Factory Complex

So your issue is basically based on cost-effectiveness.
You think T2 units are too cost-effective, and render T1 units very ineffective late-game.

I think that, yes. Granted, my way was a very indirect way of approaching things.
But I find it better than just making both as cost effective as the other from the beginning, because that would remove the purpose of teching up to T2.

I definitely think there needs to be something to invest in. Without investment the game is just about tactics with attacking and defending. I agree with you this far. That investment introduces a reward for being weaker in the present for a payoff in strength for the future, this creates the risk for rushes. Investment also allows more change over the course of a game.

You seem to think that tiers are necessary because they are the only way to put investment into the game. I disagree because I think there are a lot of ways to add opportunities for investment.

• Expanding your economy is an investment. Economy makes you worse off until it pays for itself.
• Constructing expensive units (or structures) is an investment because they are useless until completed.

This second type is very board. It could be a nuke which requires many minutes to complete or maybe you want to invest in the ability to travel to new planets. 'Expensive' changes throughout the game so many different things could be investments.

Those types of investment are certainly in the game already. You can build nukes and expand your economy, and nukes are very expensive to build, so a big investment.
What T2 does is letting you do a big investment before you're even able to build stuff like nukes, you need to build the T2 factory and fabbers. It's just an additional step that you have to undertake that creates a weakness that can be exploited. It also means that your possibilities are fewer until you have upgraded to T2, which makes gameplay easier to predict and to balance, because people just don't have all possible building options at the beginning of the game.

So no, T2 is not the only way of including investments, but it's the central step of becoming able in making those big investments.
Also without T2 there could be no T2 units like Levelers and Smashers, so no units that would be more cost efficient than others. That means that there would be no race of progression in addition to the race of economy, but only the race of economy.

It's like the blind leading the blind in here.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that other people don't understand it either.

I have to admit you don't make your opinion overly clear, arachnis.

On the one hand, you say that you want to avoid obsolescence. Something on which I think we all agree.

On the other, you're saying that you don't want T2 to have its power reduced to make it more similar in power to T1. Or rather, to turn the game from T1 and T2 into actual Basic and Advanced as intended.

Can you see where the confusion comes in?

My point is that you can have plenty of investments without relying on T2 to be the main investment which you must get because the units are better. Why do you need a big investment which unlocks the others? Why can't the other investments be balanced such that they are large weaknesses which can be exploited?

The fact that a game has fewer possibilities before you upgrade to T2 is unrelated to the question of obsolescence. I know that the existence of some factory which cannot be built at the start of the game makes the start more predictable and easier to balance. This does not mean that T2 has to make T1 obsolete or even that T2 has to be a particularly large investment.

You say that you don't want units to become obsolete but then you say things like this:

What does "more cost efficient" mean if you are not talking about one set of units making another obsolete?

The T2 units do not have to be more cost efficient for people to want to reach them. They could provide players with more options which makes their composition more versatile.

Sorry, but this is turning into an argumentum ad nauseam. I already explained in lenght and detail why it would take a lot of decisionmaking out of the game if T2 wasn't there. Readable on the last few pages. And also if you read what the original idea of this post was, then it is to have the possibility to make T1 units as cost efficient as T2 ones through use of a late game building, the Factory Complex. But what I don't want to see is T1 units being as cost efficient as T2 units from the beginning because that would remove the purpose of teching up to T2. So my idea was a way to circumvent all of these problems, and give the players what they want, the possibility to use T1 in the lategame, while still being cost efficient.

The whole discussion about whether or not there should be T2 to begin with is a bit off topic, if you ask me. Because we already have two tiers as a promised, and confirmed feature. So we either try to work in that framework, or we don't. But I don't see any reason to assume that there won't be at least two tiers, at least not until the devs give a clear statement that says that there won't. So talking about this game as if there were no tiers is not really constructive in any way.

And the reason why T2 units need to be more cost efficient, is because you invest ressources and time purely in progressing to them. It takes a lot of investment before you're getting actual results. That means that it must be worth the investment somehow, otherwise people won't feel the need to do it. Variation is not sufficient to justify the investments you made.
Also why would you want to take units out of the game, like Levelers and Smashers (which would be redundant if they wouldn't be more cost efficient than their T1 counterparts), and limit the choices you can make, when you can just balance T1 and T2 without taking anything away? I find that mentality of minimalism (taking away instead of adding features) disturbing.

I think "Advanced" units will always be "more powerful" than T1 units, otherwise there would be no need to produce these new units.

Power does not have to directly translate to more powerful units.
Advanced units could include a "Booster" unit that increases the movement speed of rate of fire of nearby allies, Allowing you to use them to Support T1 units and allowing them more of a role late-game.
Or a "Gravity Tank" that pulls projectiles towards it, making the projectiles miss allied tanks until the gravity tanks are destroyed.

We might also find out that Advanced Units are too heavy for the early transports, so it would be easier to transport T1 units.

It isn't hard to keep T1 units useful late-game, or increase their cost-effectiveness later on. I think some of the Advanced Unit's Roles should be to support, rather than just do increased damage, which could quickly make T1 units way more dangerous when supported by some Advanced Units.

And I never said anything against T2 and T1 units complementing eachother. I can imagine that there might be a "advanced" or "mega" unit coming in the future with the purpose of drawing fire off from other units.

This game should be about making good unit compositions and not about one unit type vs another. Ofc spamming only one type of units purely for harassment purposes should also be viable, but not in a front to front battle. So this game has a thin red line to walk.

I'm going to try one last time here, hopefully using an example can give any replies some context. So picture 2 units.

Tank 1
HP: 300
Metal Cost: 56
Energy Cost: 266
Speed: 3.4
Weapon Range: 0-18
Weapon DPS: 24
Weapon Damage: 24
Weapon Rate of Fire: 1 Second
Other: N/A

Tank 2
HP: 140
Metal Cost: 52
Energy Cost: 260
Speed: 3.1
Weapon Range: 0-26
Weapon DPS: 26.67
Weapon Damage: 40
Weapon Rate of Fire: 1.5 Seconds
Other: Hover

Want to know the Headfake here? Tank 1 is a Basic unit and Tank 2 is an Advanced unit! It's an Advanced unit not because it overtly more powerful in comparison to Tank 1 but actually because it is specialized and has unique strengths and weaknesses. Tank 2 is great at kiting with it's longer ranged weapon and Hover ability. The flip side is that it has half the HP of Tank 1, is slightly slower and more prone to overkilling as it's weapons fires more powerful shots less often.

Tank 2 doesn't replace Tank 1 at all, Tank 2 might perform better against slower enemies it can kite but it performs very poorly against faster units because they can close the gap much quicker and take less damage doing so.

Obviously Tank 2 is just one unit, Advanced will hopefully be filled with a great deal of different unit s with similar design philosophy behind them. Teching to Advanced in this scenario isn't about getting more powerful units than Basic units, it's about getting more options! Even here Tank 1 is still very capable of fighting Against Tank 2, they may have a disadvantage in a head on fight, but good Tactics like ambushing or pulling a Leonidas and turning thier numbers against them can over come that disadvantage.

Want to know the other Headfake? Tank 1 and Tank 2 are actual units from SupCom:FA.

Mike

You have made a very special case there. I have to get very detailed to answer this.

First of all:
There is more than one way to make a unit balanced. You have to combine different factors like HP, weapon range, speed, special attributes and so on. It's very hard to explain when a unit is balanced well, or when it is overpowered. But if you want to compare those two units together, then you can imagine what they'd act like when facing eachother.

The first unit is a basic unit with a decent amount of hp and no special attributes.
The second unit is a hover, has less hp, less speed but higher weapon range and damage compared to the first unit.

Now people have to admit that more range and weapon damage is very advantageous and compensates for the low hp. It means that they'll shoot first and deal more damage. Now head-on the hovers will probably lose to the basic unit. Because the basic unit is faster and has more health.

But the hover has much more potential. Not only can it hover, making it possible to do mean little attacks from the sea. It would also theoretically be possible to win against the basic unit without ever taking hits by just staying over the water, advancing when the enemy is retreating and vice versa.

It's also a very nice addition to unit compositions consisting of units with higher health and lower range, like the basic unit mentioned above. It's important to mention because you always have to see units in the bigger context.

Used correctly it can do a lot of damage without being hit. Assuming that you micro them a lot, put them into the right unit combinations and use the terrain to your advantage. It's a unit for a special type of situation.

And I have no problem with that. But I don't understand at all why it would be so cheap? The potential is clearly much bigger. Sure if you don't use them well then it will hurt having to pay much for them without getting anything in return. But the game should be balanced around the pro scene, and you would assume that they'd use them just right.

Now why should you pay a lot before even being able to build them (by building the T2 factory and fabbers)? Maybe because those hovers are so cheap. With micro and used in the right situation or just in the right unit combination they're simply more cost efficient than the other unit, making them worth being called "T2" or "advanced". Now I have a reason to invest much by building a T2 factory and become able to build those hover units. Because I'm getting rewarded by becoming able to build cheaper and in the right situation more efficient units. I'd probably make them way more expensive though. They're specialized, yes. But if the situation is right, then building them can be immensely rewarding. The current build cost is a bit out of proportion in that regard.

I like the design of that unit, because it is specialized. So it won't be used in every situation. But in those that call for it, it will do just nicely. It's not really a unit that I would send straight on against Levelers or something else ment to excell in head on fights. It's not ment to be in that kind of situation. But I don't see how that contradicts anything of what I said. It's still having it's purpose, and you'd readily invest money and time into building a T2 factory just to be able to build those things, even with Levelers and Smashers around, which btw should get their range decreased, because they're stronger and have more hp than their T1 counterparts, so there should be some kind of tradeoff.

I feel like some people really lack an understanding of what the terms "basic" and "advanced" mean here... I partially think this is because of how the basic and adv. units/buildings are set up in the current balance...

The thing I want to avoid, is that there are no "bigger" units anymore. The things you suggested all revolved around removing "big" units like the Holkins, Levelers, T2 mexes and pgens, basically everything that can be seen as an upgrade to another unit.

I think I finally understand you a bit better. But I want to prevent this to be turning into a game where only small units fight eachother, but where there are unit compositions combining small and big, strong units. And where big units are seen as an investment, that you carefully have to plan out. I see your point in saying that the Holkins for example makes the pelter redundant. I'd say that I like that building the Holkins over pelters is a difficult choice, because it is a big investment. If we can keep that, but make it more specialized and meet somewhere in the middle, then I think we could come to a solution that would make both of us happy.

So the first half of the post is a recap of the things I already presented, so moving right to the meaty bits.

And as I revealed right at the end, FA played just fine with these EXACT stats, obvious PA has different circumstances compared to SupCom that might require doing things differently but I doubt that require adopting a different overall philosophy to unit design.

Mostly right but you're assuming that the Advanced Factories and Fabbers won't be subject tot eh same typer of balancing as the rest of the units. To me things like the Advanced Factory cost/Build time factor is more so about adjusting overall game pace rather than unit balance. I think using an expensive factory as a clutch to balance powerful units isn't ideal. I think it's better to make sure the units are all roughly balanced separately and use the Advanced Factory cost more to control the pace of the game. Also consider that just as we could be playing on large planets there is also the option of playing on small planets and if you hide advanced units behind what is effectively a 'pay wall' it'll be much harder to use them based on the planet size.

Also with the Philosophy it doesn't mean units would all have to cost approximately the same, there is room for more and less expensive units, for example a big tough unit that had 5x the HP of a Basic unit and it's only other change was losing 50% speed(as in it still has a basic weapon and such) then the HP boost is obviously more valuable than the loss in speed so you'd probably end up paying 2-3 times more for it than the basic unit it's being compared to. It really comes down to unit roles and exactly how it achieves that role.

The things is that I don't think PA is really setup for having really 'big' units, Uber seems to be focusing more so on larger armies in terms of raw numbers rather than say total investment. I think that's good because it means essentially taking the better parts of SupCom(primarily Scale) but also taking steps to make sure it's not just about building the same units every game. Procedural generation plays into this as well.

Mike

Which I see as a good thing. I want T2 to be a big step, a big investment, a difficult choice to make on when to go for it and in a sense rewarding. For reasons I have previously stated. I think it enhances decisionmaking and makes interaction more important.

It would be really sad without big units. I fear that it would feel "flat" for obvious reasons. The megabot is such a unit that could make it into the game. I'd even like to see multiple, specialized "megabots".
But that doesn't mean that you couldn't include them in a way that prevents forced unit compositions.

Like I said, just specialize big units enough and small, "weaker" units will always have their purpose. Let them complement eachother.
Also there are already big units in the game, so don't say that PA wasn't laid out for them.
I'd be very disappointed if those were removed.

But the units aren't set up for that, the idea is that technically, you don't need any of those advanced units, Basic units cover all the core roles, you don't need an Amphibious Basic unit because you have Basic Naval units for example. What you want to hide behind the pay wall is all the fun stuff. You're essentially arguing to make every game of PA into a mini MMORPG, you gotta grind the boring fetch quests until you get into the late game where things are actually fun and varied.

I don't agree with that mind set.

The thing is that even if Advanced Factories costed the same as Basic Factories is still a choice that carries a fair amount of weight to it. Units take time to build and that is part of the 'problem' with using advanced units, each one is only good in specific situations so you can't just build Advanced factories regardless of thier cost because your army ends up being potentially very static or binary. If you have a whole bunch of Unit X I only need a smaller amount of it's Counter(Unit Y) you wreck your army in combination with all my basic units that you didn't build. At the end of the day, Building Advanced Factories instead of Basic Factories is always going to be an important decision regardless of the relative costs and I feel that in reality the closer they are in cost the choice still has importance without it becoming a bad binary win/lose inducing choice.

To be clear, I don't think Advanced factories should be the same cost, but the current 9x cost increase is just ridiculous, 3-5x is probably where it should be at most.

Like I said, there is room for units to cost more AND less, but I think your expectations of how much variance there will be is too large. Megabots/Experimentals are a completely different topic that we already have a 30 page thread about.

Mike

I don't want it to be like an MMORPG. I just want it to be more like the tier system in SupCom, because I liked that very much. It wasn't perfect, granted. But it was fun progressing in that system. And like I said, there are ways to use that system without making lower tier units redundant.

Also yes, the Megabot thread is the reason why I mentioned it. Most people in there are already going: "Why is this not implemented, yet?" I can see the counterarguments, but I think the community wants it.

SupCom's Tier system was horrible and it's horribleness is one of the few things that is generally agreed upon by this community, give this thread a read.

I'm sorry, but it turns out the majority of the community doesn't know anything practical about game design, as such they can't be trusted to know WHAT they want. "Megabots" might happen, but I doubt it'll happen the you're thinking about it because it turns out the best roles for MegaBots aren't combat roles to begin with. That essentially makes them not MegaBots anymore and just Units that have roles/mechanics that don't work on a small scale and thus need to be "larger" than "regular" units.

Mike