Why upgrades are important

What about using the commanders as upgrades to a unit.
http://forums.uberent.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=43682

I never used T1 once I got to T2 in TA. But then I only played vs the AI.

You could, but you can't reclaim time.

Upgrades are pointless. If a unit needs to be more powerful to be useful, simply make it that way from the start, don't force me to micro manage that power increase.

Uber is making the right decision. 'Nuff said.

Then don't build 500 T1 tanks then.

:roll:

The fact that you upgraded to another tier does not mean that your enemy instantly has 500 hundred T2 tanks. He also has his 500 T1 tanks or he'll make new units, which you'll do as well.

Not that it matters, since tiers won't differ in power but in specific use. As said by garatgh

You entire post presumes that your arguments are universally accepted as good things. There's such a thing as too many strategies, unit progression is bad, and the slippery slope of rewarding good players is toxic.

Since you haven't justified why the points you advocate are good, I can make opposing claims.

No upgrades needed.

Why? I just finished a game of SupCom where my opponent went T2, while I chose instead to increase T1 production and try to overrun him. If he had had more control and more resources when he switched, he might have won, but he judged incorrectly, and my T1 units outnumbered, out-flanked and out-mapcontrolled him long enough to win the game.

T1 units have their place, and obsolescence is something that you should plan into your game strategy. SupCom 2 had magical field wide upgrades instead of unit tiers and I hated it.

Obsolescence is not planned for the game.

Upgrades cause units to become obsolete. It's pretty much whole purpose of an upgrade.

I would say that the RTS with the best upgrade system would be starcraft.

Small stat upgrades and ability upgrades that can be viewed by clicking on one of your or your opponets units.


However PA doen't need upgrades becuse it goes for a more quantity over quality approch to force improvment, having the player simply construct diffrent and more spiclised weapons over augmenting exsisting ones (Compare a 1000 unit cap to starcrafts 200 that also requires 'houses' to be build and units that cost more then 1 supply).

PA is just the other end of the scale of macro RTS to micro RTS, the single unit doesn't matter enough for upgrades to be worth it.

IMO the only form of upgrade that could possibly be helpful and not wasteful/gamebreaking, would be a veterancy bonus TA-style, where the unit can lead targets better/ be more accurate.

It's been discussed already and its not gonna be included as per Neutrino.

Mike

Upgrades do the exact opposite of that.

Finding the right time to upgrade a factory to t2 was kind of fun in FA.

Not sure if it is something that would fit very well in PA.
Having to upgrade over and over on every new planet can get a bit to much.

Having an engineer(and the com) that can build a 'lower tech' factory and a 'higher tech' factory as well is less complicated.
The 'higher tech' would use significantly more resources and be more expensive to build, meaning it is not possible to start with unless there are high amounts of resources near the starting location.

A better wording might be that upgrades save units from becoming obsolete, but it's just a band-aid on the core issue of units becoming obsolete in the first place......which as has been said before, isn't the plan for PA.

Mike

STOP!

Before everyone goes off half cocked, we all need to be on the same page about what upgrades we're talking about and what they're being applied to.

Depending on that, the units may or may not become redundant.

Now, if you want to convince someone that you're right you're going to have to make sure they understand the picture that you've got in your head.

Okay, go!

Regarding units, I do not think they should be upgradable.
Imagine all units having upgrades, it makes it much harder to see what kind of army you are facing, especially if there are many different unit types coming your way.

Perhaps it would be fun to have some upgrades on the commander.

OP is wrong-headed and misguided.

However I'm still in favour of having commander upgrades. It's a lot more justifiable than unit upgrades and depending on the upgrades it would increase the game's depth in good ways.

Okay.
No research.
No upgrades.
No missing gear.
Gantrys are fine.
No weapon swapping.
What happens in the campaign, stays in the campaign.
No WoW killers.
Fox only. Final Destination.

I'd also like this post addressed by the OP, specifically why the things listed are good.

I think that unit upgrades (in the form of increased attack/movespeed/etc) are great - for a smaller scale game. For example:

Starcraft - which has been used several times in this thread as justification for keeping upgrades - has a max population cap of 200 (and many units cost far more than 1 population). That means its feasible for me as a player to scout and click on individual units to find out what their upgrade level is.

SupCom - Armies were on such a bigger scale (i think it was 1000 unit cap max, and each unit cost 1?) that it didnt make sense for me to need to worry about trying to click on an individual unit in the opposing army.

I don't understand the argument here. Someone brought up a unit like siege tanks, and how they have to research siege. Pretty sure Mavor has stated somewhere that if you want a unit that can siege and a unit that can't, make two separate units. This idea that units would have hidden potential just waiting to be unlocked is silly, considering the lore of the game.

Besides - if i was a super-intelligent robot commander of death, and one of my units reported back to me that the other guy's tanks can siege, i'd just copy them. Immediately. Without making the player research it.

-Stretch