Do we need tech levels?

Possibly extend that to the entirety of the game as well.

Poor light assault bots getting the short straw.

Please fix your quoting there, that is horribly messed up.


(also light assault bots are cheap making decent scouts and good fodder when you are busy spending resources elsewhere)

Yeah, fixed it. Made it look like I was replying to ign by mistake. Derp.

I actually haven't seen a coherent statement of why two tiers is better than three. Could you either point me to where you stated this on this thread or restate it here....

In the late game they seem to drop off in usefulness altogether, especially when compared to actual scouts.

Even Peewee's have usefulness at just clogging up the enemy's guns with sheer mass of force, let alone their rapid fire guns building up to critical mass of firepower making them good at 'mobbing' and opponent....AK47's for every one!

I never found use for LABs past 5 mins, is there another worthwhile use for them other then as possible scouts?

Ok T2 over T3,

Slightly less exponential, resulting in less time to get to end game (and more time forcused on expanding, interplanetary stuff etc.)

Generally speaking, there are situations where 2 units 1-tier apart would be favoured over one another, but in FA at least there is almost no reason to choose a T3 unit over it's T1 equivalent.
...furthermore, by going 2 Tiers the aim is to have a Grunts + Special stuff setup vs Grunts + Bigger Grunts + Even Bigger Grunts setup, with specials scattered in between.

@igncom1 probably not, but then you are comparing a 2 Tier system to a 3 Tier system. Peewee's never really get replaced so they are never obsoleted as a unit (as a strategy they can be though)

Could you point out why and how my statements aren't correct?

Merely stating that they aren't correct is one thing, showing that they aren't is another.

I already showed where some of your statements were not currect (look at the hoplite discussion)

That is not what I am looking for. I am looking for the reason why you think 2 tiers is better than 3.
You claim that you have shown this to be true over and over and I can't find that anywhere, could you please repeat it, or tell me what page to go to...

TA4life, a question, how do you feel a 2 Tier System is flawed?

Note that this has nothing to What a 3 Tier system does better, ONLY areas you feel a 2 Tier system is specifically subpar.

Mike

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=34187&p=631266&hilit=roles#p631266

In order to fit an exponential you need more than 2 points, I am not really sure what you are trying to say by T2 is slightly less exponential that T3.

I agree there are situations where two tier 1 units are more useful than 1 tier 2 unit. For example 2 T1 AA batteries are more useful than 1 T2 missile launcher, when you are being attacked by bombers.

I disagree that you statement about T3 vs T1 equivalents makes sense.
First, there are many non equivalent units that you get with each new tier. For example the hoplite has no T1 equivalent in the T1 land factory for cybran. For example, the cruise missile launcher has no equivalent in the T1 engineer's building menu.
Second, the units from different tiers that serve the same purpose are not equivalent because their cost is different. For example it is much better to build 4 mantis when you only have +11 mass income and go raid the opponent's mexes, than to build a loyalist that you will not finish in time for the enemy not to build up a few T1 pd's, which can counter the loyalist. For example, in a late game it is much safer to load a T1 transports with T1 artillery and drop them on your enemy's base, than to load up a t2 transport, with t3 mobile artillery. The great thing about tier 1 units in late game is that they become very cheap relative to your mass income and you can begin to take risks with them, without too much consequence for failure.

The way you described the grunts/special stuff set up, is not clear and can be extended to a 3 tier system without a contradiction to what you stated.

I loved the 2 tier system in TA and I think supcom FA took it a step further with 3 tiers and made it better.

The two tier system isn't flawed, it works really well and I don't see where you lose gameplay when you extend it to 3 tiers. I do see where you gain however:

1. The decision to raise your tier, is always a risk, therefore more tiers means more risky moves.
2. Separation of different abilities, you have to take the risk of upgrading multiple times, before you get access to super weapons, such as nukes and experimentals, allowing the enemy to counter you without having to resort to super weapons.

T1vsT3 units. If you have the economy to continuously produce T3 units (eg assault bot) then there is no reason to instead produce a T1 bot. You won't be able to apply your economy properly unless you have an absolutely huge base (because you will have to compensate for the downtime between producing units at this level) and even then there is a not-too-unreachable point where a small group (5-10+, it varies and I haven't checked) T3 standard shooty bots will be able to kill almost any sized army of T1 standard shooty bots without dying, hence no more reason to ever produce standard shooty bots (unless wreckage becomes a big thing)/

As for exponential, there is still a third point - the occasional experimentals.

What is exactly are you variables in that exponential, anyway 3 points in any order do not prove that you have exponential dependence.

"The economy to continuously produce T3 units" Is not a very well defined statement. If you have so much mass that you can nearly instantly produce t3 units, you probably have enough mass to make a T4 experimentals or go nuclear, T3 arty, mass T3 bomber, etc.
If your economy is only good enough that you can produce a t3 unit every 10-15 seconds then you definitely have a need for T1 and T2 units. At this point they can be produced much faster and you can take much bigger risks with them. Sneaking them behind your enemy base, leaving them in advanced positions on the field without having to worry that losing that group of units will lose you the game. Attacking with multiple assault groups, some of which being decoys. Drawing fire from your more expensive units.
Overall, the game is not an arena where you throw in your best fighter and hope they win. It is about doing as much damage to your enemy, at the lowest cost. The lowest cost part is what makes T1 and T2 units still viable when T3 units have made it on the field. If you are able to avoid a direct T2 vs T3 confrontation and instead get your T1/T2 units in a position to cause damage, to power generators/mass extractors/engineers, you have done damage at a lower cost than you would have using T3.

(by the way, wreckage is one of the most imporant things in both TA and Supcom FA, if you feed your enemy nice juicy chunks of reclaim, they will turn that into a force that will destroy you)

You also nicely tie in the 100 engies around a factory discussion. If you want to produce T3 bots almost instantly, you better have 100 engies around your T3 factory.(Something that can be destroyed completely with 4 T1 bombers in one pass, at the cost of ~100 mass, inflicting 5200 mass loss on the enemy)

I almost forgot, we also have air units and structures. T1 point defense is cheaper than T2 but causes similar damage, within a much shorter radius. If you got a spider bot coming into your base, you will be making T1 point defenses as quickly as possible, then luring it with your acu, trying to get it to run through as many T1 point defenses. So we got an example of T1 unit being the most effective option against a T4.

Me "well if you do this, then this will happen"
You "well no, because if you do something else, then something else will happen"
Me ".."

Also, assuming you know a line is a basic exponential function, you can define it with only 3 points. And the point I was making there was that you get towards the end game quicker if there are less tiers to work through.


Back to the original point, 2 Tier setup that we are advocating is generic units followed by special units. The 3 Tier setup also does this, but it also adds more generic units with each tier, which reduces the usefulness of earlier tier equivalents. You wouldn't compose your main army out of T1 units if you were capable of rapidly producing very similar T3 equivalents.

Exponential is the term that I started using. True that it's hard to justify an exponential curve to three points of data, but I originally intended for it to be a loosely fitting term to describe the trend that FA's higher tier units;

• out ranged,
  out damaged,
  outlasted,
  out produced,
  etc.

lower tier units.

Mexes produce 3x the mass of the previous tier. That is an exponential relationship. One governed by;

Code:

mass_rate = 2 * 3 ^ (tier - 1)

Power plants (when you include Hydros) follow a 5x increase in power per tier. Energy output is 20, 100, 500, 2500. If you don't include the Hydro, then the relationship is very messy. But the elegance of the relationship when you include it does suggestively hint that's the actual behaviour.

This is the best summary I could ask for.

A line is not a function. Linear function is not an exponential. The exponential function when written as a infinite series will contain the linear function in the second term. But I get your point and I disagree. Having 3 tiers doesn't mean that you will have shorter games, since as seen on the Supcom FA ladder most games never make it out of the T2 stage, so with 3 tiers you can easily have games with only 2 tiers. (Please don't say this makes the 3rd tier pointless, there are still games that go into 3rd tier and this way we have more kinds of games, giving Supcom FA more replay value)

I think the generic vs special unit designation is not clear. Every unit has it's role that it does best for it's cost. Calling that role generic or special is a matter of preference. Are cruise missiles generic or special?
I think what you are trying to say by special units, is those units who bring entirely new abilities to the field. To me it seems that the 3 tier system, adds the extra layer that allows for the introduction of T2 artillery special unit in the second tier. Then you get even more special units in the 3rd tier like T3 artillery and nukes.
It all seems to go back to the question, why have special units in the first place?
The answer for me is to allow less special units a chance to make an impact on the game before the enemy goes to an even higher tier. In other words as the enemy is putting all their mass into upgrading to tier 3, the enemy has the chance to stick to tier 2 and destroy them with tier 2 units.
At this point you might say, there you go, two tiers are perfect...
I will object with the following:
At tier 1 you have units that are cheap and fast designed specifically to capture map control.
Tier 2 units are there to allow you to efficiently defend places on the field from T1 units, these are your shields/T2 point defense, to establish a secure base. Note that at T2 you can also get units that will counter these, the T2 mobile missile launchers will eventually overwhelm your T2 pd and shields.
The transition from 2nd to 3rd tier is to separate this base building stage, from the stage where you have turtle breaking weapons, like the t3 mobile arty, or nukes.

With regards to lower tier units becoming useless or redundant, I once again ask you to use the "Most damage, for the lowest cost" formula, instead of the unit A will beat unit B formula, since this is not a fighting game like starcraft.

Btw, there is nowhere near enough information on PA at this time to say if I support 2 Tiers or 3 Tiers, but I certainly get the viability of each argument. On that note, I have long forgotten why I joined this argument in the first place, as I seem to be arguing against my own opinions. If I suddenly remember why I was arguing, I will speak up again.

If they make the game with two tiers, and it kicks ***, I will gladly play a few games against the people on this thread.

You never even did maths.

At no point in that post did he say that games were shorter.

Maybe you should build a T3 comprehension unit.

Except when T3 units are faster, and stronger; hence better suited to capture map control.

Conveniently ignore the fact that T2 units efficiently do the same job of T1 units. When you have a T2 unit that does the job a T1 unit, and does more than a T1 unit you have a redundancy problem.

That's a stupendously naive analysis of it.

You don't consider concentration of force at all. Concentration is really what ruins it. Even though "the most damage, for the lowest cost" is in T1's favour. It never works at large scales because the extra sight and weapon range have a greater influence.

If you're a high-ranked FAF player, and you don't even consider something as obvious as range then I fear that the quality of the FAF ladder is something that ZeP should be ashamed of.