Experience

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by gerstorm, March 26, 2013.

  1. BulletMagnet

    BulletMagnet Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    591
    Yes, but that doesn't change the validity of his statement or - at the very least - his belief in the validity on a rather subjective topic.
  2. paulusss

    paulusss Active Member

    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    144
    True nanolathe, not thought about the multi planet battle, micromangement would be a pain in the ..., but still it could be a choice, in Subcom you could trow in your experimentals without thinking and let them die, without building veterancy.
  3. nanolathe

    nanolathe Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,839
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Which was a terrible tactic to use unless you were already ROFLstomping. Veterancy was a key part of the equation in SupCom.
    Last edited: March 27, 2013
  4. dacite

    dacite Member

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    19
    Veterancy is terrible in this genre of RTS. Supcom FAs experimentals got exponentially more powerful and meant it was better for me to kill my own units than let a monkeylords health increase faster through veterancy than I could chip away at it.

    They are robots. Veterancy should not matter.

    Commander veterancy might lead to some interesting dynamics though. A bit like warcraft except the penalty for commander death is losing.
  5. nanolathe

    nanolathe Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,839
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    In Pro matches Commanders intentionally went to the front line to gain veterancy. Units were pulled back in favour of letting the Commander get all the kills to rank him up and make him progressively tougher. It wasn't even particularly risky. It wasn't to deal massive damage to the base since even 2 or 3 T1 turrets chewed through a Commander, it was exploiting the Veterancy system, plain and simple.
  6. dacite

    dacite Member

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    19
    Hypothetically if the commander gained experience within a certain radius of unit deaths rather than needing to kill the units themselves and could use that experience in conjunction with mass and energy to buy upgrades that make it more viable mid-game it would lead to more risky aggresive play.

    Might work well in a mod...
  7. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    Commanders intentionally went to the front because they were the strongest combat unit in the army. Veterancy was a nice side benefit.

    It is possible for Comms to scale without veterancy OR upgrades. The original D-gun was the best example of this- it was a super weapon restricted by your economic output.
  8. nanolathe

    nanolathe Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,839
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    SupCom Commanders were pretty good at combat for perhaps the first 10 mins. Without Upgrades even veterancy had trouble keeping up with T2. Veterancy was a nice perk that could put you in a position of power... if you microed the HELL out of that Commander.

    Any concerted effort into tier 2 tech rendered the Commander useless though. T2 was just so many degrees of power higher than T1 in SupCom it wasn't even funny.

    No amount of Veterancy bridged that gulf.
    Last edited: March 27, 2013
  9. paulusss

    paulusss Active Member

    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    144
    What do you think about veterancy for turret, anti air, artillery, like subcom?
  10. nanolathe

    nanolathe Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,839
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Pointless. Same as I think Veterancy in TA for turrets was pointless.

    We're talking about non-sentient Battle-Droids here. They don't learn. They are built with the best programming that can fit into the chassis. They don't get better. They are already the best.

    Commanders are a slightly different kettle of fish. But if Mavor dislikes Veterancy, and not one person here can come up with a compelling argument against it... then I'm all for doing away with a mostly gimmicky mechanic.
  11. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    The Entire Vet system from SupCom was ridiculous, let me break it down for you;

    Tank Kills X enemy units, Tank gains +Y% HP* and +Z HP/s Regen.

    Not how how the bonuses have NOTHING to with killing units? If Veterancy was based on how much Damage a unit has taken, then getting more HP and regen would make some sense(but not a lot) and if for getting kill based Vet it fired faster or had longer range it'd make more sense(again not a lot) but in the end it's as Nanolathe said, the Units are just mindless drones, the only ones doing any "thinkin" are the Commanders(or for SupCom, ACUS/SCUs).

    *So if a unit have 100 HP Max, but it only had 50 when it Got Vet and Vet was a 10% increase here is what would happen;

    50/100 HP
    Vet Get!(10%)
    60/110 HP

    This is why Vet was such a big deal for T4s, not only did it increase your Max HP, but also increased your CURRENT HP, which let it survive longer, and get more kills, to get more vet and so on.

    Mike
  12. godde

    godde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    499
    When a UEF ACU went from level 4 to level 5 it got 6000 hitpoints refilled...
    Thats a lot of extra health from killing a few tanks.
  13. bmb

    bmb Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,497
    Likes Received:
    219
    Hopefully there will be no tech trees, no veterancy and no other silly attempts at turning it into an RPG.

Share This Page