Do we need tech levels?

In supcom veterancy was mostly a problem with experimentals healing themselves while crushing into a t1 army or a base. I think it is good not to have veterancy at all.

In my opinion 2 tech levels are very good. But t2 units should be more specialized and not make t1 obsolete. Furthermore upgrading on t2 should hardly cost ressources, as the reason for building t2 units later should not be upgrading costs, but unit costs and characteristics. The higher costs of a t2 factory in relation to a t1 factory should be proportional to the higher ressource rate for producing. The strength in relation to costs should be the same for t1 and t2.

Tech levels for TA is not even close to how tech levels worked in SupCom

In TA you would 'tech up' by having a basic engineer build a advanced factory, basic units were more diverse then advanced ones, they were generally faster and cheaper but advanced units were more specialized, tougher and more powerful.

Do you go for heavy tanks or blitzkrieg with light ones?

In SupCom you would upgrade your factory's to better ones, thus taking your production offline as well as draining your economy, T1 units were fast and cheap but are no mach for T2 units, T2 was diverse and easy to build but also could compete with T3 in numbers.

To me, the biggest flaw of SupCom was how T1 worked, if you cut it out then teching up isn't always the best option, but T1 could never compete.

(And I was never a fan of upgrading my stuff, it was tedious and made the lesser tiers pointless when in comparison)

In the end, I will always take SupCom2 teching over SupCom1, but not before TA.

The one thing I remember about tech levels in SupCom1 was that tech 2 was just kind of a hurdle.

I'd build tech 1 stuff until my economy was good enough to get one factory to tech 3. Then I'd upgrade the factory twice to pump out my first T3 engineer.

Then I'd build T3 generators and mass fabricators while I upgraded all my other T1 factories to T3.

In the end I'd fight with T3 units with a blob of T2 units filling out the bulk mass of my army.

The T3 units would do the actual work while the T2 units were just there to distract enemy turrets and units. And I didn't build any T2 buildings (that weren't unique) because they were a waste of space.

In the end T2 was just a mass and energy hurdle I had to get over. That's why I think only having 2 tiers was a really good decision.

In SupCom there were balance issues to the extent that teching up to T2 was mandatory, especially after the patch that introduced T2 bots and broke the balance even more. Forged Alliance fixed this very well, to the point that teching up is often a bad idea in 1v1 due to the risk of being swarmed by T1. There are people that don't like the way FA does it, but that tends to be because they aren't very good at it and mistakenly believe that winning a game with low-level units is somehow cheap.

One key difference between TA and SupCom is that in TA the advanced factory has to be built separately by a construction unit, but in SupCom and FA factories are upgraded in situ. Having played Zero-K briefly I see that that game has followed the TA approach but increased it massively. Is this a good thing or not? Personally I like the fact that SupCom lets me build all land units from one factory, but is there a good argument for having separate kbot/vehicle/stealth/advanced etc factories? Does it increase strategic depth or is it just a nuisance?

I love the zero K factory system. It gives the game diversity in so many ways. Having 10 factories means that a large unit set is justified where units may otherwise be partly redundant. However no two units are exactly the same and the synergies / tactics available to each fac are quite different.

This means that players need to know at least one factory inside out and need to know how to use that factory to fight each of the 9 other factories that their opponent might start with in 1v1. In team games it means that each player on a team is able to fill a strategic niche. Some factories (eg planes) are much more suited to supporting other players in a team context.

I think that similar diversity in PA would really help to keep it interesting. With one faction and no or little factory lock in, the number of available good strategies would be reduced, potentially limiting the long term depth of the game.

I don't really mind about tech levels vs flat tech so long as balance is good.

Synergy is the point.
T2 in TA didn't worked as supposed either, the units just were a little stronger then T1, after all. And, the actual problem, you could use T2 as a full replacement for T1 if you wanted since every unit role had an slightly stronger equivalent in T2.

There is one thing i DON'T want to see in T2, and that is tanks or assault bots. Those are basic unit roles which should be covered by T1 solely. What i expect in T2 are advanced roles like damage soakers, field scouts (for supporting artillery) or in short: All unit roles which can only be used in synergy with T1 units. T2 is not supposed to replace any unit from T1, but to enhance them.
Distinction between heavy (tanks) and light (bots) units has nothing to do with tiers either (just mentioning for those who now know how the tier system was done in C&C).


Yet another point, 1-2 sides earlier somebody mentioned tech lines containing 3-4 different types of engineers. Let's just hope that we won't get to that. The 4 (or 5 if you count the commander in) types of engineers in TA were already far to much.

Two types of engineers must be sufficient, whereby also their roles must differ in a way that the T1-engineer does not get redundant. (One possibility would be to make T2 engineers more something like a "walking blueprint" rather then a full engineer! The actual building would then have to be finished by T1 engineers.)

By the way: T1 engineer should also be the only type of engineer you get to deploy onto another planet. Don't mess with such things as "space engineers" or alike, it's just an ordinary base up there which uses almost the same set of buildings.

The idea is not to prevent people from completely using T1 or T2 but to give reasons as why that would not be a good idea.

T2 in TA was slow, large and often slow firing making them inefficient at fast assault or for responding to a threat that is a distance away.

Assuming that there is just one sort of construction unit, should it be a hovercraft (like SupCom) or a plane?

I know that Neutrino has stated that air construction units will be in the game, but is it better to have just air units, or to have amphibious tank-type units also?

There is also an argument for no flying engineers at all: if an engineer needs an air transport to get to the top of the mountain then this requires more pre-planning and is therefore potentially a desirable feature.

We will need flying engineers, considering that there will be several planet types (among other lava, water and gas) which don't have solid or passable ground. Since we still want to have a single unit set usable on all planets, the default engineer needs to be flying (gunship, not plane! It's not a scout) or at least capable of hovering short distances.

^ Yeah, also planes are typically glass cannons, making them inefficient at holding ground or sitting still.

Hi guys, I have read over half of this and now I am losing the will to live. So please, stop me if I am just repeating what people have already said.

I think that for me personally, tech levels are the way to go. I've had plenty of experience of other structures - but tech levels are a really good way of making players choose a strategy. Not that other options, like research in SC2 for example are bad at this. They are just different and cause the player to make different choices. They are also a really clever way of controlling the flow of the game. I think someone gave the example of how the player shouldn't have the option to go in to space immediately. While this is true, simply making this inaccessible due to resources works fine too.

I mostly agree with burntcustard. This post, however interests me:

You make some valid points here. In my experience, the basic structure of SC and SC:FA were about control of the map. Or more specifically, the resources of the map. Basically this allows the player more resources to either build more units, develop his resources and increase tech. Whichever way you look at it, the more of the map they own the higher their chance of winning because resources = power.

That said, look at what googlefrog says. Players with or without tech levels are still restricted by the resources available. This is true enough. But, tech levels add strategic depth and necessary limitations to the game and there are reasons why no tech level would fall down late game. Tech levels make more choices for the player for the reasons burntcustard has already covered. But the resources available to the player often validate the choices made.

I am going to compare resource strategy in SC:FA and SC2. Humour me, if you will.

My basic strategy in SC:FA regarding resources was initially to control the mass.This is mainly because early game you can only build mass on specific points. Everyone who has played SC knows this. The same is true in SC2. However, the difference is that mass points were upgradable in SC:FA and this was key. This meant that controlling the mass was important for a larger portion of the game and developing this mass income was essential for victory. Sure eventually you would have a zillion T3 mass generators, surrounded by T3 power plants, surrounded by mass and energy storage buffing the hell out of each other. But I'll get into spamming resources later.

In SC2, the basic strategy for me was simply get the local mass and pretty much forget about the rest. This is partially because maps are smaller, so you can just harass the enemy mass points with no need to build on them as long as it's either fair or slightly in your favour. You gain research points simply by killing enemies anyway so just keep doing that while you keep their economy pinned down and spam research centres like crazy. This then allows you to make the units you already have more powerful and therefore the enemy find them harder to kill and you get more veterancy and research points. Then you research mass generator and build a million power plants and...

So on the face of things it doesn't sound so different because initially we are interested in mass. And resource spamming is just as important in both games. In fact I suppose it is the snowball effect people have talked about in other threads. The fact remains however that the player must make a concious decision when to build the next group of T3 mass generators or that extra research building. In the end though, to me it matters not if you are spamming research centres or mass generators. The end result is the same.

But there are still some big differences in combat to be discussed:
1. It is hard to determine the strength of the enemy force in SC2. Firstly because the units look the same and secondly because their strength changes as the player researches. So where as in SC:FA you can look at a T2 tank and think yeah, my T1 will die if I engage or my T3 can take him out. Now there is just a rockhead and you don't know if you will win or not until you engage. This is a terrible problem because by then it is too late if you are outmatched.
2. You can upgrade units mid-battle in SC2. This for me is absurd, but it happens. You are initially winning the fight and the other player unlocks new research that makes their units more powerful. You suddenly are losing though there have been no reinforcements or any other apparent reason for this turn in the tide of battle. In a tech level based game this would not happen.
3. Research makes things cost less and build faster. This means that your rockhead is not only more powerful, but cheaper and faster to build than it was that the start of the game. Also include factory veterancy in the equation and this cost and time are even further reduced. This makes it a very different animal to the tech level based system, where as things get more powerful, cost more and take longer to build. It also means that the factory you you build these units in costs just the same (if not less) and takes the same time to build (if not less) than it did at the start of the game. Allowing the player to massively multiply his force for next to nothing, furthering his advantage.
4. Tech level based games allow the player to utilise a wider range of units and generally have more units available to the player to choose from. I'll elaborate:
In normal multiplayer games, where players start from scratch each game, the difference between the two game types are almost irrelevant because the same options are available to each player. But let us consider a larger scale game where a player moves from planet to planet. If you have researched everything then it basically means that you take this with you and can expand more quickly and cheaply than your enemy. Where as this may or may not be his fault, it does mean that basically whoever researches all the technology first wins the war. This concept I find unattractive.

For me a better option is for tech levels to make players choose how they play the game. It fits in better with the resource based economy that Uber are discussing. Which is why they are going with this option. When you play SC2 having just played SC:FA you will notice immediately that buildings take almost no time to build. Even the game enders. This is because the time was in the researching. But to the enemy, he has no idea what you have researched and you could quickly build a nuke without him knowing, even if he regularly scouts. In a game the scale of PA this could be an issue.

When establishing a new colony on a planet, you have the option to build a T1 or T2 factory. The difference being cost and build time. The player has to weigh up the choice and this might be determined by the value of the planet/asteroid, the function of the colony or how likely it is to be attacked. In SC2 you have none of these options and as I already explained, your factories get cheaper and more powerful as you go along anyway and so, every colony will in essence cost the same. Colonies could pop up all over the system, producing full power units and making it an instant stronghold. Not good for gameplay IMO.

I think already I have said too much! Really apologise for the length of the post. It got a bit out of hand.

TLR - tech level based play is better suited to the scale of this game. That's why Uber are using this method.

TA style already incorporated the resource limit in a way. You could build a tech 1 factory then an engineer build that tech 2 factory and start on a tech 2 engineer. Now the time and resources you took to do that the other player has tech 1 factories of bots and air not to mention a small set of fighters on there way to peck at you while you can't do nothing.

You can stop your commander for example or the tech 1 bot to build an AA but then your sapping to much energy to build either and are left scrambling your commander around to get more resources. If you're a gambling type and think you can pull off a quick tech 2 build it can be rewarding to have a base defending by vastly better defenses while you build up your heavy be it smaller army.

So here is some points:

1: That kind of tech system made the initial units available manageable for new players and still robust for veteran players.

2: You could still tech up very quickly IF you was to gamble the game in that direction and it is a feasible strategy. You'll just be behind in unit count which the tech up can level out. Doesn't matter if player X is building tech 2 or even 3 factories early on, he isn't going to have the resources to power anything unless he spends time building resources which he also needs to protect. He can try to do all 3 but its probably not going to work well if I'm aware he is.

3: It was simple, I like upgrading buildings but I just prefer TA's style more for this type of game. If you upgrade all your tech 1 to tech 2 and a good chunk of your resource collectors was damaged whats easier to make tech 1 or tech 2 engineer? No tech 2 buildings should build tech 2 stuff only like TA. MAYBE a few selective units but I would rather not see that. It forces you to either keep those old factories or recycle them. Smart player would keep one around for emergencies. (side note):: I was a fan of building a tech 1 bot/air/vehicle/naval factory way off in a corner or crevice of the map. I don't surrender I will fight till you have all my stuff destroyed otherwise you will be so frustrated with me.


It really combines both a resource limit and a tech limit, and given build times go up for tech levels it gives those that tech up at a later time a window to really cause some hurt on players still trying to build a factory or resource building a tech higher but is taking them some time to finish.

Wolfdogg, what you say about more strategic deepness for multi-tiered units is also true for flat tech trees. If you have the choice between many factories (horizontal tree) instead of fewer factories with 2 tech levels (vertical tree), then you make the choice in the beginning of the game. It's not so different from choosing to rush T2, and the results may be the same : some factories can be more adapted to support or later game. Zero-K tank factory is an example of this, with powerful but expensive units, and armed and armoured but expensive engineers. You can still use them in the beginning.
Similarly, in later game you still have strategic choice, with what new factory you will build to expand your arsenal. Amphibious? Gunship? Planes? Ships? Bots? In fact, it may even give more strategic deepness, as you have those choices (as the enemy does) at more times, and more combinations are possible. (Instead of having T2 veh always with T veh, you can combine tanks and bots, for example.)

So again, a flat tech tree makes the game smoother, without the chore of upgrading the factories or worse, having to choose the right engineer to build (or at least begin) the right stuff, while keeping the same strategic deepness.

There is a problem about the flat tech tree in Zero-K: cause each factory (except the air ones) need to be good as a starting factory, the buildable units for each one of them must fulfill the most of the unit classes, like anti-air, scout etc, this limited the interaction between the factories.
Of course the unit roles are differentiated by different move types too, but in that aspect, the difference between the bots and the spiders is much smaller than the vehicles and the bots on the most maps, and the difference between the spiders and the jumpbots is even smaller.

Having not played ZK myself (I have been meaning to give it a try), I cannot really comment on that particular flat tech tree type with experience. That is why I concentrated what tuned out to be quite a lengthy (apologies again) post around SC:FA and SC2.

It is my opinion that mainly the limiter for the player will always be the resources available. This is true in any kind of tree. The important part for the designers to get right is the ratio of resources required:unit power. This is particularly more poignant for structures in this case, since there will be no 'experimental' units.

In the case of PA, we are talking a two tier tech tree. How they intend to implement this has so far been left open to interpretation as far as I am aware. However, it is a good bet that there will be a significant difference between the two as far as structures are concerned.

I would imagine that basically tier 1 would be for planet based battles. When your commander is on the initial world and the battle commences. T1 will last longer and be a more varied and enjoyable tier. T2 I feel might be when you are ready to move off world, including specialised buildings to further that purpose and further units that are more specialised (as opposed to more powerful) to add variety to your arsenal.

One thing I am not sure about is the orbital layer and how that will work. For me this is a grey area and I haven't a good solid way in my mind that I would personally implement it. If every planet has an orbital layer then that makes it more complicated than simply having orbital layer only for gas giants, for example.

If every planet has 3 basic layers - ie water/land, air and orbital (4 if you count underwater), then orbital units might be employed in a similar way. T1 for use to fight it out over the planet for control over a region where you could then build T2 orbital units from perhaps some kind of T2 satellite-factory where you build the big stuff that can only be built in space. For a T1 unit you might fire a T1 engineer from a rocket gantry as a satellite or something. I really don't know. I have nothing in mind that I feel works well enough yet or is consistent with the rest of the game.

Anyway, I have deviated a little. People have talked about how they don't want tech levels to become obsolete. This is more of an issue and something Uber have acknowledged. My main concern is that once a player reaches the point where they can colonise a world then they must not be able to spread to far, to fast and effectively in such a manner that colonisation of entire galaxy can happen in a relative instant.

There should be a limiter that means that a commander can choose to spread himself thin by colonising several worlds at once, but by doing so is doing just that. His forces must be weaker than if they were concentrated all at one point. You can see how using the SC2 research mechanic that quick and effective colonisation of a world is as easy as building a couple of factories that can produce top tier units immediately. I feel this is an issue for the late phase of the game.

By using build time and resources as limiters, the designers can balance the gameplay to promote two strategies for colonising worlds. Cheap and fast vs expensive and slow. This presents the player with a choice. He can colonise his location (read world, moon, asteroid etc.) cheaply and move on to the next, or spend some time and resources developing the colony to increase resource income and security and at the same time risk losing the next location to the enemy.

From this point of view I see no reason why a flat tree wouldn't work. However, the reasons stated regarding tech tiers have already been discussed at length, and I might add very well, by others in this topic already.

@thorneel: If I was to nit-pick your post I would perhaps only take issue with how you seem to suggest that simply by saying that having tech tiers means you will some how have less types of factories available to you when compared to a flat tree. I don't see how this is true. Given all that we have discussed so far, particularly the avoidance of unit obsolescence, I believe that we will see the return of many of the old favourites as discussed in the livestream: kbots, tanks, air, naval etcetera. There will simply be as many factories as there are unit types included in the game.

To make the player choose a path, dedicated factories are the way to go IMO. One thing I am certain of is that there will be as much variety in the units produced as the budget will allow. And for those wanting more the modding community have been given a big salute from the dev team.

What I would like to see, for example in the tank factory is that the tech tier 1 would produce a basic set of units for general use. For example; a scout vehicle, light and med tanks, mobile artillery unit and/or a missile launcher, mobile anti air missile battery. Where tech tier 2 would produce a set of more specialised units that T1 units would still be effective against. Such as a slow moving, heavy tank with high armour aka a damage soaker. A mobile flak AA battery perhaps or a longer range mobile arty that can only shoot when deployed. A tank with low DPS but large AoE... The list goes on. The point is that each of these units has weaknesses against other unit types, making them harder for the player to use effectively without support. They aren't simply more powerful versions of the tanks tanks that preceded them.

Having played Zero K, I can say that the flat tech tree can definitely work. The heavier, stronger units are substantially more expensive in time and resources, so it definitely feels like you'll be making some progression. However, Zero K seems to have been designed around the idea that each factory caters to a specific type of gameplay, and so they each have their own style of a basic unit set. Each factory builds a raider, assault, riot, skirmisher, anti air, etc. unit. However different factories focus on different play styles.

For example, a cloaky bot factory focuses on units that are fast, cheap, and some of which have cloaking capabilities. Shield bots are beefier and have personal shields, but are slower and more expensive. Vehicles tend to be more expensive and used less in swarms, but are very heavy hitters. Then you have more specialized factories, like spider bots (all terrain), jumpjets (rapid shock troops), etc.

The result of this is that your initial strategy revolves around the factory you pick. But later in the game, you may switch up to a different factory for a different play style. (Or augment your starting factory with air, heavy vehicles, etc). So scouting is still relatively important. This tends to set the stage for some interesting combinations in multiplayer too.

That said, while the Zero K method is quite novel and works well, I do NOT think it would be an appropriate fit for PA. The first issue I have is that the units do tend to fall into the Paper-Scissor-Rock mechanic, which I'm not a fan of for strategy games. (Though to be fair, I don't mind it so much in ZK.) Also, since the unit type you want to build is dependent on factories, switching up your play style requires a new factory to be built, and you can potentially leave your old factory barren. (I'm sure ZK veterans are shaking their heads at my noob-ness, but I'm thinking on the large, PA scale here.)

So in the end, PA's style should probably focus on a smaller set of factories, much like TA. (Bot, vehicle, air, navy, etc) This allows for the greatest flexibility when it comes to player options for a variety of units.

But then why not make it a single tier of factories? This goes back to the argument of base progression and establishing yourself as a power, as well as providing strategic focal points. With a flat tier, the opposing player has no indication of how established you are, other than scouting out all of your economy. (Or waiting to see what units you send, but that's true of any method.)

It also allows for strategic decisions like forward bases, without making those bases too powerful. This is important with a multi-planet economy. A player can't just plop down a factory and start pumping out strong units. Now they are forced to make a choice between a cheaper factory that can be deployed quickly, but requires more time to establish a presence, or a heavier factory that takes substantially longer to build and is a riskier investment, but with the benefit of providing more firepower.

It's also important to consider that this will be on a planetary scale, so for the meat of the game, the player won't be restricted to tier 1. All tier levels will be available after an early point in the game. The key now is deployment and how to keep those deployments safe.

As an (indirect) analogy, consider the US military. In hostile territory, base camps (such as Camp Bastion in Afghanistan) can be considered Tier 1 factories, where you'll find these low tier units, such as standard soldiers, helicopters, tanks, jets, etc. These provide fast deployment, but aren't as huge of a resource expenditure and take little time to set up. (Relatively speaking.)
Conversely, on the American mainland, we have heavy duty factories that can build stuff like F-22 Raptors, giant rail cannons, nukes, etc. These items are not regularly deployed on the battlefield, but are called in as the situation permits. A loss of one of these factories would be much more severe than losing a base camp. These can be considered as Tier 2 factories, which you'll generally want to be in a more secure location.

Now this analogy isn't perfect, but it does provide a good way of looking at tier 1 and tier 2 buildings/units. It also highlights how multiple tiers provide strategic value.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that for now. Since it's long, and people are lazy about reading, here's a summary:
Zero K has a good flat-tech implementation, and it works, but I don't think it would work right for PA. I also think the 2 tier system provides more strategic choice.

So having T1 and T2 factories, but as separated factories that can be built independently from each-other, by any engineer. Or, put another way, a flat tech tree with both main (T1) and support/advanced (T2) factories.
This would give the T1/T2 system without the hassle of different engineers or the need to manually upgrade factories, which is one of its biggest problems. I like it.

I'm in the tech tree camp on this one.

I love the sense that I see some low level units and send a force in to destroy them only to find that they have been upgraded and are able to turn the tables on me.

Research shouldn't be instant in the same way that Sup Com 2 was, it should be more like SOASE where it takes time and resources to get to a new piece of tech.

Research was not instant in SC2. You have to earn the research points in order to 'buy' the upgrade. I think what you mean is that the input from the player is at the other end of the operation. Meaning instead you click at the end when you have accumulated the points like in SC2, instead of at the beginning where you click first and then wait for the research to complete. Also, the rate at which you accumulate research points in SC2 is determined by how many research facilities you own, if you have completed the +research rate research and how many enemies you kill. This is because you also earn research from combat.

Either method is fine from my point of view. The difference being the SC2 method allows the player more flexibility to adapt to new situations as the research points are not allocated until they are earned. By making the player to choose what they want to research beforehand, it commits the player and is less adaptable.

Personally, I am much in favour of tech levels. The upgradable type used in SC2 was much smarter than the TA two factory method in my opinion. Mainly because:
1.) Your base isn't filled with factories that at some point might be underutilised because of a player's strategy doesn't utilise it's units. It's much more efficient in resource and in ground area to have a single factory that produces both T1 and T2 units. This way, a pair of T2 factories can be used to produce one build queue (using the assist command) consisting of both T1 and T2 units efficiently, regardless of the ratio of T1 to T2 units in the queue.
2.) The production value of the upgraded factory is increased due to the fact that it produces more unit types and as a result, the value as target to the enemy is also increased. It's resource value is obviously increased too. By eliminating this factory, the enemy can stop the player producing both T1 and T2 units. See also point 3.
3.) The time it will take the player to rebuild a destroyed factory and upgrade it to T2 is possibly more significant than the cost. It's an important gameplay mechanic. People have talked in other threads about ways of crippling the enemy. Resource denial is one way. Destruction of key production structures is just another way.
4.) In reference to the above point, the difference between TA and SC was that in TA a T1 engineer could build a T2 facility. In SC there was only the possibility to build one type of factory. Therefore, even a T3 engineer could still only build a T1 factory - only faster than a T1 engineer. In order to get to T3 quicker, the player could use engineers to assist the factory if the resources were available.

For those of you who want to familiarise yourself with the way this works if you have never played SC, please click here.

I'm pro-tech tree provided the tech tree progression doesn't work like "and now T1 is useless". There should always be trade offs in which T1 is still the way to go. In Starcraft 2 the higher up the tech tree you go the more vespene you need compared to minerals. So building lings gave you something to do with your excess minerals. You can do something similar in PA by making units increasingly mass heavy (mass being more scarce than energy) as you progress up the tech tree. This gives you the option of focusing your effort on the mass heavy high tech units or building more energy producers to get floods of pee wees out.

I'd also avoid like for like replacements across the tiers. Make the scouting and skirmishing units in T1. Use higher tiers for your heavy tanks and doom stompy robots. Avoid having a T1 tank, T2 tank and T3 tank which just have higher stats and cost.

Maybe have support units in T2 that improve the effectiveness of the other tiers. So you could have battle repair bots in T2 that give T1 a new lease of life.