Tech level terminology!

This is all hugely fun stuff i know but its a serious question, what do we want the different tech levels called. I'm under no illusions that this will change all the colloquial discussions but its fun to try.

Currently things are mostly called tech levels 1 and 2 with the occasional experimental thrown in. this leads to some problems with people new to the terminology, will there be a tech level 3? tech level 2 is always better than tech level 1, etc.

Even uber has been calling them tech 1 and tech 2.

Other options and the ups and downs as i see them.

Replace the word tech with tier... Doesn't really change much.

I have always taken preference to referring to things as tech level 1 and tech level 1.5 because of its inherent implication that they are still part of the same effective tech level. It is not the most user friendly term though as it doesn't follow a normal linear order.

There is TA's basic and advanced which seem to fill a lot of the gaps from the previous as it follows a linear order but also has a defined start and end. If needs be other things can be added into this or similar name changes, such as Basic, Advanced, Complex however you begin to lose the simplicity of the system.

Perhaps 'grades'? I looked up synonyms for level and not much was very viable. I would hope that the new names made it apparent what each level was for, as you suggested with Basic, Advanced, and Complex. Getting numbers involved would seem to imply that higher number = better unit.

Assuming that T2 units are physically larger; names on units aren't needed, just have Factories and Large Factories.

People are always going to attch tech levels to things thqt have a hierarchy like this. the goal is to create terminology that wont confuse people or give them an incorrect impression of power levels.

So many people with one post assume there will be three tech levels with power levels like sup com. even with two tech levels that implied power gap still exists leaeing to maseed armies of 'tech 2' units.

If no good terminology exists; don't use one at all.

This is a very intriguing idea, how pray tell, would you confir information without terminology?

Each unit has a role to play. That role is independent of where it's built.

A sniper bot is a sniper bot, irrespective of whether it came from a small factory, a T1 factory, or a large factory, or a T2 factory.

The only sticking point is when you have two units that fill the same role. Engineers/fabbers are one such example.

Thats fine for specialised roles (and it still uses terminology) but when you get into things like the tech 2 super heavy tank (cos it came from a tech 2 factory), it starts to break down a little.

Super Heavy Tank is a specialised role... unless there be a T1 Super Heavy Tank.

If there isn't, then I argue that you can safely call it a Super Heavy Tank even though it came from a T2 factory. I'm trying to point out that you needn't worry about where the unit came from.

because it comes from the tech 2 factory it will always be refered to as a tech 2 unit, to many people then it implies an inherent increase in power with a possibility of making previous units redundant.

Factory, and specialized factory?
Though i don't really care.

But that implication is [probably] incorrect compared to the actuality of the unit and balance.

Why the hell would you intentionally create a term that even possibly confuses people?


If you're trying to create labels that minimise confusion, then I think you're wasting your time; some people will always get confused (something about the universe inventing bigger idiots). I think you will confuse less people by dropping tech/tier labels entirely.

as there are only two tiers why not (empty) and advanced as in:

Engineer (T1)
Advanced Engineer (T2)

or

Tank Factory
Advanced Tank Factory

etc.

Since I grew up with TA, it's always X and Adv. X in my mind. Don't need to enumerate tiers/tech levels when there's only two of them, and since there's only one "experimental" (that term seems to have stuck) it doesn't need to be classified. It's not a T3 assault bot, it's a krogoth.

you could also use diferent names when you increase specialisation, a factory and an advanced factory could create basic units like tanks, trucks and bots while you need a tankfactory and an advanced tankfactory to make the best tanks (t3 and/or 4)
the same could go for planes and gunships/choppers.
i dont think space stuff needs tech levels however, you just need the infrastructure and research to make them (light/medium/heavy VAB and launchepad. no t3 rockets, just name them).

Tech 2 is not stronger or superior to tech 1. It's just different.

Yes, some of the big things are deliberately placed at T2. But that does not mean small units have to be T1.

Exactly this.

Well said, I am unable to add anything of worth.

The Cybran T1 gunship in Forged Alliance, the Jester, is frequently referred to as being "T1.5" because it is comparatively expensive and can be game-winningly powerful.

Not sure what my point is, except that people will naturally develop colloquialisms and shorthand to refer to different aspects of the game.

I will be interested to see if Uber manage to preserve TA's consistent usage of units' 'proper' names - By contrast only the most iconic SupCom units are called by their 'proper' names, things like T1 PD, T1 AA, T3 arty, ASFs, Destroyers (bar maybe the Salem), Cruisers etc etc are almost never referred to by their name in the same way that the Mantis or the Mongoose is.

Peewee, Flash, Brawler, Energy Machine Guns (EMG),

Nanolathe and the assosiated Econ-Crash, the Nano-Stall,

FARK, Necro, Annihilatior, Sumo, Silencer, Roach, AK, Rocko, Thumper, K -BOT!

The names just felt so right... that's what you called them.

---

Bet your bottom Dollar that I'm going to make posts on proposed unit names when we have access to them!

I'd say tech 1 and tech 2 are the best ones. "tech" is easy to pronounce and more clear than "adv".