Unit Veternacy: can we skip it?

Whoa whoa whoa.

Hang on a minute.

You're neglecting one important idea... you could be training your robots 24 hours a day against pop-up targets. You should be building up upon literally thousands of post-battle updates.


Having robots that get better is a patently dumb idea, because after some large length of time one of those robots should be trained to the absolute upper limit, and then that should be copied into factories so all future robots share that information.

another very good point

[Edit] Not sure upon reflection if BulletMagnet was using sarcasm to agree with me or if what I meant by that statement was misunderstood. I have edited it to better reflect my point and remove ambiguity in the viewpoint I hold (that veterancy does not make sense from a lore standpoint and I don't think it is a good idea for PA)

Woah... Surely you are aware of the concept of singularity. People often thinks that`s when a machine gets unselfconscious. But singularity is about the rapid increase of knowledge acquisition by said intelligence and therefore making it unpredictable. There`s always something new to learn, and just because our monkey brains can`t understand it does not mean it`s magic or impossible. Now let`s remember the sentence that defines PA:

"Because we are not shooting for realism. We are shooting for Awesome."

Therefore let`s ignore that it makes sense to machines to always improve and stick to the merits of the mechanic.

As a mechanic veterancy is not that great. It`s another thing to consider when we have no idea of how complex the game will be with everything that was already announced.

My suggestion is: let the game take shape, let alpha pass by and beta be real, so we can see if what` in the game is too little so we can think about stuff to meat it up. And then we consider veterancy as a possibility.

Do you know the true origin to that statement at all?

Mike

I know it was used in PA`s announcement video twice and the message it means. Now, I can`t say if this sentence was used before or after in any other context.

You mean what you think it means, you should read my PSA on Realism VS Awesome, and in particular this post.

Mike

Well... In the context of the video the message is very clear. That the context where the sentence was said is different I had no idea.

Now, my point still stands: Should we really be discussing this kind of nuance at this stage of development? I think not. There will be a better opportunity to discuss this later.

The point is that you can't just use awesome as a valid argument to include something into the game, if you did that you'd have a mess of a game.

Mike

That goes without saying. "Awesome" is subjective. What I may think it`s awesome can be bad and/or boring for other people. So my argument was never that and never will be.

Here's an idea:

How about, instead of veterancy, which leads to the 'why can't this experience be shared with all my units' issue, instead, units can perform field upgrades from the wreckages of enemy units, gaining addition guns/armour/utility, which only that unit will have. (Yes, I've been playing C'n'C Generals again recently).

Ofcourse, there's a few issues to be addressed with that; should it consume the wreckage? If so, should it be automatic, or an ability you use? If it's an ability, can new units out of the factory immediately upgrade using nearby wrecks?

Personally, I think it should be an ability you can use, for any of your units, which consumes the wrecks. But it should only be usable on enemy wrecks.

By consuming the wreck, you have to choose between reclaiming to build more units, or fewer, stronger units. Both have their merits.

This happened back on page 8. Do we really need to keep discussing it?

Yeah, seems like some of the newcomers have only skimmed the thread.

Normally I'd be all for continuing discussion in case anything new came up, but given Uber weighed in a while back it seems redundant. I feel like I am largely repeating myself or other peoples posts I agreed with at this stage.

How about making it a tech path/choice? I've been promoting this idea within most debates about gameplay concepts or new mechanics. Rather than have a duality, why not build the choice of how to play into the research system itself?

So, unit veterancy (or something similar) could be a component upgrade for some specialised units. You can evolve your "faction" into really unique areas very, very different from those of your opponent.

Just a thought, might not work in practice ofc.

I tried posting that a few pages ago. I'm fairly certain no one is reading anyone else's posts at all.

Please read this thread
I said read it, which means don't skim the last 2 posts and form an pinion based on those, actually look at arguments that have been made.
No?
TLR - no research tree, definitely no unit upgrades

Yeah, I saw that. Didn't really deter them, so I thought I'd try. How wrong I was. :|

More chance of stopping the tides and the rising sun than a forum thread in full flight :lol:

Neutrino has said it is not something he wants in PA, however, why should that stop us from discussing such mechanics in general, since I assume most people on this forum have a love for RTS games, and all that makes them awesome.

There is nothing stopping people from discussing it, especially if someone came up with a point that was new and unique. It is more a comment on people who discuss it as though it is an unconfirmed feature. A fair few of the arguments for and against are now being repeated because individuals are not reading the thread before they post. For those who have seen a discussion like this develop from the beginning it can be frustrating as they would rather see discussion take place on another ideas which are not already confirmed or denied. Areas of discussion that would be more productive and worthwhile.

If your discussing something not related to PA please change to another forum. Theres a nice unrelated discussion section you can use viewforum.php?f=4.