Idea Major Simplification: Mark Level and Tech Tree Revisions

[Toranth]

... Could very well be "armored fighter" or "longer range fighter" or "cloaked fighter".

Not too important, but when reading this, I had a sudden flashback that prompted some questions.  What happens when we give Fighters the new Bulletproof ability?  Do all the units get renamed to "Bulletproof Fighter"?  Or do we need to remember that Fighters are now Bulletproof, or check the info card of every unit, trying to remember which one we made Bulletproof?
If they get renamed, are the names going to just pile up?  Bulletproof Armored Hydra Beam Fighters?  Or will we be limited in the number of candy techs each unit type can get?

(The flashback that started this thought was from Diablo, and the item names.  Will AIW 2 have a "Stalwart Bulletproof Fighter of the Whale?")

[Sestren]

I for one quite like appending names like that. It lets me revel in the absurdity of the technological terror I have created.

[x4000]

Hey folks!  Notes:

1. Yes on name appending.  I love that, too.

2. Folks are right to point out that things like the specific mechanics of a bulletproof tech are not important now.

3. That said, part of the idea of "candy techs" is to be attractive but bad for you in bulk.  There are some legit cases where bulletproof would be a good idea on fighters, and if you put bulletproof on a bunch of your ships (goodbye, lots of science!), then you don't have to worry about that insta-kill stuff just taking over something else instead.  Is it a Bad Idea(tm) to do it, though?  If so, that's okay!  That's very much part of certain candy techs, like warp sensors.

4. Makes total sense on the fewer unit types being less overwhelming, I had not thought of that part of it.  Hopefully we can get the number of units actually WAY down using this method, but have the number of permutations WAY up.  That's a great example of "friendlier to new players, but more options in total depth" right there.  I'm actually really excited by that prospect.

5. If you haven't noticed (you have, I'm sure), I've started referring to knowledge as science.  I just feel like that's more common to the genre, honestly.  While we're lowering barriers to entry...

6. As for what to call core AI worlds, I feel like those should probably be "AI Homeworlds," since the explanation of "what is a core world" is always "it's the AI homeworld."   Having some sort of nasty symbol for "scary stuff" that is basically those special units that are worse than a V seems like a good idea to me.

7. I've made a new "Section 6: Terminology Changes" based on the above.

8. Hacking was gone?  I don't really recall saying hacking was gone, although maybe I said or implied I wanted to remove it.  Maybe that thread about hacking came to the conclusion it needed to die?  I haven't poked my head back in there lately (there are a lot of threads, and I'm juggling the best I can, and circling back to each periodically).  Anyhow, I think of hacking as being alive at this point, though I was more iffy a bit ago.

9. That said, the other fixes to the stuff relating to advanced factories and core fabs was that once you control one, you can build them from any space dock.  The player warp gates are something I'd like to see die in a fire if we can: those were always a band-aid, and I'd prefer to avoid having band-aids as much as possible.  The change mentioned there really solves that issues, which was the most fundamental one (that meaning that even if the position was defensible, the situation was annoying).  Hacking adds that final touch to indefensible positions, of course.

[Nuc_Temeron]

I love this new version. Excellent!

[Tridus]

8. Hacking was gone?  I don't really recall saying hacking was gone, although maybe I said or implied I wanted to remove it.  Maybe that thread about hacking came to the conclusion it needed to die?  I haven't poked my head back in there lately (there are a lot of threads, and I'm juggling the best I can, and circling back to each periodically).  Anyhow, I think of hacking as being alive at this point, though I was more iffy a bit ago.

I don't think it did, no. But you've also never said hacking is in, and it was never clear just how much you wanted it in, since you were iffy on it earlier. That seems to have changed some.

A lot of the talk has been coached in "if hacking is in" type stuff, because it wasn't clear. If it's in, yay.

[kasnavada]

Yes, that does seem safer & more fun than the original idea.

I'm a bit sad at the reduction of ship types, but then again... having a bulletproof fighter of the immortal whales =)...

[PokerChen]

Hmmm. A mixed feeling.

> Candy Techs
 The idea is powerful and enticing (Path of Exile works the same way with skill augmentation). However this can - in fact, probably will, - encounter significant balance implications down the track. For the sake of illustration, if we take Wingflier's trangle ship model (no hull types, use damage/armor/RoF/AoE), armoured+piercing+AoE fighters will end up either being able to counter everything, or the upgrade being severely limited so as to be almost useless.
 Before we commit to this functionality, we should discuss its roles in player progression. Should players gain power via:
 - getting more ships by unlocking more base ship-types, or
 - or augmenting their existing ships?

 One method to make this work would be such that every "chassis" (my term for the base unit-types that players use or unlock: fighters, bombers, blade vortices, etc.) can be augmented by a limited number of candy techs, say up to 3 max (maybe higher for starships). This prevents players from developing super-expensive but super-OP hero bombers by concentrating all candy techs on one unit.

> Tech tree itself
Ultimately, I prefer separating research and development: Large knowledge costs to expose a new mechanic, followed by small costs to adapt this to ship-types.
 Example combining tech tree with candy tech:
 (1) Lasers are a base knowledge unlock path that provides additional anti-fighter punch. After first adding lasers, Players commit to retrofit fighters, and combat flagships. This retrofit takes up one of the available "candy tech:" slots: "fighters" become "laser fighters". "Flagships" become "Laser-PD Flagships".

 (2) An capturable research station provides a small number of new knowledge directions: "teleportation matrix", and "knock-back". Players again must choose to commit knowledge to understand these potential techs, and after that to choose which chassis to receive the candy tech. "Laser Fighters" become "Teleporting Laser Fighters", who can teleport a short distance to mitigate the range gap.

 (3) Another capturable station actually provides a new chassis, "Conductive-frame". This provides access to a new base unit type/chassis, and comes with a default special ability that we believe should not be widely available, like the ability to EMP-paralyse its target. Such technology clearly cannot be candy techs available to all of the player's assets.


> Elongating ship names "X Y Z fighter of A B C"
Too unwieldy for my tastes. It's an esoteric text-spam that's hostile to new players - who will probably lose the essential noun Fighter amidst all the adjectives.

[Pumpkin]

I will note that IIRC, 'candy' upgrades for ship types were not originally in AI War Classic because they interfered with your ability to build an intuition about how fights would go.

My main remark is basically that. Please don't do "small little insignificant upgrades" all over the place. Also, how would AI use these candy techs? I can only predict battles (and the whole game) will be even less clear.

I would rather like something similar to what Blizzard made in Starcraft II - Heart of the Swarm. (I don't remember that kind of thing in Wings of Liberty and I was disappointed in the series and didn't buy Legacy f the Void.) Thing is: in the campaign, each unit had one among two upgrades which really twisted it. The choice was interesting because each upgrade were exclusive, had impact, and the overall complexity was very limited because it was only one per unit (and the choice range was two per unit).

That would be something that I would love to see in AI War 2: two (or three, but no more) mutually-exclusive "twists" for units, with a deep impact. (And only one choice per unit.)

Here are some examples:
Note: they are just illustration. I won't even support these specific ideas if they would be actually proposed. My point is to present
* Fighters: either double their speed or make them tanky (immune to instakill, +armor; bulletproof if you insist but I'm strongly averse to ammo-immunities)
* Frigates: either give them small AoE as a crowd-control theme (basically turn them into long-range grenade launchers) or make them more apt against big targets (even lower RoF, higher damage, ignore armor, hull bonuses against structural and/or starships, or something).
* Bombers: no idea, right now.
* XXX: either give them cloak or double their speed (sneak or raid)
* etc

Wether or not this would be reserved to fleetships or extensible to starships and turrets, I dunno. But frankly, I like the tech "tree" as it currently is. (I'm actually trying to sold you on an interesting middle-ground to prevent "small upgrades" from creeping in.)

[Steelpoint]

The only problem I can see with the idea of 'candy techs' is that it can lead to two annoyances.

• Possible oversatuation of technology options which could lead to new player confusion.
• Some candy techs being obsolete or considered useless in the meta. Sort of akin to games where everyone just picks three or so skills/items out of twenty options because those three are always the best to get.

[Tridus]

The only problem I can see with the idea of 'candy techs' is that it can lead to two annoyances.

• Possible oversatuation of technology options which could lead to new player confusion.
• Some candy techs being obsolete or considered useless in the meta. Sort of akin to games where everyone just picks three or so skills/items out of twenty options because those three are always the best to get.

Both of those are a problem with ships right now, except that if you don't like a given tech, you can choose another one more easily than you can get a different bonus ship (given that hacking an ARS isn't free and you are stuck with whatever fabs you can reach).

[PokerChen]

@ Steelpoint and Tridus: Both good points - these are normally resolved in Classic by not offering players every tech in a given game. Although, even in the sub-selection it's fairly obvious to a veteran in an arbitrary game as to which to choose, that's simply the nature of balance and meta.

@ Pumpkin: One should note that Heart of the Swarm campaigns upgrades are explicitly designed to be both OP, and have the player choose how they want to be OP. This requires a lot more thought to insert into AI War: I would expect the AI to also have these twists available to them, and we can't really twist triangle ships away from their role (twist by changing roles is inherently more balanced than twist by spawning MOAR banelings on death).

[Pumpkin]

@ Pumpkin: One should note that Heart of the Swarm campaigns upgrades are explicitly designed to be both OP, and have the player choose how they want to be OP. This requires a lot more thought to insert into AI War: I would expect the AI to also have these twists available to them, and we can't really twist triangle ships away from their role (twist by changing roles is inherently more balanced than twist by spawning MOAR banelings on death).

Sure. This idea was just to participate in the conversation. But personally, I don't like this idea of many small technologies and twists at all.

[Misery]

I will note that IIRC, 'candy' upgrades for ship types were not originally in AI War Classic because they interfered with your ability to build an intuition about how fights would go.

Wait, wouldn't this STILL be a problem?  I went and read the full description of this mechanic, and the very first thought I had was "So it's like in any other RTS games, where you get such and such upgrade for a unit type", and that makes me think of all of the typical problems that go along with that.  And the intuition thing is certainly a big one.

It might be different for others, but I'd get confused as hell trying to deal with that.  I have enough trouble remembering what things do as it is, without having to remember what they do CURRENTLY as opposed to all the time.  I always had that same issue in other RTS games.  Purely upgrading Mark Levels in this has always just seemed so much better due to how very straightforward it is.  It's a very easy to understand (and look at) thing in an otherwise incredibly complicated game.

[tadrinth]

I will note that IIRC, 'candy' upgrades for ship types were not originally in AI War Classic because they interfered with your ability to build an intuition about how fights would go.

Wait, wouldn't this STILL be a problem? 

Well, now that I think about it, the fight intuition thing was more an argument against candy techs like 'your ships deal +1 damage'.  I don't think those are planned, so maybe it won't still be a problem.

As far as memorization goes, I think the intent is to have way fewer fleet ship types, more like 10-20 rather than 80, and then a similar-ish number of candy techs.  So that's only 40 things to remember (20 ships, 20 techs) rather than 80 distinct ship types that all have their own quirks.  Less total memorization that way.

You still have to put the ship and all its techs together in your head on the fly to figure out what it actually does, though.  That may be problematic.

It sounds super easy to implement on the dev side, though, so we may as well try it out.