Do we need tech levels?

And as i said before, this whole obsolete concept came from chris taylor which was his excuse for SC2 only having 1 tech level to appeal to the masses which was a complete shitout in my opinion.

What above says. I've played games where the number 1 player (whom I chatted with a lot) didn't have a clue about how the game worked, he just copied stuff from strategy guides and spent too much time on the game.

There are a few problems with listening (exclusively) to pro-players.

A) A Pros job is to make the most of what there is, not to improve on what there is.
B) Pros job is to win the game, not make it the most fun for everyone
C) Pros often have an elitist attitude, not caring about new players and feeling people should just 'slug it out' (Not universal, but happens a lot)
D) Pros often don't have real experience with the real thing we're talking about here: game design.

As a result, listening only to the pros cuts down on a newbie's enjoyment of the game, which is critical to get it off the ground and keep it fun. Pros also often focus on things that would make them better, not on things that are fun. And they often see problems and solutions that are only relevant to their own issues, not to those of the rest of the gaming community.

While it's valuable to listen to your best and most committed players, it's never a good idea to just do all they say. They generally don't see the big picture.

(Oh and if you want my credentials? I'm not a pro gamer. I'm a professional game designer. I do this stuff for a living and while I wouldn't dare claim I'm on Uber's level, I've done this kind of community-driven design thing before.)

At this point the only thing that's gonna help matters, is an alpha with sufficient gameplay elements to demonstrate and highlight what works and what doesn't.

Also ign what would you say determines the ability for a person to understand a system? :smirk:

Also plusjen, what have you worked on, since you keep touting you're a game designer.

And in my experience game developers make for **** gamers who generally suck at the games they make and get told by the pros of the game how to balance it so the game is not unbalanced crap.
Getting off track a bit.

Should have expected you today!

Not that I understand the system, but I would imagine only the developers really know how things work, as we can only see the top level stuff.

I imagine its like a driver, who may be very very good at driving, but that doesn't mean they know how to build a car.

I am not saying I understand how to code, I am saying I know how to play the game and can tell you the addition of an extra tech level added depth to the game.
Depth that I dont want to see removed as it was in SC2

What happened here? I'm fairly sure that "I'm better than you" isn't an argument.

As for anyone who thinks FA units didn't have some level of redundancy, I suggest you check out their icon system. It says everything you need to know about a unit.

PA has more layers of gameplay by simple virtue of having planets. That will spawn plenty of unique unit designs that have no need to step on each other's toes.

Someone questioned my "credentials" thats the only reason i stated my ranks.
I also remember some of these guys names and where they sat in the ladder.

No one questioned your credentials, you just brought it up for no apparent reason.

While this thread is stuck on **** wagging, I should point out that I don't have any credentials. I just post on game forums to draw attention away from my bleak and meaningless existence.

..
sorry did not mean to **** wag lol

^ This.

Forget the '**** wagging' bit. I think this statement makes a good point, though I'm not sure if it exactly what you intended when you made it.

The fact that only high level players could utilize more than one third of the units in the game effectively stinks of lazy game design. The majority of players would just progressively move upwards, commonly supplementing their forces with units from the previous tier until their economy is strong enough to abandon the previous tier completely in favour of stronger units.

My point is that while it is important to cater for high level players, because competitive play is a core aspect of the previous games. It is also important to make sure that the game has something to offer for everyone. Why design a game where two thirds of the units are only usable throughout the whole game by a minority of players?

This thread could be pretty interesting if people stuck to the subject and stopped pretending to know what they are talking about.

"Hoplite: a bigger basic tank.

Tankier than Mantis.
Shoots further than Mantis.
Dishes out damage harder than Mantis.


The Hoppy can beat a Mantis at everything except for repairing, and running. "

Anyone who played Supcom FA on multiplayer for more than 100 games on maps where you don't just turtle will understand that someone who says that has lost all their credibility.

Having a discussion about what other people will or will not do is all pretty pointless. I am sure most FAF players will play PA and give it a shot and if it brings new ideas and new possibilities without some huge holes that for whatever reason UBER won't be willing to address, they might even play it a lot.

The Hoplite vs mantis example is a perfect illustration of new gameplay introduced without making the lower tech units obsolete. You are given a long range unit with long reload and a slow projectile and splash, that has low health. The hoplite doesn't make the mantis useless, infact I would argue 4 mantis can easily kill a hoplite with perfect micro from both sides (48X4 mass vs 200 mass).

This would be the interesting point of discussion for PA. What kind of new abilities will the second tech bring without making the first tech redundant. I believe this is exactly what UBER have stated they want to do. This is what should be the discussion.

For example, will there be a tech 2 analogue of the mobile missile launcher in PA? What kind of stationary targets will it counter? Will those stationary targets be T1 or T2? This kind of a decision in the game design will have a huge impact on the battle field.

Another good point for the discussion would be, are there some T2 unit abilities you would like to introduce that would be especially interesting for spherical planets, but would be game breaking if you allowed players to build these right away.

How about discussing the cost of the T2 upgrade? The relative cost of tier 1 vs tier 2 units?

The fact that the game designer put more units than could possibly be used by a noob is a single game does not mean they are lazy.
In fact it means the opposite, the gamer is too lazy to play Supcom FA. Supcom FA has so many non redundant units that even players with 1000+ games have aspects of their game that they can significantly improve. It isn't about maximizing your efficiency of microing 2 or 3 units. It is about choosing the best unit combination based on map, eco, enemy, etc. and then microing that unit combination to perfection. A deep game, is not evidence for lazy game design, especially when all units have unique roles.
Don't tell me a loyalist is better than a mantis. A loyalist is expensive as hell and would crash your whole eco if you built it too fast.

The great thing about Supcom FA is that you don't even have to know all the units to be very good. If you don't want to learn all the units, get good with a few of them and you will beat most players, but you can't expect to beat those that can utilize more of the game than you.

So one unit had its niche moments over another. Was there any reason for another tech level, to have players upgrade their factory for this? The level of significance between these two units is the difference between a Peewee and a Rocko. That may be enough for 2 unique units, but it isn't enough to justify an extra tier. It doesn't explain why every new tier had to follow a "bigger and exponentially better" philosophy over the previous in order for the distinction to be possible.

The unit cap played no small fault in how skirmishes played out in FA. There was an obvious situation where the biggest experimentals took up the same army space as the tiniest LABs. Bigger units let more money on the field, and whoever could put the most money into their army had the best advantage. Perhaps it didn't matter too much for competitive play, but T1 could hit cap pretty quickly, forcing a move up the tech tree.

Don't get me wrong, the T2 level of FA was the best part of the game. Where it fell apart was at T3, when bigger units and the unit cap both played a role in obsoleting everything else.

Maybe in a 4Mantis Vs 1 Hoplite it would turn out like you say, still seems somewhat unlikely unless mantis have more of a speed advantage over Hoplites than I recall, but anyways, to me examples like this are missing the point, I'm more interested to see how 80 Mantis fare against 20 Hoplites, (FAF Database Comparison) It's not quite as clear cut.

Yes Mantis are faster, but only just, 3.7(M) to 3.6(H) so it would take some time to over take them and the range difference is very much in the Hoplite's favor, 0-18(M) to 0-37(H) so pretty much double. And look at rest of the Hoplite's weapon stats, it fires 3 shots in a quick burst, meaning if a Mantis is killed by the first or second shot the remaining shot(s) could potentially hit another unit(which is more likely the more units there are) or thanks to the weapon's AOE even hitting the ground near a unit(s) could damage one or more units.

Also what happens when the Mantis do get in range? Well a single Mantis takes about 17 seconds to kill a Hoplite or 4 Mantis take 4.5 Seconds to Kill a Hoplite. But because The Mantis are only slowly overtaking the Hoplites they wouldn't all be able to start shooting at once, and it's possible that the Mantis' 'frontline' keeps getting pushing from due to losing units from Hoplite attacks, so you won't see Hoplites being killed in significant numbers until a goodly portion of the Mantis can engage them.

Also I want to quickly talk about your T1 AA turret comment, while it is true they have better chances to hit T3 air than T2 Flak turrets, the T3 AA Missile turrets are better at hitting. And just because T1 AA can hit T3 Air doesn't mean they're having any impact, (FAF Database Comparison) withEqual Mass you get 13 T1 AA Turrets for each Strategic bomber, but even if every shot hits, it would still take those 13 turrets 4 seconds of DPS to kill it, and between the Bomber's Speed and The AA's relatively short range, it's not likely to happen in one pass, it'd take 2-3 passes depending on turret layout, or another way to look at it is that it'd take 90 Turrets to one shot a single bomber(assuming they each only fired one shot AND if they all hit) but as above, only comparing to a single bomber is silly, imagine trying to build 130 turrets to counter 10 bombers? Where/how do you build them? In a Big mass in the middle of your base? In a ring around your base? Small Groups scattered throughout your base?

Of course, there is still the issue that the T3 AA is plainly better. FAF Database Comparison.

Now, all that being said this is pretty much all theory crafting here, and there are all kinds of little things that can shift the outcome like the map's terrain, how good the control is(on either side) and such, I'd be happy to test(and record) this thought.

All in all the take away from this is that there's a lot more to it than many think and you have to dig deep to see the full picture and can't make assumptions on partial data.

Mike

I agree the unit cap of 500 was pretty bad, but now ranked and all other games are played with 1k, so it is not a problem unless you play a massive map.

I think the point that you are missing is that going up in tier doesn't just get you better units(assuming you can afford them) it gives you more options, so that when you kill an enemy T2 land factory you know you have taken away a number of options from that player. The purpose of the tier is to separate different layers of gameplay(different tactical options).

Example: T2 pd. If this unit was available at tier 1, it would be one of the first units built and would negate most T1 raids in a wide range around the starting position. Making it only available with a T2 engineer allows for T1 units to be effective early on. Suppressing the enemy's ability to get the T2 engineer, by constant pressure and snipes at the T2 factory/T2 engineer takes away their ability to switch the the T2 pd creep style of play, which would undoubtably force you to change your unit composition.

The most important thing to do is to break out the unit A is better than unit B paradigm. It is very limited and completely breaks down in Supcom FA.

There is nothing wrong with tech 3 units in supcom FA. They are very dominant over tech 1, but you can play against them with t2, especially if you are playing defensively and are willing to micro.

Overall you can see that tiers create a parallel impediment to unit creation, together with mass costs. Tiers make it that it is not enough to have the resources for a unit, you have to invest into infrastructure that will allow you to make that unit. You have to plan ahead based on your expected mass income and choose when and where you want your higher tier units to make an appearance.
This is strategy.

in the hoplite vs mantis fight you could dodge almost every shot from the hoplite at range.
when you got close you could use the fact that the hoplite doesn't have a turret and would be forced to start turning to aim at the mantis, the mantis then can get around the hoplite.

hoplite health is 420, while mantis is 270, if one is shooting and the other is missing the one that is shooting wins.

In a 1v1 you would have to get really lucky with your mantis to pull off a win, but with 4 you wouldn't have much problems.

In a 20 vs 80 battle where the hoplites have infinite distance to retreat to they might have some success, but if they get trapped in the middle of 80 manti they would would disappear very quickly.

Again, a 1 on 1 comparison isn't a good data point, in a 80(M) vs 20(H) fight the Target of the Hoplites(assuming they all fire at the same target[which can happen at the start of a fight]) might be able to dodge shots, but chances are other Mantis will take damage from being hit by the shots or the AOE from them hitting the ground

You might want to play the game again to re-fresh your memory, the Hoplite does have a turret, a slower turning turret but a turret none-the-less.

Except that if you're dodging Hoplite shots it will take you more time to over take it, allowing for more shots you have to dodge and the closer you get the harder it will be to dodge.

Again, Small scale = no good.

And if 80 Mantis don't move they'll get wiped out by the Hoplites, what's your point?

Mike

But does it even matter? T3 flyers are higher and faster than T1 air. Is there any T1 AA that can even land a hit? I think only the Cybran AA stood a chance, thanks to its missile.

No one contests that infrastructure is a huge barrier to unlocking units. The problem is that the units are primarily distinguished by being bigger, more expensive, and basically better versions of the same role. The only reason the blatantly larger, better units don't completely take over in every single way, is because they can be zerged down by the lower tier equivalent.