Do we need tech levels?

Can we compare tiers of units to buildings?

I don't think we can, A TA T2 power plant is obviously going to be much more expensive then building a T2 unit.

So I am not sure we can say that TA T2 power plants are going to be expensive when the scale of economy you need to produce one is really determined by the size of the map.

If anything, the T2 power in TA is more comparable to SupCom T2 power anyway.

You can't compare units and building, but you do have to acknowledge that they are all part of the same Tier.

By what degree?

In cost?
Build time?
Use and ability?
Overall strength?

Something else?

Cause good tutorial require a great effort. And UberEnt doesn't have resources for that. Also, they admitted the lack of resources for good tutorial themselfs. Look into "Confirmed features and suggestions" thread for reference.

I guess he knows better what did he mean. But in either way, I do agree with opinion that SupCom2 approach failed to reach it's goals and in some ways actually made things even worse. And I tried to provide explanation why is that.

Wrong. Learning curve were mentioned a lot of times here already.

1. If learning curve is too steep, you may never reach phase when you know how to tech up.
2. There is no "teching up" in extreme case. So it's nothing to realize.

Options are building blocks of viable strategies. If options number is going down (which means that existing strategies based on this options ceased to be viable or effective) it's going down for everything.

Tiers are just groups by making restriction over availability by affordability. They may or may not imply increased efficiency. Argue is that "advanced tech" tier from TA was too broad.

Efficiency upgrades are nice, but completely unrelated, technique. It has nothing to do with learning curve and it's problems. Argue is that we should not dump efficiency upgrades, especially for structures, just because we seen bad implementation in FA.

But efficiency upgrades make no scene, why not just use the perfect balance between cost and efficiency to always win?

That would make low cost and high efficiency units inferior to spamming the mid level unit?

But then in FA that wasn't the problem, the problem was that after an amount of time cost become a non-issue, so why use anything other then the high efficiency unit?

Low cost units are pointless then, and mid-way units cannot compete.

The three step model ensures that by the late game, you don't need anything less then the highest tier.

The first tier is only useful for a small amount of time before your economy can support the second tier, when you get there there is no reason to go back to the first because the second tier units do everything but better.

What we are suggesting is a change to the formula, remove efficiency from the ratio.

Higher tier units pay for their increase in power by more then cost, leaving Tier one units to be universally useful over their higher tier counterparts but without making the lower tier better at any single job or role.


From this it is the assumption that 2 tiers are the best baseline model to follow, because units and buildings generally fir into either role. A third tier would need a purpose distinct from the first 2, and thats more distinct then the current progression as well because an experimental tier 3 could be classified as the same thing.

This is really going nowhere lol, i lose hope on friday afternoon

I really think this will be never ending, I guess it's best to let Uber handle it as they know what's best for their game.

However they have already said our fans are happy with 2 tech levels and our fans are happy with one faction. If you leave people here to come up with these crazy ideas i do wonder what the final product will be,
Especially when most of them did not play TA ( as the post has 30 people from ta here).

I do wonder where did they got this info... Especially when fans actually do not know about any game-design yet.

So, you haven't actually following the discussion, yes? For TL;DRs - three step model do not ensure anything. It just splits units into groups to make their unlock more steady. It doesn't imply efficiency grow as nessesary part of unlocking process.

Perfect. With that you are not actually solving problems with your model being too much nerdy, but at least you prevent the problem of declining options. But you may also remove all advanced units (and leave 4-5 very basic units), this will solve problem of learning curve as well. You can't implement something correctly? Just remove it!

I do not care much about efficiency for units. It's hard to balance, I admit, so let's just drop it. As soon as all units are more or less equally efficient, different in their roles AND separated into groups with steady unlock (most specialized units last, most basic - first), we are fine.

I do care about structures efficiency, because I think that removing it will remove a lot of depth from early game and a lot of fun too. But, well, hell with that too.

If you have 75 "advanced" units per type than no, 2 tiers are not enough. If you have only 5 - then ok, even one would be ok. And yes, how exactly point defense and nuke are in same group?

Please, please, hear me out: Removing efficiency do not solve problem with steep learning curve. It's very wrong and very dangerous misblieve among this forum and that thread.

But thats what it has proven to do, after 50 minutes in a game, are you still using T1 units?

Of course not, because other units are simply, flat out better at the job, so why settle for less?

Too much nerdy?

This has nothing to do with the learning curve, this is about preventing redundancy.

ok then.

Structure efficiency works very, very differently to unit efficiency, hell it may as well not exist as structures are specialized to the extreme, as is their job.

Structures might as well be grouped into basic and advanced for it to really make any sense.

It depends how may units per factory their are, as a sub division onto the tiers.

Factory's are geared to a type for a reason.

And as before, structures are..weird.

As before, this is nothing to do with the learning curve, why did you even bring it up?

Wrong. You seems to miss that point. You are insisting on TA-stylish tech, so you need to solve learning curve problem. If you were insisting on FA-stylish tech, you would need to solve redundancy problem. Otherwise you are trying to prove point nobody arguing with.

So... Advanced turret and nuke =)? Well, yes, there is need to separate building in more than two groups, as there not so much bulidings. But that's a flat model, without efficiency. And it miss mex upgrading stuff, which is quite important as gameplay feature, as it raise significance of holding (owning) particular territory over time.

Hint: In TA it was too many.

But you need to account them as well, preferably in same manner as units.

Cause you missed the whole point of that phrase. Redundancy and learning curve are different problems and we, preferably. need to solve both. Your "solution" of redundancy may lead to learning curve problem. Similar "solution" of learning curve problem may lead to redundancy problem. But there are other solutions you are even not trying to recognize.

A learning curve problem?

The TA tech tree is easy to learn, but hard to master.

What more is there to say?

TA had upgrading metal extractors, you just had to do it manually by destroying the first building, and then building the new one.

The gain for holding territory allows you to build more because you have more space to build with, the significance is the resources and time you spend on the location.

And I still don't see why there need to be more then 2 groups?

True, but with an average 6-7 units per factory, as was my point.

Structures work differently to units, so you don't need to account for them in the same way.

And you are?

Really, learning curve problems won't be a problem in the grand scheme of things for a game of this size, so I still don't see the problem.

Nightnord: First off...

I can clearly see why some people thought you were promoting a Starcraft style system here. I actually thought that too. With that out of the way, I'm going to try and cover the last 5 or so pages in the least possible amount of text.

In SupCom the 3 tier system actually changed unit roles as the game progressed. It didn't really add any extra roles to units per se. As each new tech level was unlocked, the old tech was superseded and therefore had to find a different role on the battlefield. This is where the steep learning curve came in. Players had to learn this relationship between tiers for themselves. It's not that transparent unless you start wading into the stats like we are here.

Regarding structures -namely economy (power gens etc.)- the 3 tier system just allowed the same main benefits that were built into the units. Allows the user to generate more, in a smaller area, with less units, for slightly less cost. In other words, the efficiency went up. Read the stats and the story is there. This has a four fold benefit to the player:
1.) Build area consumed is reduced.
2.) Pop cap consumed is reduced.
3.) Resources required is reduced.
4.) Build time is reduced.

What can we also tell from the stats? That the death damage has gone up by nearly 3 times. And that's just between T1 and T2. What else does it tell us? We can see that if we build only T1 generators to generate the equivalent of a T2, we have almost 7 times the total combined HP than if we simply build a T2. So a T2 is 3 times as volatile and has only a 7th of the total health than it's equivalent in T1's. It's not just as easy as saying "efficiency went up".

When we consider any system it doesn't mean that units have to be priced the same to be in the same tier, though it certainly makes a little sense to keep them in the same ball park. Examples of this would be comparing a UEF T1 scout to a UEF T1 light tank:
The UEF T1 scout costs 12 mass and 80 energy.
The UEF T1 light/med tank costs 56 mass and 266 energy.
In short, it's about 5 times more expensive in mass, but look what you get for your money. They're balanced and that is the important thing. They are also ideally suited to their roles. If we compare the UEF T3 SML and the UEF T3 Heavy Artillery Installation the costs involved are interesting to look at:
UEF T3 Strategic Missile Launcher costs 15,000 mass and 210,000 energy.
UEF T3 Heavy Artillery Installation costs 90,000 mass and 900,000 energy.
Though it might seem like a great deal more, the Arty is only 6 times more expensive in mass than the SML. But does this prove that the game is consistent in the way it groups units into tiers? What if we look at the UEF T3 SAM launcher? That only costs 1400 mass and that is in the same tier as the SML and heavy arty. The arty is 64 times more expensive in mass than the SAM launcher. The important thing -as I said before- is that it is balanced. Players never look at the SAM and think "why is that in T3?!".

Let's quickly look back at your questions about learning curves. What about a 2 tier system? If implemented in the way described earlier in the thread, the immediate benefit over a 3 tier system is that there is a lot more transparency in the unit relationships and their roles are clearly defined. The other benefit of having units divided between general and specialist is that there is no redundancy, so the roles don't change and the units always do what they said on the tin.

Regarding structures it is safe to say that according to the current set up, a T3 style generator would be within 3 times the cost of a T2 power gen. So using the above evidence, could it be that it would be acceptable to put it into T2? I think so. Provided that it wasn't viable to bypass the T2 go straight for the T3.

I disagree.
1. Old unit are changing their roles, yes, but only for intermediate phase of switching tiers. That's why we have options decline - into intermediate phase you have more roles. You have both "generic tank" (new unit) and "fast raiding bot" (old unit). But as soon as you got your "generic tank"s on stream "fast raiding bot" vanquishes. There is units that do not lose their roles (amphibious artillery), but it do not change its role too ("fast universal raiding unit").

You got efficiency up and risk up. But note that T2 generator is easier to protect and harder to detect than plant of t1 generators, with or without shields. It's better to build one t2 generator and plant of energy storages. In case your generator is destroyed, you may build another one fast from your reserves. In case of your t1 plant is destroyed, you will need much more time to recover and your reserves may end up before that.

Raw prices are irrelevant. Price over role/efficiency is relevant. Rocket launchers are countered by both anti-TML and shields, T3 arty is countered only by shields, so you need less arty than rocket launchers for breaking enemy lines. That's why they priced differently, but fall into same group - heavy defense breakers. I never though about SAM's "why that is in T3" cause it counters t3 air. But I always wondered why "Salvation" Aeon game-ender arty is in T3, not T4?

Tiers are groups, you may group by different means, but more or less it's about some similarity on battlefield. FA grouping is not ideal, but good, btw.

Problem is - there is no problem with "basic" level consist from 5 units (tank, arty, AA, scout, raider) and "advanced" level from 5-6 more per type. At the end you end up with 10-11 units per type, which is well and good. It's not good when you end up with 25+ units per type. TA has too many units, most of which are not used very often, so they are actually just dead weight. But it wasn't so from very beginning. This units were added by addons and patches. TA mods are even more insane about that.

Just look at FA mods with "new" units. They are putting this units in same tiers/groups as already existing units, only increasing confusion.

So, you should never talk about "two tier system", as "two" carved in stone. It's just "tier system", with enough tiers to contain all units. If "two" is enough, well than.

So, "basic" => "advanced"/"specialized" is not good either. "basic" => "advanced" => "even more advanced" => "super advanced" => ... is what is needed.

Depending of what do you mean by "easy to learn".

Right, but some people are arguing to remove even that.

See above.

With increase of unit tiers number you'll need to increase number of resource tiers, to keep linear curve. And with increase of resource tiers number you''ll need to increase number of defensive tiers number, to compensate increased risk without torpedoing defensive strategies.

Learning curve is always top problem, especially for game of this size. If there would be no players to play with, who would care about 32/32 players possibility?

[/quote]
So... Advanced turret and nuke =)? Well, yes, there is need to separate building in more than two groups, as there not so much bulidings. But that's a flat model, without efficiency. And it miss mex upgrading stuff, which is quite important as gameplay feature, as it raise significance of holding (owning) particular territory over time.


Thank god some1 else is actually reading what i am saying and not just trying to push their point, good man!

Yes, the differences between Supcom's units was fine and nuanced, and only an expert could really grasp the full complexity of its tier system. That's... exactly the problem with it. Tiers didn't open up new ways for units to fight. Instead, it just provided more expensive ways of throwing the same (but better) units at each other. The difference between different tier tanks didn't matter on a strategic level. They were all TANKS.

I don't know how anyone can seriously argue units weren't redundant, when even their labels were redundant:

Code:

Light Assault Bot
Bot
Armored Assault Bot

Code:

Light Tank
Medium Tank
Heavy Tank
Siege Tank

What's the difference between these roles? NOTHING. Could one unit have been faster than another? Sure. Could smaller units have been more efficient in swarms? Absolutely. Did it matter? No it did not. The exponential economy and tier system put little guys completely out of business.

The big difference between Supcom tiers happened inside the base. You got new defenses, new structures, and new ways to throw shiat at enemy bases. None of that depends on an exponential economy to happen.

I dunno what do you refer as exponential economy. There is no such thing in FA, there is only linear grow of economics over time. It's just badly balanced. And this grow do not obsolete any units by itself.

They are not redundant, they are just efficiency upgrades over each other made as different models for better L&F instead of number into unit's stats. They are just badly balanced, so there is huge gap between "light tank" and "medium tank" (which are bad names, they should be named "Tank MK1" and "Tank MK2", imo). And yes, with economical grow it became silly to build light tanks if you can build medium tanks in same numbers. Just like in starcraft it's silly not to upgrade armor/dps/range if you can afford that and have no more urgent needs.

@bobucles
May I ask you to post your vision of complete tech you wish to have, for only land units, for example? How it should be implemented, how much units at maximum there should be in basic and advanced levels? How economical grow should be implemented, if any? How more efficient structures, if any, and their upgrade path should be implemented?

I'm asking because igncom1, for example, see this system with 11-12 roles per type (land/air/naval/orbital) at most with split into basic (5) => (6-7) advanced groups. That's the number of roles that SupCom currently have, more or less.

You, on other side, arguing that SupCom units are redundant and we don't need redundancy, we need diversity. So. Are you suggesting more than 12 roles per type at maximum (not initially)?

Increasing a mex from T1 to T2 made a 3x increase in mass output. Increasing from T2 to T3 made for another 3x increase in mass output. That's the exponential growth we're talking about.

I have specifically told you what the exponential economy was, nightnord.

I told you twice.

Pay attention.

That's "bad balance". It would be exponential if there would be infinite (or very large) number of possible upgrades, resulting into 2*3^n mass output. As it stands now, it's just badly chosen coefficient (I dunno why FAF never changed that, BTW). You see, you may talk about exponential growth in TA too, as it's 2.3 vs 19.2 (approx (as TA has mass output depending on deposit size) same 2*3^n, taking that "moho mine" is "level 3", or ~2*9^n, taking that it's "advanced" =)).

Repeating nonsense will not make it valid argument. "Exponential" in my programmer's book is something almost hopelessly bad. FA system is not hopelessly bad, it's simply bad.