Brainstorming: Unit Variants &Commander Specialisiation

If you don't want to read the whole thing - please don't comment.

I liked the fact that Units where able to level up in SupCom, but it wasn't particulary well presented ingame. It only showed it on the unit icon, if you directly clicked onto it, not if you selected multiple units (at least i don't remember such a feature). I'd like to see such a feature in PA aswell.
So let's assume you have 2 levels that a unit can achieve (1star and 2star). Both levels give a slight boost in health and dps (or did they only increase health? not sure, nvm)
Both levels could be represented visually on a model. The simplest way to do it propably would be texture markings - imagine a tank-gun with 1 stripe/chevron/triangle/etc for 1star and 2 stripes for 2star. To get the "readability" that is often mentioned in art-related PA news, i would suggest to introduce a "champion color". If you see this color on a unit, you know it's been upgraded in some way. With several color already used for teams and details, i think the best choice would be white/silver as it stands out the most amongst the teamcolors and grey/black for tech. I took the colorinformation from the delta commander pictures as base for this assumption.

Here's an example how i think it could look on a quickly made conceptmodel:

Blue is the teamcolor, yellow is "detailcolor", grey is tech and silver/white pops out here, even if there would be for example green/red plasma-reactor glow parts. Alternatively the detailcolor could be used for "champion color", depends on the color scheme in the end. The veterancy could be shown on the gun like on the middle (2-star unit), or somewhere else (bottom) if the barrel marking turns out to be too small in comparison to the unit (on battleships for example)

Now since this is brainstorming, why not take it a step further:
How about different Variants for a unit that enhance for example health or dps in the same way a "level up" would work, except that you can build these units right off the factory without having to micro them till they reach a level.
These also could have very small parts/texture pieces in "champion color" added to them to differentiate them alittle bit from their "basic" variant.

As example there could be a Vanguard and a Sentinel upgrade. First increases dps, second health. The Vanguard could have the dps like a 1star or 2star basic variant for example. If the Vanguard levels up, dps could increase further, or health could increase (so that it evens out 2star vanguard= 2star sentinel= 2star basic), or both could increase - there are multiple ways to balance it after all.


The way i have them set up here is that each upgrade levels as well, but i'm sure that would be way too much work, so a single variant model (the last one) would also work and you just add chevrons/stars/stripes/whatever for rank like on the basic version. Note that the armor upgrade for example uses champion color only for the border, to not inflate usage of the champion color. It could also be just 2D panels for performance reasons - it's just a concept/visualisation after all.

How to differentiate them on strategic map icons?
First off, level should be visible on each icon (a little globe in champion color for each level, in the left/right upper/lower corner). A Vanguard version could be represented by a triangle next to the globes (triangle->sharp angles=agressive shape), a sentinel could be represented by a square. Alternatively, the icon could be surrounded by a solid line in champion color for sentinel and by a dotted or dashed line for vanguard.
Hard to make suggestions here since we haven't seen anything for the UI yet.

In terms of gameplay, they should be variations, not completely new units (as they obviously are not). That means they have a small advantage over the basic units, but they don't obliterate them.

How do you get the upgrades:
The new versions are a seperate unit in a factory and could require more ressources&time to build , so no "on the fly" upgrading. That also means that you are not forced to micro all the units you already have to recieve upgrades (because you can't =P)

There could be the boring old techtree where you have to decide for one variant. But that's meh, because everyone does it.
What i'd prefer is, that you could choose your "special unit" at the beginning of the game. For example there could be a slot that allows you to pick one unit of each techlevel that has a special variant.
I could choose that i want the Tech1 AA vanguard variant and the tech 2 Frigate sentinel variant.
Or it could be one slot variant for each combat type (naval, ground, air)
If the enemy doesn't know what units you have specialised in, you could surprise him that way.

Alternatively, since you plan to make many commanders, it could come as a trait for that specific commander. If you take a look at http://24.media.tumblr.com/2979d117dec0 ... 2_1280.jpg
the commander to the right, it would look like he'd give you a sentinel (armored) variant for a T2 ground unit for example. Might also be easier for balancing the combination of the variant distribution, since the devs set them instead of letting the player choose.


Reason behind this idea:
We only have 1 graphictheme going on, one "visual" faction. I find mirror matches in other games always pretty boring to look at, and 100, even 1000 different commanders won't bring any difference there, as it's only 1 unit on the entire battlefield, and the more you progress the smaller his appearance visually and effect on gameplay is. It only comes down to the units of each faction, and atm they are carbon copies.

I know the reason behind this is the money&time required to create more factions. The "because everyone uses the best" - sorry that excuse only works for the "consumer masses". Not for people that are a bit into gamedesign.
So why not give the player a chance to slightly differentiate units in a battle if you don't have many to begin with?
It increases variety with only small efford for the creation team (compared to creating entirely new units) And it's also easier to memorize what a unit does. You know it's a "Mamba Tank" (or whatever), and you see that it has additional armor - you know exactly what it does different then a normal "Mamba Tank", and you also know what it won't do different.
If you had 2 different units for that it's more difficult to get a grasp of it, eventhough they are only slightly different in what they do.

Final note: Take this as a brainstorm, don't judge it as "implement it exactly as described"-suggestion - which i've seen many people do with suggestions for other games/mods

thanks for your attention, cheers
KJ
I love the concepts and info you have given us so far, Uber. A few days ago i was kinda depressed about the lack of new good RTS games, and now i found this. Awesome. Definitely looking forwards to playing and modding it.

Re: Brainstorming: Unit Upgrades &Commander Specialisiation

afaik there wont be upgrades

Re: Brainstorming: Unit Upgrades &Commander Specialisiation

Dev says: no we don't like yellow
Community reply: there won't be color

if you say never then it will never happen...
especially since this is a different idea compared to the upgrade functions in SupCom2 for example.
Think of it as Unit Variants instead of Upgrade

edit - actually, i think i'm going to rename the topic title to not mislead

This sounds a lot like one of these:
lotsofideas ! N°2 : Make-it-yourself experimentals
Custome Factions
Unit Customization

But then, I truly hope you've already read those threads because they came up in the first 5 pages of search.

My take: I'd prefer if there were no minute differences which reduce readability and increase complexity without adding much to the game.

Captured, assimilated, refined and perfected. A unit variant is NONE of these things.

If you have a bunch of bots competing for a role, put them in an arena. Only the survivor will be added of the army.

I don't really like how those upgrades are blatantly unrelated to their function (except the gun one). Like, the stripes? What do stripes matter? The additional armored plating? If the tank is only involved in fights vs other tanks, how would armor plating on the roof help?

Then why have more than one unit? To quote neutrino(?), why not just stick guns on fleets of mini self-propelled cubes and be done with it?

Ah, the slippery slope fallacy. Nice.

Tell me, what's the difference between a tank and a slightly better tank?

If an asteroid falls in the solar system, and every commander is killed by it, did they build an army?

Then why on earth do we need different commanders? That's hypocritic.
And why do we need a T1 and a T2 tank? Why do modern armies run around with dozends of different weaponsystems in a single unit? Because there is no perfect solution for every situation. Is more rate of fire perfect? Or is it more range? How about more range but less rate of fire? Where's the perfect balance? It's not possible to achieve, because it depends. The game devs gave that explanation for the average joe who doesn't want to understand that it takes alot of time&money to create 4 factions for example.
Why do you need more then one unit in a game? Answer: Variety. Why do you usually have factions in a game? Answer: Variety.
I presented an idea how to get more variety that doesn't mean an awefull lot of work compared to making an entire new faction or even new units. In a way - yes, they are new units (on a factory UI) in the end, because they are not upgrades.

It's like saying "oh hey we do 4 bit colors. We don't need 8bit colors, because we can already see what's going on with black and white and 256bit is not in the budged"

It's not about designing your own units out of a pool of chassis, turrets and whatnot, and it's not about upgrading them during the game, and not about researching. I don't like that myself. Have you read the post at all?

How is additional armor blatantly unrelated to health? I can't follow your thoughts.
Armor on top could help against... you know, like attacks from above? And i sort of assume that we have artillery and air, but you may be better informed then me. And the stripes are to visualize veterancy, because that's a solution for a thing i criticised on the the supcom veterancy. If you would have read the start of the post you would have known.

And like i said - this is an idea and a visualisation to get the idea across. Not "this tank should have this stripe at this position" or "that armorpanel needs to be that large". It's a concept, no definition. Same as the idea of unit variants.
health and dps, there is more that could be to it, or less - as much as one sees fit. Range for the "attack" variant but slower movement or whatnot, but only in limited bounds (like +-5% and not 50%), if we would be talking about the "more" area. Just damage or health (so only 1 additional variant for each unit) on the opposite side.

Someone mentioned preselected choices could be problematic in later stage where it turns out to be useless - no problem. Modify the concept, make the variant choice changeable midgame, but you lose control of all previous variants (selfdestruct), or give a ressourcepenalty/pay for the change, etc etc. Is it worth spending my ressources to increase that units abilities in that kind of way in the current situation? A Tactical/Strategical decisions. I thought that's what RTS games are about?
If you limit it to 1 or two upgrades additional management becomes fairly small. In no way comparable to having to deal with upgrades for each unittype, and/or for each unit seperately. The variety is a on/off switch. You may or may not have ability to build them, depending on -to be determined- factors.

Instead of saying just "no" you could try to get more creative as well and throw in ideas. Because in the end that's what this is all about. The devs may find "oh no, we can't do that because X and we don't like Y, but the discussion about Z brings up a good point that we haven't thought about before, so we need to adjust A" with A beeing seemingly unrelated to Z (to you). Think outside of the box.

Veterency and upgrades will not be included in the game. Neutrino says he doesn't like upgrades.

Not a fallacy, just taking your philosophy to its logical conclusion. It's also not even my own point. I hesitate to attribute it to Neutrino but I do remember someone from Uber bringing that up as a point; "captured assimilated refined and perfected" very likely means "death cubes of doom", but that's boring so we scale back from that a bit and build a cool variety. Now, whether the OP's suggestion has any merit is beside my point; it's really not a good road to go down to shut ideas down solely on the basis of "well it wouldn't be optimal". That can be a contributing factor, but it just sits wrong to use it as the only reason.

There will be no both level up and global effect of commander in PA, as I remember...

The largest argument against veteran units is the idea of disposable armies. you throw a few hundred units here and there. if you have a veteran army you wont want to waste it, you will have to manage it.

Is that what happened in SupCom? I can't remember that people didn't amass units and threw them at the enemy. The levels are not supposed to boost unit stats in a way that unleveled units had no chance whatsoever.

And even if veterancy was not appreciated, there could still be variants or an impact of the commander on those variants.

Well, they didn't announce anything yet, and since everthing is subject to change it's not a particular great idea to just shoot down an idea because it may/maynot have been mentioned by a dev so far.
Besides that, if commanders have no effect - why bother making alot of them? They have to have an effect on gameplay otherwise it's just a waste of work on assetts (the sames as if you would create another faction with different models but carbon stat copies). And to what extend the choice takes effect on the game has yet to be determined, so might it not be a good idea to throw ideas that might inspire the devs to do something that helps the game (that may or may not be directly the thing that was suggested)?

Well great, thanks for pointing it out. Variants are no upgrades however, so please don't disregard ideas just because they sound remotely related to something that is said to be unwanted.

Commanders will have no GLOBAL effect. the differences between comanders will be representetive of ideologies and such but give a uniqurness to you. When entering the battlefield you take your preference. once on the battlefield you have access to the best tool for the job, it has full veterancy at birth and all armour and gun upgrades that are appropriate for its role.

Also did you have a response about the disposability of armies?

Ok interesting point, of what ideologies can you think that a commander could represent in terms of actual gameplay and not just fluff?
But at the same time his units are like that of any other commander? It doesn't really make sense to me. Ideologie kind of means you follow a certain principle in your way to do things, does that not involve kind of specialising everything to match the task the best that this principle requires?
There could be a commander that represents the "superior firepower" ideologie. His units could have the variants with better guns.
There could be one that represents "superior mobility" or "superior defense" - increased speed or health&shields variants.

If it's just the commander that is different then

I'd really like to hear from the devs what the reasons/thoughts for going 1-factionstyle (art-wise) in favor of doing a huge amount of commanders (which is basically the same as doing a second faction in the end). Assimilated, perfected whatever, it would also have to apply to commanders to make any sense.

My response was - it was in SupCom, which also had disposable armies, and i don't remember people saying "it's a terrible idea". What is the definition of disposable army?
You can rebuild units instantly every time you lost them, doesn't matter whether they had more experience or not, you just lost a small advantage that you got for keeping them alife.
You don't have to wait several years and train them until they reach maturity until they can go to fight.
Why do i think veterancy is a good idea? Because it's fun to see your units level up, if you decide to care about them. It rewards microing them. Why bother to return to base for repair/refuel if you could just selfdestruct build a new one and safe travel time? From a realistic standpoint it makes not an awfull lot of sense, sure, i can see that. It's a good idea to bring realism into a game if it means fun, and a good idea to abandon it if you lose out on fun. No sound in space is realistic, ever seen any scifi movie/game without it though? Not the best example, but whatever.

Edit: Hey devs, if you read this - i'd have a few questions for your next video
- What differentiates the commanders between each other (apart from visual appearance)?
- What impact does the choice of a commander should have on the game?
- Why did you decide for a big variety of commanders all opposed to more variety in unittypes? (reason for asking - 1 commander, 500-1000 units in a usual game)

Everyone's taking the happy fun slide into wonderland today. Nice.

Wait, what? Dude. Your logical conclusion is borked. It only means that the units you DO get are the best of the best of the best. There is no next upgrade, no minor tweak here or there, because the units are already maxed out.
If a unit could be modified to be slightly superior, then it would replace every other alternate design in a minute.

You're new, so I'll be gentle.

1) Because they're cool.
2) Because Commanders are built to a completely different philosophy from common units. I posted a ton on this in the past. Look it up. It's good times.

But there are great units for LOTS of situations. That is the whole point of T1. Everything out the factory is powerful and effective at plenty of roles. The more extreme and nuanced designs belong to T2.

And this is exactly what's wrong with it. These slight number tweaks create no new roles. It does not offer new strategic options. It is numbers for the sheer sake of numbers.

Supcom gave unique variants of units to each faction. While it was neat for Supcom, it's WAY too much stuff for a single unit pool. How many "tank that is really strong at short range" type units do you need, anyway?

Most of those have been answered.

Commanders will be differentiated, according to the current plan, by a different gun perhaps laser vs energy shell or such and a different ability such as cloaking. the combinations will be unique but the abilities and weapons will not.

The difference will be restricted in effect to the commander

They will be including as many units as makes the game fun. not particularly helpfull information wise but its a noble goal.

The concept was that you would be able to build those slightly stronger tanks and slightly tougher tanks all from the same team so you choose as the situation dictates. gameplay though i imagine necessitates that this choice then compresses these expanded options back down again.

As for the sup com example of veterancy many people didnt think it was necessary. what did it add, either nothing in large armies so why have it or immense toughness to experimentals messing up how many asfs you have to use to take down that rushed czar

Your argumentation doesn't make sense either. Because if it's good at LOTS of situation it can't be best on all of them - therefore it's far from perfect. If someone specialises more then you, he will beat you hands down. You can only achieve perfection by reaching infinity. And then we have that cube that does everything.
If T2 is nuanced, it could be nuanced in different ways. Commander 1 builds a T2 unit with emphasis on firepower and commander 2 with emphasis on defense for example.
Mirror matches are boring to watch because all that is different is the color. And that's what we'll get so far in PA. It doesn't matter if the commander does "Pew" instead of "blam" because it's a single unit on the entire planet/solarsystem/galaxy