Do we need tech levels?

Good to see you're finally on the same page as us, except that the way the tiers would be set up is the Basic units would only be in the Tier 1, while the 'complex' units as you named them go into Tier 2, this creates a natural progression and keeps structures(Mainly factories***) relevant throughout the game.

***You could apply this type of unit design to other structures as well, but it's not as clear cut so it needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Mike

Yep.

well if you divide it down into 3 sets of unit type with basic and advanced, then that's around 12-13 units a factory.

And that's having the SupCom method of dividing, with air, land and sea and not the TA additions of hovercraft, K-Bots and seaplanes.

So really each factory owning the basics it needs to perform, but in different ways.

Kinda, less units with all you described, but more units really really good in only one or two areas you describe.

So yeah essentially.

Essentially.

And more efficient at the role!

Based on how he plays he may select any composition of units yes, of course the basic units while being general are a jack of all trades deal, good a many things, great at none...other then in number.

I am not sure that you mean, the basic and advanced tiers I talk about is comparable to T1 and T2 from SupCom, but with more of a focus on general units to specialized units.

And generally yes the second tier (Advanced units) would be stronger because of their specialization weaknesses.

And as for Upgrading to the advanced tier, there are many suggested ways of doing this, none of which are known to be the choice yet.

Given the set-up for units we've laid out I'd have to say making the Factories separate, and NOT upgradable.

Mike

I would agree with you there, but I wanted to remain neutral in that discussion.

Well, in that case basic/special units are more like the same level, they are not really "tiers". Under tier I mean something that invalidates previous tier. In case of special units it's rather really be just separate advanced factory on same tier.

I mean, tier is more that simply units. It's structures as well - I like the idea of different tier mexes or different tier power generators, they wasn't much good for end-game but upgrade itself was funny little game by itself. Without upgrades game would be more like simple "point control" game (with tiers it's also "point control", but more deep - longer you control the point the greater income you have. If you are not expecting to control this point for a long - you won't upgrade your mexes there).

The two-tiers-for-only-units-and-this-tiers-are-not-really-tiers solution is fine, but I dunno, it's just flatten structure more similar to conventional strategies. I like SupCom upgrades more, even if they became obsolete after initial eco develop.

I hope there will be no superior advanced unit like Maverick

W don't, we want to restore what we had in TA like you said. (Not that TA had a massive tech tree anyway.)[/quote]

Yea it did, this it one of the things that made it stand out from dune and Cnc. You had hundreds of units in TA instead of 10..

More units/factions ftw.

Supreme Commander 2 never happened.

Supreme commander 2 could have been a good game... If it's name hadn't been supreme commander 2.

A reminder why tiers are important:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC1lHqMTw_I

The more tiers you have the more stages in the battle you have. With each new tech appearing on the battle field, the other player is forced to make a decision about how best to deal with the situations. Seeing a new tech appear on the battle field is different from seeing some type of unit appearing, it is a signal that a number of new options are available to the enemy.
Having these stages in the battle attached to actual structures on the battlefield also allows for the tech progression to be reversed, making upgraded engies and factories particularly interesting targets(a concept completely absent from supcom 2).
If you watch that whole video you can see how every tech stage has it's own peculiarities, it's own micro, it's own ranges, it's own dangers to ACU, it's own counters. That said the units from previous tech's don't become obsolete, T1 units are used throughout the game, but their roles change.

How can there still be a question: Do we need tech levels?
The question should be: How many tech levels do we need? What should be the difference between tech levels? etc.

I thought this topic was finished. But since people are still discussing it I'll put in my view. I have not viewed the video TA4life posted. But what he writes is what I remember from playing FA.

What I would like to add to that is the important interaction between economy and tech tiers. In FA it was very important to manage when and how you would switch tech. Building higher tech is mainly and, in my opinion, in a well balanced way influenced by your current economy. Teching early is possible on a "weaker" eco but you are taking a risk. This is exactly what makes FA such a massive game.

If you tech up to early you can total lay waste to you eco. This is actually something that is present in games such as starcraft 2 as well. Only starcraft forces you in such a crazy speed of play it becomes real hard to manage. That is what I like about FA it is more about strategy than about quickness of utilizing the interface. Sorry off topic there.

I am not sure if tech needs to be distributed in tech levels so much but what must remain is the proportion of cost related to building a stronger unit. I also like the fact how the cybran t2 boat could completely turn the tide on Setons. And whether you do that by upgrading a factory or building some tech building, doesnt really matter to me.

I completely agree.

Sorry, everything you said is immediately made redundant because you used 5. twice.

That's why I suggest Solomon solution: to make a mix of linear and exponential tech systems, having two/tree tiers with two "basic=>advanced" subtiers. This will reduce number of roles per tier (to reduce complexity rise to the end of the game, as it happens in pure exponential system like starcraft), but will add this battle levels instead.

I even have a suggestion to replace advanced part with custom-composed (it should be done at least in mod - to fast prototype and test new units) units. Like say you have some number of slots in advanced tech part for each level and you may customize or replace any unit in any slot. Like - change chassis or power generator or turret. Chassis supply useful weight, everything else consumes it. Power generator or power transporter (that allows unit to suck energy from global reserves for costly weapons) costs weight but supply power. Turret (as well as some chassis) supply binding points for weapons (of different types).

Weapon could be installed in binding point that supports it and consume power. It could be also additional system slots on chassis/turret, for stealth, cloak (everything could be done though same binding-points interface, including power generator), etc. Any spare useful weight would benefit speed. There is much more options to cover - radars, vision, etc, but you got the idea. Dunno how it would be playable in (maybe too sidetracked and hard to maintain different look&feel) generic mode, but as special mode/special mod it would be perfect for unit generation.

With this option, tiers could be done via more powerful parts versions (i.e. more use per weight/power).

ACU upgrade could be done as well - ACU is chassis-turret-in-one with number of slots open pre-game and number of slots that could be unlocked during the game. It also have a number of parts (same for all commanders) that could be installed pre-game (you may even replace right-hand D-Gun with second laser/build-ray if you have no intent of fighting with your ACU, doubling your build speed! Or you may install boosters into your legs and run-run-run =)).

Welcome to the net lol

What the fu©k?...

Over the last several pages you've been advocating against having many unit roles, under the belief that more variety would scare away potential new players.

Yet now you're proposing to introduce those same players to some mix and match unit builder along with an assortment of convoluted loadout and upgrade options, where they are expected to spend precious time to sift through it as well as figure out which of the hundred possible combinations are the most optimal ones, probably while the clock is beating down on them.

How about sticking to a consistent amount of player required management in your arguments? There is no way the time it takes to figure out which unit from a list you need to build is longer than fiddling around in a unit builder.

I have to agree with this as well, thought recently he did come over to our 2TierBasic-Advanced unit setup, thought I guess maybe he double crossed us! xD

Custom units have been brought up several times prior and there are several arguments to shoot this down, but the most prominent to me is the one of Readability.

It's like what happened in SupCom2 with Reesearch, when you can't accurately gauge an opponents capabilities(or they magically change mid-battle) it start turning in dice rolls, maybe you can win, maybe you can't but the only way to find out is to engage.

A system outlined above mess with readability and introduces all kinds of variables into the final unit that not only recognizing, but also understanding exactly what the unit is capable of, and how it'll relate to your own units can range from hard to impossible.

And it's pretty much inevitably lead to only a handful of efficient set-ups that will dominate the competitive scene.

In order for such a system to work at all it's the kind of thing you need to design the around, not the other way around.

Mike

You guys really suffer from "TL;DR" syndrome. Please do not reply unless you read and understand what your opponent tells you, completelly. I know, sometimes it's hard as for many people here english is not native and we all make a lot of mistakes, but if you can't undestand something it's better to ask clarification than just skip this part and reply to whatever you think about what it all should mean. Thanks.

And back on the topic:
1. Unless you both really don't know how to read, you should have noted, that I mentioned issue with look&feel, and I'm suggesting this as special mod. After you tested your new design in terms of gameplay, you may refine it's look&feel for some uniqueness. Well, I have some thoughts how this could be implemented properly to reduce this problem, but complete elimination is not possible, I would agree with that.

2. Unless you noticed, again, I've also again mentioned 2x Tier + Basic-Advanced system as "solomon solution", as it technically reduce units-per-tier (and, therefore, overall roles available) - tiers are invalidating (mostly) previous tiers in long perspective. So it's more variation than in sole "2x/3x Tier" solution (linear tech), but less variation than in pure "Basic-Advanced" tech. And it goes with "when to upgrade?" strategy option from linear tech for free!

So what, because you said 'special mod' I can't comment on the idea? That's like saying Murder is okay because you happened to shout "Avast" before you shot some poor guy.

I wasn't talking about how you proposed to implement the idea, I was talking about the idea itself.

I'm assuming you're talking from a Developer perspective here. in Which case it can only go so far to ease the confusion, and I doubt it would go as far as you expect it too.

Like I said, its the kind of thing you have to design a game around, it can work where the units on screen are big and low in number with a fixed or small amount of zoom. In that context it's easier to to distinguish the units and what parts they use and with overall fewer units there is less you have to check. But with PA, we have to deal with Hundreds-thousands of units on screen thanks to Stratzoom. Trying to process what all the units are equipped with would be mind-boggling. Strat Icons will help to a degree, but unless each potential combination has it's own unique Strat Icon(and even then, there could be hundreds of combinations and would suffer from similar readability issues as the units themselves) there is only so much the icon can communicate.

And I mean, lets just look at what you proposed, all units would be based on 3(technically 4) main components;

Chassis - Provides selection of Hardpoints and Overall Weight Limit
--1 Generator Hardpoint
--X Turret Hardpoint(s)

Generator - Governs Weapon and/or other elements(radar, stealth ect ect)

Turret - Mounts Weapon(s)
--X Weapon Hardpoint(s)

That allows for a huuuuuuuge range of potential combinations, it's be very overwhelming in almost all aspects.

Mike

Don't try to backpedal, it's not making you good look It's quite illogical to spend so much words and irony (in context of even more aggressive post you making agreement with) to make details on problem that was already acknowledged by your opponent. What you are trying to explain, if I already understand that? Unless you haven't actually read that I already understand that and make a falst assumption about your superior understatement of gameplay issues Haven't I told that this community suffers from overgrown ego of some of it's members?

I'm speaking about gameplay refinement. You may refine look&feel (design) later, up to complete redesign into custom model.

Yeap. But again, what you are trying to convince me? I'm not arguing about L&F importance. It's top-most important thing after unit stats. Ah... Wait a sec...

I see, you want to say that balance tests would suffer from bad L&F and therefore they would lead to inaccurate results? I.e. developer mod itself won't be playable?

Well, I've told you, I know how to minimize the problem. It's not my solution, I may name a few RTS games with customization as key feature - warzone2100 as one. Yes, it suffers from some inability to differentiate improved minigun MkII from minigun MkI. But Warzone2100 is story-based and build around researchable tech tree. We don't need full tree, we need only leafs - best of the best of given tech for given role.

[quite]
And I mean, lets just look at what you proposed, all units would be based on 3(technically 4) main components;

Chassis - Provides selection of Hardpoints and Overall Weight Limit
--1 Generator Hardpoint
--X Turret Hardpoint(s)

Generator - Governs Weapon and/or other elements(radar, stealth ect ect)

Turret - Mounts Weapon(s)
--X Weapon Hardpoint(s)

That allows for a huuuuuuuge range of potential combinations, it's be very overwhelming in almost all aspects.
[/quote]
Yeap. It's much more, to be precise. But if you ever played in such games, such system is very hard to balance, so there is never "best" obvious variant. So it's never so much options as mathematics will tell you. Also it have applied restrictions on power and weight, so it could be simple impossible to install some weapons and some power generators on some chassis and turret - this reduce number of combinations even more.

Actually, very good system will produce like 100 units from 100 parts (and new 100 units per new 30 parts) - roughly estimate. Bad system will produce 20.

And about how to implement L&F. First, we don't need to separate little details, only role-defining one. Look at StarCraft where you never see how much armor specific unit have unless you click on it. But role defining abilities are specially animated.

Here the same - role consists from:
1. Weapon types.
2. Weapon rate/damage.
3. Speed.
4. Reachability.

1, 3, 4 is quite easy to implement distinguish enough. Speed is controlled (mostly) by chassis and may variate a little if weight is low (which would mean lesser turret and less guns). 1 could also be visibly separated, by adding big parts into chassis/turret so they would change not only color (looking from above), but also a shape (prime mechanic for recognition is a shape). 4 is also pure chassis look.

2 is harder, as it could be visible only by projectile difference, which is too late, but there could be also established patterns like "high damage-low rate is a big fat double-or-tripple slotted gun", while "low-damage but fast is slick and thin".

Yes, in scale of PA only shape really matters, but many units (especially TA! It was terrible in terms of L&F) in many RTS suffers from this. But this not prevented TA and FA became what it was, so slight L&F problems won't hurt too much. That is - won't damage test results too much to make them unreliable.