Do we need tech levels?

A quick note:


All the points raised against TotalA are things that can be fixed without changing gameplay. Better UI and all.

Second:

It's either reseach in-game (Tiberium wars, Age of Empires et all), a research menu (SupCom2) or Tech Levels (which is also present in Age of Empires).

I think that Tech Levels are fine. You don't NEED them, they're simply one way of approaching things. I personally hate the "iron armor: +5% armor" and "Iron-tipped arrows: +5% piercing" type upgrades, and i think Research in Supcom2 wasn't exactly it's selling point...

TA had a steeper learning curve than Starcraft.
More units:
There are simply more units that you need to understand and in order to understand which units that are the most effective you need to look at cost, projectile physics, damage, health and manouverability for example.
Understanding that Stumpy is generally worse than Flash but better than Flash when there are alot of wrecks is a very intricate unit relationship.
Projectile dodging:
It took me months as a child before I realised that I could basically beat Goliaths with Flash because the unit AI wouldn't lead the target.
The AI never used projectile dodging micro so I never got the inspiration to perform it myself.
Economy:
What is the difference between wind generators, solar generators and tidal generators? If you want to find out which one is the most costeffecient you need to find out how much they each produce and divide that with the cost.
Metal makers:
What is the difference between a maker and extractor? It isn't clear to non-native english speakers.

As for teching.
Where the teching system in TA making the game harder to learn? No, I dont think so.

Agreed. But teching is supcom became more and more frustrating in the end-of-game, as you need to build factory then upgrade it before you may actually use it. So I suggested the why when you are upgrading only one building to get all benefits everywhere. You may upgrade two, if you wish to, but it's not required at all. That's even more simple scheme than tiers and you may use tiers (aka UI tabs) for grouping units into meaningful groups.

Steep curve comes not from streaming eco, which is, IMO, even simplier than non-streaming, but from unit amount.

1. To simplify things. And, possibly, to add depth.
2. Who said that? I believe that there will be nor local economy, nor local teching. At least, I hope that there will be no such thing (neither way is confirmed, though).
3. IF there will be local teching, then it's the same issue with your last tech center being destroyed. Every existing unit remain active, you just can't build more advanced units anymore. That's additional strategy option, BTW. If your eco is good, than it's not a big deal to build new one and fast-upgrade it, but it gives your enemy a half-minute of advantage. IF there will be efficiency upgrades - same thing.
4. Why not add something to help newbies if it doesn't take any effort in development and do not restrict meds and pros in any way?

please no.

I was thinking the same about how annoying it is to upgrade factories. However, why not allow a T2 engineer to build a T2 factory?

i am a non-native english speaker and i knew what it did.

I've seen people make metal makers on metal patches. Anyway, this is an issue that can be solved by the UI like you think most issues could be solved. If this is a newb trap or not is highly dependant on how buildings are categorized and found in the UI.
More offtopic: Another newbtrap of metal makers. If you stall because of having to many metal makers online, your total metal production will actually drop because your mexes are using less energy and produce less metal.
This could ofcourse be avoided by turning them off and on automatically depending on the level of energy.

We don't have T2 in that suggestion, actually. We have "basic" and "advanced" factories. And unlockable groups of units, so you got some group unlocked only when you actually can afford it's units/structures, to prevent confusion. You may build a factory per each group, but that will lead to 10+ different factories per type in TotalA scheme of evolution (moar units!!111oneone). Also, making 10+ different factory designs, so it's recognizable is... hard, not to say more.

I suggested to make single building upgradeable as opposed to other implementation when you can make advanced factory upgradable. But this will lead to "too much engineers" problem, as we also want to make structures unlockable.

I see only two more or less viable variants - automatic unlock on eco grow, but then it's not a gameplay mechanic, rather an in-game option you may switch off if you believe than you got it already, or some kind of structure/structures that you need to build to access this more advanced groups.

I'm actually in favor of later variant as it adds interesting option of sabotaging enemy production and adds some supcom flavor.

I thought about making it like CnC module from "Modular Factories" thread, but that will be too limiting, imo.

They are two different units from the previous games. The extractor gets income from extraction points. Makers turn energy directly into metal. Makers were basically the late game economy. They were expensive to build, but add on top of extractors to give more money.

In Supcom, the mass fabricator performs the same function as the TotalA metal maker.

In Supcom2, fabricating was a special ability that had to be researched. Each race had its own variant, but they all turned energy into mass.

The real issue is that wind and tidal power were inconsistent. They changed between maps, so wind might be great in one game but terrible the next. You never knew which one was better without doing the math first hand. Solar panels were consistent, so they ended up the easiest to use.

That sort of thing can be fixed through the UI. It is easy to show a bar for which option is more effective on a given world. But it is even easier to get rid of the other options, and have one generator that works.

Adding research simplifies nothing. And italics doesn't make something true.

Advanced construction plants do the exact same thing. They take no special research, and when destroyed the units can no longer be built. Nothing else is needed to get that point across.

Okay. I'll bite. What is it, and how does it help? Because last I checked, modifying units mid-game is a great way to make things harder to learn.

My point, bobucles, was that TA had a steeper learning curve than Starcraft. How some of theese learning curves can be mitigated is another question.

I like the kind of complexity that several energy sources bring if it has strategical or tactical implications.
Im gonna compare wind generators and solar panels from Zero-K because there they have been polarised the most.
Solarpanels close when they are damaged and take reduced damage. They always produce the same amount of energy but produce none when they are closed. They are good for making walls around your base and mexes.
Wind generators are fragile and somewhat volatile and will chain explode if you bunch them up too much. Their production varies over time but produce more energy when placed on high ground and are generally a more effecient for cost than solarpanels.

This gives the players some interesting gameplay options. Do they try to secure highground and make effecient wind powergenerators? Do they space the wind generators well to avoid to make them harder to destroy but also harder to protect?
Or do they make solar panels as a reliable energy source that actually makes your base harder to raid and harass?

Maybe some energy sources will be preferable on some planets and promote units with low energy requirements while other planets will have different energy sources and promote units with high energy requirements.

There's no need. i mean, how did YOU tell your T1/T2/T3 factories apart?

Well, first off you'd need some clearly stated rules for wind, water and solar energy.
I'd make:
-solar panels cheap but not very effective, space consuming.
-Windmills moderately priced, moderately effective but not very space consuming.
-Tidal energy expensive, effective and moderately space consuming.

On a sea world, for example, you could have all three. However, there's plenty of tidal energy and on a sea world wind energy would be much more powerful.
So solar-panels are outclassed by the other two.

On a gas giant, you have no water. So no tidal. Solar and wind only.

On a moon, you have no air nor water, so it's solar only.

essentially they could produce some very interesting scenarios.

You are quite selective. It's not about research, it's about single building being upgraded.
Well, it could be counted as "research", but building more advanced factory is a research too. Italics are made to emphasis possibility, but you've ignored it anyway.

So, you are suggesting 10+ different factories instead? OR you are suggesting to cap different units count to 12 and never ever add more? I believe that one building is much better.

So you've really ignored italics part, aren't you? Unlocking != modifying. It's unlocking. You have grayed units then "abracadabra" - you got them ungrayed and you may build them. Just for sake of "don't show me things I can't afford anyway". And it's more scalable solution than "just make different factories for each group".

By pointing at it and reading description. That's actually a bad example of how things are done.

Please don't use things like != (Does not equal) in your discussion, you may think your smart but for the people who don't know what this means is makes you come off as a jackass.

So being able to use terms like that doesn't make your argument any batter when most people don't understand the saying.

<>

/=

I might not agree with some of his last posts, but the use of a != is the least issue one might argue about.

Besides, used in that context I would guess most people would understand it.
And people who think you are a jackass because they don't understand a specific word or symbol probably aren't the target audience anyhow.


... next step scaling down your vocabulary just to avoid offending anyone.

I wasn't offended, but if the target audience is only coders, then the game is in trouble.

But the use of terms most people won't understand is like me talking in another language, pointless.

Just be happy people haven't started doing
^H^H^H
or
%s/something/somethingelse/g
cause then we'd really be in trouble.

"!=" is used fairly often among that forums. It's quite common thing, not only in programmers community.

Anyway, how exactly this is related to the topic? Especially this magnificent posts with people bragging with their knowledge of other languages non-equality operators.

If you have some advices or criticism for particular post or poster, please use PM's for that.

And may I ask mods to remove/move all unrelated posts to other threads? We better keep some actual discussion on the last page or people will start answering to the first page or topic itself, which will lead to all this all over again.

It's been 54 pages nord. I think we can let some (badly needed) humour into the thread without causing a threadpocalypse.

Also, ≠

:lol: Screw it!

I am glad to have been the jester of the thread.