this moment.

So in the end I respectfully disagree. Good day!

Kill count is a confirmed addition. We'll get there.

It's not WYSIWYG.

Exactly.

Also, just because it has an extra barrel doesn't mean I can see it.

Who plays when zoomed in?

Everyone plays at the strategic icons level. If it has an extra barrel, no one will see it.

then what ARE you supposed to see to tell what you get????

Uber only ever use that motto when pointing out that the stream for fabbing slows down when you're stalling eco. How is THAT more visible?

It's not very visible.

However, that's not overly game changing. If the enemy unit is upgraded, that's a big difference. If the enemy fabber is building slowly, that means very little. And the build bar also reflects the build rate. And if my fabbers are building slowly, then I can see that in the eco bar.

Also, upgraded units is micro oriented gameplay.

There are other visual queues than just the stream. The stream is more of an animation that reflects the other visual indicators.

A third turret simply isn't the same.

Unit upgrades simply does not align with the macro oriented gameplay style nor the WYSIWYG principle.

it's exactly the opposite. one tank is worth two amognst a thousand..... .....big deal right?

Enemy is stalling? .... ohohohoh! I know what to do! time to move in.

You yourself made a thread about how the enemy ammo bars shouldn't be seen because it shows stall .... THE AMMO BAR ! talk about a detail...

I don't know how you're pulling this beleif trick but you've streteched your argument to the maximum there ...to the point it's barely believable

Veteran units can actually make a big difference. Unit blobs are never in thousand quantities. And if you micro your units correctly, they can upgrade a lot. And if you get some units raiding the backside of a base, and they get upgraded, now there's an entire force of upgraded units. When you look at those units, you think you know how many units will be required to destroy those units. But nope, because you can't look at them and know what they can do, you now send in less units than you need, the raiding units get a bunch more kills, now they're more effective...

And that's not even going into how big of a deal they can be during the early game when unit blobs are small.

Unit veterancy is a big deal.

Unit veterancy is all about micro gameplay and is not WYSIWYG.

Point being, Uber has said no.

However, they are making the capabilities for mods to support it. So if you want veteran units, go play with the mods.

... that is very subjective

... provide some form of argument.

no there isn't ...no kill count in the engine.

>it's not in the engine of an incomplete game now, so it never will be EVER.