Tiered Developments - Adding Tactical Dimension

[CFalcon]

[size=-1]

2) I think people should spend more time teching, to make people think more carefully about routes - the strategies of how routes interact in a non-fully teched environment are gone far far too quickly imo. It would add much more depth to the game if teching wasn't just a mad rush, but a slow, tactical process.

Couldn't agree more on this point. I think teching should take a lot longer than it currently does so that early teched units become much more important and there's a much greater decision to be made in whether to buy units or carry on teching. Of course this would require substantial balancing.

[/size]

This got me thinking about how to extend the teching stage without simply increasing the prices/tech times of developments, which really just add boredom and frustration rather than adding tactical dimension. Really, alot of routes miss out on all the fun at the start, so this suggestion is aimed at getting them more involved, as well as making the entire development aspect of the game more tactical.


So, my suggestion is to reduce the development times and costs on all technologies, maybe to 2/3 of what they are at the moment.

However, once a development is done, you only have access to a weakened form of the unit. This will allow you to get out, have some fun and start using units fairly early. These tier 1 units will maybe have 50% of the stats of their current counterparts.

To gain access to the full unit stats you must then do a second development (after which all your old tier 1 units are upgraded to tier 2 to stop confusing mixed tier mobs). This second development would again cost about 2/3 of current unit developments, bringing the total cost of a full tech to 4/3 of what it is currently. This will make the total development times longer, but it will also break them up. Rather than going from useless to dominating with the difference of a single tech, a very black and white situation, there would then be shades of grey as well.

A crucial aspect in making the teching aspect of the game more dynamic is being able to move straight on to the next development after having only completed the tier 1 tech. This presents you with the choice of whether to rush for the next dev or whether to upgrade your current units to be efficient (eg. a pom might upgrade their gurus before progressing, while a military player could go straight for officers, not bothering with upgrading privates).

The other crucial aspect is that in order to do the tier 2 development, you must have completed the previous tier 2 development. So you can't do all the tier 1 developments up to, for example, strikers, and then upgrade to tier 2 strikers before having upgraded all the previous units to tier 2. This then presents another dynamic to teching. If, continuing the striker example, you went through all the tier 1s to strikers straight away you would gain an early ability to fire AD before CWs, however you will then be stuck for a long time having to go back through all the tier 2 techs on privs, officers, hws and grens, before being able to get your full striker units.

Just a note on mechanics, I was thinking that maybe new names are made for all the tier 1 units, so tier 1 privates might be called recruits, tier 1 sleeping gas traps might be called tear gas traps. This would make them distinguishable in battle reports. Alternatively, all unit names could have a number next to them eg Private(1) to denote tier 1. OR, the tier could be something only noted in the tooltip when hovering over a hax0r report, and discrepancies in battle reports would have to be figured out. To be honest, my favourite idea is the new names suggestion, it would add something fresh to the game without required major reworking or balancing.

Another very nice extension of this is being able to put in tier 3 developments, which would have to cost a fair bit to stop them coming out in the early game, but which could then upgrade early game units to make them useful and relevant in the end game. The idea of making officers, automotons, heavy thugs, serfs and so on actually have an relevant role in the end game is something I'd *really* like to see. At the moment, for most routes at least, you develop as fast as possible and then stick to only 2 or 3 units.

Just think of the tactical possibilities that could be opened up! Tier 3 units could completely change the shape of certain routes and completely shake up the current rigid structure of SO beats thug, thug beats PoM, PoM beats SO, and so on. What if spike traps could be upgraded to tier 3 NLD targeters? At the expense of killing so much flak, another tactical choice. Or if HTs could be upgraded to last tick SA killers, stopping thugs being so rigidly mid/range only. The possibilities are mouth watering. Obviously take alot of thought and balancing, but by introducing tier 1 and tier 2 developments the possibility is then there for tier 3 extensions.

The beauty of tier 3 is being able to address the current lack of balance in certain places (see Polos thread in bush discussions) WITHOUT having to completely scrap routes or completely rework the entire game dynamic. It would also do something to remove the repetition and stagnation, which although not yet major due to the introduction of age 5, is still something that makes oldies leave and which will only become more of a problem as the rounds go by.

Now I'm mostly brain storming aloud, this is far from a complete suggestion, so please dive in with any thoughts.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Tiered units sounds like a pretty good way of pro-longing overall development times, whilst at the same time adding more depth to battle-gameplay.

The only problem I really have with this suggestion is that it sounds extremely complex. Some might argue that the current route system is complex enough, pre-battle analysis being a skill likened to almost a fine art

It takes a fair amount of knowledge/experience already to make good pre/during battle decisions - having tiered units would further complicate this.

While it would certainly slow down overall route completion, and indeed provide a lot of scope for very interesting battles, it would also massively complicate a route system that already takes a fair amount of time to learn the ins-and-outs of.

Interesting though.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

TL;DR

However, I absolutely agree that developments should take longer. Some routes are nearly teched a week in, and even robos don't take too long for anybody with a few acres.

 

[Scorpio]

Mmm, it's a pretty good idea CFalcon, you've been thinking about it, nice

I see the same problem as DA though, it would be pretty impossible to predict a battle...

Can you see who has what kind of tier developments done? If you can't, then if there's a bunch of tier 1 strikers, tier 2 strikers, some tier 3 SA's and tier 1 & 2 assassins defending it's going to be pretty hard to know if you are going to win that battle or not ...

+ it makes it even more complicated for newcomers


I'd rather have an increase of costs / ETA again, than to have this tier-system tbh


<3 Falcon

 

[Changer]

Its a very well thought out idea, which could work. Would take a lot of balancing though to ensure one route wasn't more powerful at a certain point in its developments.

Would give players more tactics to the round decide what to tech and what to improve. Would take a while to get used to even to the more experienced players.

 

[CFalcon]

Mmm, it's a pretty good idea CFalcon, you've been thinking about it, nice

I see the same problem as DA though, it would be pretty impossible to predict a battle...

Can you see who has what kind of tier developments done? If you can't, then if there's a bunch of tier 1 strikers, tier 2 strikers, some tier 3 SA's and tier 1 & 2 assassins defending it's going to be pretty hard to know if you are going to win that battle or not ...

+ it makes it even more complicated for newcomers


I'd rather have an increase of costs / ETA again, than to have this tier-system tbh


<3 Falcon

Hmm, I hadn't thought about stealth units. The original plan was that tiers would be visible an hack reports, but obviously that doesn't apply to stealth. I don't know whether that should just be another advantage stealth has, or whether there should be another way of showing what tiers the enemy has developed.

As to making it too complicated, I'm not convinced it would make it too complicated. If you can understand what a certain unit does, then really it's not a big leap from there to tier 1 = half health/damage, tier 2 = normal health/damage.
I'd agree that keeping the game fairly simple is a good thing, and I normally oppose complexity for the sake of complexity. But I don't think that people would find this overly complicated, once they saw it in action. I do kinda sense a reaction to change in the complexity argument. And really, a little complexity for a big bonus to the game is worth it, surely?

Also, thinking through that example you gave made me think how initiative would work, and I guess it would work the same as now, defender always firing first regardless of tier. The only difference would be between allied units, and then tier 2 would fire first. That shouldn't make a major difference to battles, but it again does open up tactics I hadn't considered before: by having multi-tiered units you can get around flak layers more effectively, as your tier 2s cut out flak then your tier 1s fire on more valuable units. What fun this could create

 

[Scorpio]

I'm still in the doubting phase, want to hear more opinions. But it's a very nice idea, grats for coming up with that, you sexy, intelligent beast!

 

[Matthew]

I don't like it as it gives the higher scoring alliances an even larger lead at the start. Lets face it with the current state of developments middling ranking alliances are usually about 1 tech behind whereas top 5 are usually on par with techs but behind on land and troops. whereas if you introduce tier 1/2 units some players could do CW 1 and 2 without taking a break whereas others willl have to save lots lots longer. Yes it adds tactics and good timing which is the entire point but at no point will it be fun being smashed into oblivion by tier 2 units which cost the same as your tier 1 units which give you the same score.

 

[[Thinking]]

Tier three PB would be INSANE

 

[CFalcon]

at no point will it be fun being smashed into oblivion by tier 2 units which cost the same as your tier 1 units which give you the same score.

As opposed to the current situation, where you don't have any units at all, and still get smashed as you have to hoard funds for massive single developments.

Think about it, if a middling alliance player was able to do his developments in small stages, rather than having to hoard funds, his fund/seed score wouldn't put him in range of the top allies. AND, wouldn't you rather have access to some form of defence (particularly against flak attacks which are most prevalent during that part of the game), rather than being stuck with no way to defend yourself, waiting for that hugely long development to hurry up and finish?

I see what you're saying, that the top will be able to take advantage of certain aspects, HOWEVER, there are also aspects that will benefit the lower ranks, and I believe the two will cancel out. Just try to think about both

As to the tier 3 thing, don't take it as meaning a quick add on that will make your units stronger. That's not what I meant. I meant something that could only realistically be developed during the end game and which would make early units relevant. Talk of tier 3 secret agents or tier 3 PBs has nothing to do with what I suggested.

 

[Garrett]

wow. i likes your approach, but ultimately find it lacking to slide into the game.

well as far as having the tier in the hax, I don't agree with that at all. would rather see a slightly different naming convention rather than 'oh did i mistake that 1 for a 2?', 'a 3?! i thought it said 2, zomg' etc etc.

bringing it out to tiers definitely would have to take a large look at that whole balancing act... a stage 2 SO would/should beat a stage 1 pom until the pom catches up... but by how bad?

this round is a pretty crap round to judge stuff off of... less than 300 people have sent more than 70-90 attacks. the round is more than half over. this is beyond sad.

but that being said... take this round for example... some people are still tekking and a great host of people deleted to restart to either rush the top or for the top to better handle their enemies etc etc etc. so I'd see it as the top couple alliances are in the tier 2-3 range, but you still have all the village people not able to hold onto their land with the tier 1 stuff. without a powerblock and more competition for value, then there would be more acres and attacks and would be a richer playerbase income-wise... so it could work, but i see mass confusion for this suggestion in it's current state.

I like the approach to try and lengthen devs, early wars, etc... but I'm having trouble envisioning having fun with this suggestion. It's always been a difficulty with this game... how to revolutionize something with as little involvement as possible so it can be easily captured by azzman and implemented.

Your argument about there is nothing now is correct... however, I don't think we should have something for the sake of having something. Part of the game to me is snap judgements. imo, this would make 5 min pworlds unmanageable, let alone trying to organize D for a middling alliance that keeps getting attacked on world 1.

I want to have a suggestion to help tweak this idea, but I don't have it yet.

 

[Cheese]

I made a suggestion which quite alot of people liked.
But heres the same responce:
Bushtarion is already complicated this would just make it even more complicated at a ridiculous level.
Don't try arguing against it because lets face it, it's a nice idea but far too complicated for the average bush player.

 

[Scorpio]

Yap.

If you have different names for every tier, there's gonna be smegloads of names... And else you're going to get a headache calculatting the odds of a future battle. Imagine a resistance attack with a full screen full of units, times 2 or 3 with all the tiers... '

 

[Turnip2k]

Ok, this is a very nice idea - but I think all the extra units would clutter things up alot, as people have already said.

Possibly modify this, so that you have 2 developments for each unit tech. The first allows you to go onto the next tech, but gives you no unit. The second gives you the unit. This would be similar in the way that to get geo phys thieves you need to do two techs - the first one would let you advance onto the next tier, the second would give you the unit.

This would lengthen the teching process, but also allow people to tech up in a different order to other people. So for example, apaches :


Private base --> Officer Base --> Heavy Weps

.......|........................|.....................|
.......|........................|.....................|
.......v........................v.....................v
Private Unit...........Officer Unit..........Heavy weps unit

etc...
You could get straight to HW, without needed to get privates or officers as a unit - but you would still need to get the base developments of each to advance (which would take you longer and give you a long period of time without lethals at all). This would give alliances a whole new light on the game - you don't just give people routes anymore, you give them an order in which to tech up. It would add an extra dimension to the game, and make 2 people playing the same route very different assets. Alliances would have to think very hard about how to order the techs - if they go for too high a tier too early, they could be caught with their pants down and have nothing to defend themselves with should the enemy come knocking. By approptiately pricing and timing the techs, you can make this very well balanced.

 

[CFalcon]

I do prefer the neatness of your suggestion Turnip, looks like a decent compromise in breaking up developments without having lots of extra units.

My one concern is that this would completely cut out the early units for some routes, rather than encouraging early game play. SOs would just get traps then rush through to SAs, strikers would go straight for strikers, etc. and then rely on the alliance's poms and thugs to prop them up until they can bring out the high powered units. The original intention was to make early units more relevant, and I'm not sure this quite does it.

That said, maybe this could be achieved with a little tweaking and balancing. Your suggestion is certainly smoother and neater than mine.

 

[Garrett]

well early units is a good point, but most people rush past the early units unless it's guru, ht, sd, or sgts.

i wish between turnip and cfalcon there could be a whole 'wham, chocolate in my peanut butter moment' but the only thing i could think of to marry the 2 ideas is this:

Ok 2 tech's to get to the unit like geos as turnip says... You can do the private, then officers and have no unit... however you cannot do the unit techs out of turn? must have privates as a unit before you can finish the officers unit tech?

 

[Turnip2k]

well early units is a good point, but most people rush past the early units unless it's guru, ht, sd, or sgts.

i wish between turnip and cfalcon there could be a whole 'wham, chocolate in my peanut butter moment' but the only thing i could think of to marry the 2 ideas is this:

Ok 2 tech's to get to the unit like geos as turnip says... You can do the private, then officers and have no unit... however you cannot do the unit techs out of turn? must have privates as a unit before you can finish the officers unit tech?

So effectively make all devs cost more and take longer, but allow people to break the saving up into two parts and do it in a segmented fashion? It is certainly a less risky approach to this tiered thing, and probably worth trying out first for at least one round before / if any of the other stuff is done.

On your first comment - this is the case now, so what harm is there making it the case in the new scheme. If you make the techs cost the same, there is no difference to now. Also, I was thinking perhaps have an incremental cost increace depending on how many techs you skip over - so missing out 1 full unit tech costs no more, 2 techs causes the cost to go up by 10 or 20%, 3 techs by 20-40% etc.... But this many not be necessary, as long as all the techs are priced and costed in a well thought out manner.

Any increace in development cost is going to have to have a method of breaking up the saving, because it will get ridiculous trying to saving vast vast sums of money and keep the game interesting for the person saving (i.e. too much score to do any attacking, and you will make yourself a peach of a target for everyone).

 

[No-Dachi]

But what difference does it make, if you can tech up the techs to striker, but can't get the striker unit until you have all the previous units teched up?

 

[Turnip2k]

If the base techs were slightly more expensive, it gives you the option of when to save for the bigger techs. If times are good, you may want to rifle through 2 or 3 of the base techs and not bother getting any units. If your getting constantly hammered, then obviously you will want to quickly get some units to protect yourself.

It also breaks things up a little when saving, as explained before - but being able to advance along the base tier doesn't really need to happen for this to still be a factor (you could just cause each unit to be 2 techs).

 

[No-Dachi]

But where lies the advantage to "rifle" through the base techs, if you have to go back and do the rest anyway? How would you save time, or even money?

I might just be too damn dumb to get it, but please enlighten me.