Idea Major Simplification: Mark Level and Tech Tree Revisions

[x4000]

Okay, this is the new design on that: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdzU90psGas_3UFe23BLvsGQ8fclec49NmnbHfwkZ8w/edit#heading=h.9s53ob5ar9w1

Why the change from the original design, which you can now see in the gravyard section of the document?

1. This is something that sounded much better in the abstract, and the more Chris wrote it down the more small problems kept poking their head in.

2. Further, some of the larger issues were things that Keith had actually solved in the years since Chris was involved in AI War Classic, so they were moot anyway.

3. chemical_art had some cool ideas about candy tech ideas, and Mckloshiv had some cool ideas about some other branches of the tech tree.

4. Ultimately we will be improving the tech tree here, but not removing mark levels, and the result is something that is improved but not so dramatically different.

[Draco18s]

I am ok with this.
It offers new possibilities while retaining the essential "core" difference that made AI War stand out at the time in 2009.  That is, it'll be similar enough for the old guard that we can transition, while reducing some aspects of complexity on new players.

[x4000]

Cool beans.  I'm not sure what will really be less complex for new players in this new model, to be honest.  As much as I would like that to be the case, the only thing I can think of is that the interface is better.

[Draco18s]

Cool beans.  I'm not sure what will really be less complex for new players in this new model, to be honest.

Reduction in total number of unique units. No more bulletproof fighters, unless you candy-tech to make your fighters immune to bullets.
That right there simplifies one of the major complaints about the game: there being too many different units.  Other people laud it as something to be proud of, but it definitely scares off some people.
This change walks the knife edge, letting both options cooexist.

[Tridus]

This is less exciting to me, but probably safer. It does work, as a model. Adding some extra "candy" techs and maybe some other techs to specialize or otherwise improve things would be a nice option.

Is hacking coming back? The hacking options we have in Classic right now both fix some issues (ie: having to guard a fab that's just in an undefendable position) and provide a lot of neat things to do (design backup corruption, steaing designs, hacking ARS, etc). Not having all that stuff but retaining the other stuff would kind of feel like a step backwards to me, and the document kind of alludes to that by talking about how Keith already fixed some of the problems.

They're only "fixed" if the tools to fix them stick around, of course. If we go that way, I'm okay with that. The tech side is less interesting than the original proposal, but I love hacking and can certainly see what's being proposed now working well (with hacking).

[Captain Jack]

I kinda liked the other version but I was drifting to prefer this... and then you changed it. Hooray!

Any instances of the word “core” that take the meaning of “mark v” in AI War II will be promptly drug into the street and shot into the shape of a v.

...Can we make the tech tree in the shape of a V?   Oh and we can call any alternate designs "special forces"!

[Cinth]

If Core is getting executed then what do we call Core worlds now?

[chemical_art]

If Core is getting executed then what do we call Core worlds now?

I am confident we will find a new word for it quickly. We may decide "annoying" but I have confidence we will find a slightly more more euphemistic term soon.

[Tridus]

If Core is getting executed then what do we call Core worlds now?

I am confident we will find a new word for it quickly. We may decide "annoying" but I have confidence we will find a slightly more more euphemistic term soon.

Not sure we need to? Core Worlds are pretty obvious as a term, compared to "Core Bomber". They're the core of the AI network.

[Cinth]

If Core is getting executed then what do we call Core worlds now?

I am confident we will find a new word for it quickly. We may decide "annoying" but I have confidence we will find a slightly more more euphemistic term soon.

Not sure we need to? Core Worlds are pretty obvious as a term, compared to "Core Bomber". They're the core of the AI network.

It was a humor post.  There are several Core items that aren't ships that I'd like to just have executed  >D

[chemical_art]

If Core is getting executed then what do we call Core worlds now?

I am confident we will find a new word for it quickly. We may decide "annoying" but I have confidence we will find a slightly more more euphemistic term soon.

Not sure we need to? Core Worlds are pretty obvious as a term, compared to "Core Bomber". They're the core of the AI network.

It was a humor post.  There are several Core items that aren't ships that I'd like to just have executed  >D

It is a colloquial term. I only discovered the term in describing "core" human world which is an even more fluid term.

[Orelius]

Reduction in total number of unique units. No more bulletproof fighters, unless you candy-tech to make your fighters immune to bullets.

I don't actually get why making fighters bulletproof would even be an advantage, especially when fleets are so heterogeneous.  They won't be shot at by bullets, sure, but every single other shottype does just fine.  It doesn't even cause a reduction in optimal dps in most cases because the shell-based ships just shoot something else while missile frigates kill the bulletproof fighters.

[tadrinth]

I don't use bulletproof fighters because they're immune to bullets, I use them because they're immune to instakill. 

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.

I do like the idea of bolting a FF onto a stack of something, but mostly for defense (turret coverage) rather than offense. Only offensive FF I care about is champion shadow shields, and you could make those target and protect a unit if you wanted. 

[Orelius]

So what if they're immune to instakill?  That doesn't stop instakill shots from killing the rest of your non-instakill units instead.  It just means your bulletproof fighters die another way.  Unless for some reason you're doing bulletproof fighter + starship raids on ion cannons or something, but a transport full of raid starships can do that too.

[Tridus]

So what if they're immune to instakill?  That doesn't stop instakill shots from killing the rest of your non-instakill units instead.  It just means your bulletproof fighters die another way.  Unless for some reason you're doing bulletproof fighter + starship raids on ion cannons or something, but a transport full of raid starships can do that too.

Probably worth remembering that the exact implementation of what the candy does isn't important right now. Bulletproof fighters are just an example. Could very well be "armored fighter" or "longer range fighter" or "cloaked fighter".