Design Directions: HQ Tech Trees

[Garrett]

By all means change the HQ even implement certain "routes" but not a perk based change.

That I 100% agree with you on. Just your last post I wasn't sure if you meant any changes or perk based.

 

[Matthew]

By all means change the HQ even implement certain "routes" but not a perk based change.

That I 100% agree with you on. Just your last post I wasn't sure if you meant any changes or perk based.

In heindsight i realised that so tried to emphasise it in the new post rather than editing the old one

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

Indeed the problem is swapping, not the perk system. I made sure that the benefits would only go to those currently in the alliance; a perk like -20% cost on buying land had to be rejected because of the potential for abuse. Something needs to be done about the alliance swapping issue, but the current system's potential for abuse should not affect our ideas going forward.

 

[Matthew]

Indeed the problem is swapping, not the perk system. I made sure that the benefits would only go to those currently in the alliance; a perk like -20% cost on buying land had to be rejected because of the potential for abuse. Something needs to be done about the alliance swapping issue, but the current system's potential for abuse should not affect our ideas going forward.

What you are almost suggesting there is static alliances though, which is bad. I would rather have people swap alliances than be commited to one alliance till the end of the round. Some alliances never work out and leaders lose interest, what if you happened to be in one of those alliance? I don't like this perk based idea you have suggested at all. Go online on Call of Duty or something and play one of those games. People who use juggernaught are at a massive advantage unless the person firing in their face is using increased damage.

It just doesn't fit the dyanmics of this game at all imo. Having units with boosts based on HQ techs would certainly be the day i quit.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

I'm certainly not suggesting that if you join an alliance you're in it all round. The alliance swap discussion is a subject for another thread, but certainly there is something we can do that will work on all sides. Maybe you can only join a certain alliance 3 times in a round, or something.


Also, perhaps you don't understand how much I want to emphasize that the bonuses will be minor. If you look at the ones I suggested, I highly doubt you'll find any that are overpowered, or even more than mildly powerful. Are you suggesting that +5% base bounty will hand an alliance the round? It won't. All it will do is give that alliance a little advantage attacking, while another alliance might get a little advantage defending. I wouldn't want to see any of this implemented unless all the branches were balanced.

 

[No-Dachi]

In addition to any unit changes and tech three changes any new HQ implementation must include a way of having more HQ units that currently possible, at a price, sure, but imho there should be a real option to "hide" your troops at a HQ in times of need. At the moment a fairly large sized player can take out an entire HQ by himself, and hence this will never be an option for the smaller alliances.

 

[willymchilybily]

finally read the suggestions from eveyone. first of all polo that advanced haxors option should be replaced because with your plugin alone its easy to see what tech a player is on and how long they have been teching thier new development for. making that option obsolete, or pointless.

the way i see this option is we want to give HQ's some use. and some bonuses i think may be required in the techs to make it a more attractive option thn solo. to me the allaince's new HQ techs should achieve:

• An advantage to be allied, mainly the advantages work against other allies to stop solo's complaining its not fair, but also encourage them to go allied
  
  
• not add a much more complex level of play to the game, but still give a few bonuses
  
  
• bonuses should be different depedning on how your alliance tree branches on the techs
  
  
• most importantly the best bonuses are gained for your allaincee when war is waged,

i like the three tech system

Agressive:

• - small increase to base bounty% (when attackin allaince only? or against everyone?)
• - waging war is quicker(less ticks to wait). [when at war very low 1-2% increase steal from target allaince, objective to minimise people running nd make it much more crippling if they do)
• - additional HQ units designed to kill enemy not defend own alliance (maybe a nice stunn unit, and nice lethals)

Defensive:

• - Alliance players recieve increase base insurance % (& maybe an equal % injury increase) (when being attacked by an allaince only? or against everyone? against every one make war more likely than just using solo helpers)
• - either reacting to war is quicker/or a relatively very small base insurance for losses from defending?[when at war greatly increased likelyhood of land caps on enemy]
• - additiona; HQ units designed to defend alliance. not be so good agressively (units to stop land losses etc, maybe be some immobiles at the HQ and disablers, distracting units)

Intel and systems

• - alliance players get cheaper intel, (hax/spy/flyby/driveby) with less chance of the intel appearing in the news of the target, in addition any intel done against the allaince members is very very likely to be detected/and the person responsible is also more likely to be detected (bonus only given to intel on/by allainces?)
• - HQ data scrambler, when at war with an allaince any incoming from that alliance will also have a value attached, showing a rough valuation of the mob (in some arbitary unit) that is attacking. (making it easy to detect fake)? imba over power ? (nb. only applicable when mob is visible, stealth fakes still have good potential)
• - Standard HQ units, no extras, but more techs that improve the allaince? (suggestions needed)

 

[DarkSider]

Well the winged alliances aren't the exact problem of the HQ's with bonuses because even one alliance can develop a separate HQ in an almost empty alliance and when the time comes they switch all the members to take use of the other bonus.
To counter this if you still want a HQ giving bonuses to players, then the HQ stance can change at any time in a round with a short delay ofc (from defensive to aggresive to economic according to needs). Tho i'd rather have players choose "playstyle" at begining of the round which will give them those bonuses for the entire round.
Imo HQ's would be better with HQ geos, steal it's own acres and disable donations/tax and then have a 3 techtrees with different purposes. One which provides fast but not too strong lethals like HQ humvees, a heavy HQ with tanks and maybe a let flak/expensive distractor HQ.

 

[Garrett]

Nameless - specialized unit bonuses is what has helped destroy the unit balance to begin with. Boosting bonuses is just bad for the game. You put down your idea, opened it up to discussion. So far that idea hasn't really gained traction - so please look at retinkering? maybe different bonuses or more details on how you would achieve stuff through techs?


remember throwing down routes/bonuses/vaugery can be an awesome kickstart, but like in this discourse now - there has been no support for 'bonuses' no matter how minor... if you still feel like 'bonuses are the way of the future for HQ's... then how about a layout of what techs you need to get there... and not just the tech name... how does the tech tree start... what must you get before you get to the end result of your idea... approx how much game time? how does it fit balance-wise with the game?


^^ this is what i find lacks from most suggestions... i mean even polo's routes ideas still are just units and numbers... not when they come into the tree - how they fit. the purposes of each. time and time again I just watch people throw up

'god it'd be great if i got a handjob. god it'd be great if we can boost production. god it'd be great if we could have more bounty. god it'd be great if i could have this and that.'

however these things are always thrown out without the downside. and 10% bonus you give yourself goes to others as well. you can only penalize the 'top' so much to counteract bonuses and then you really are still ruining gameplay.

so I'm not discounting your idea, but now you really need to provide more detail to have any chance of going anywhere as there seeems to be a lack of support.

 

[Azzer]

as in my design:resistance thread, I think techs should follow only 3 paths: intel/obfuscation, offence, defence.

I think these 3 paths would be the most ideal... it's not just simple, but it somehow "makes sense" in terms of a HQ. Attack, Defend, and then Intel/Anti-Intel. "Economy" related stuff I can only imagine feeling out of place, and/or being abusable (having 1 man run your economy wing, with others joining it whenever they sell up/buy land/do whatever to get the bonus)...

Going on from your other replies in this thread though, I was a bit confused about some of your comments... were you saying... it shouldn't affect the players directly - as in - there shouldn't be a bonus that gives, say, +10% attack power to hippies & yobs (if so I agree with you - I don't think any such "augmenting" of units or unit abilities should be possible, it's why I got rid of experience afterall)... or were you saying no bonuses at all that affect individual ID's in an alliance? (other "bonuses" could be something like... every member gets 1 extra mob slot for defending purposes only or something).

If you do mean the latter (no "bonuses" of any kind that directly affect each member of an ally), would you say the best way forward would be things that only benefit the HQ itself - eg, ability to prevent people hax0ring/spying the HQ... ummm... extra ETA view boost... and other such stuff (without looking back I can't think off-hand of stuff that only applies to the "HQ").

Anyway, while having an IRC discussion 2 nights ago on this very subject, another idea was brought up that perhaps warrants it's own thread (I may split this and any replies to this in to a new thread later, if necessary/if lots of replies come of it):
Have a special HQ unit, for now call it an "engineer"... every alliance can hire them... if you attack an enemy HQ, and at the end of the 3rd tick, X amount (say 500k) "Engineers" manage to fire, you can "Disable" the enemy HQ for a set period (1 hour, 3 hours, whatever, then it automatically comes back "online") - while disabled, it could temporarily cancel all benefits of the HQ - like, no ETA view boost, no ETA defence boosts in the alliance, things like that.
Perhaps the idea by itself isn't so hot/needs some work - but the aim of the idea was to really integrate HQ's more in to the game - encourage alliances to want to attack enemy HQ's and be forced to defend their own HQ when it comes under attack, a real benefit for attacking the HQ's themselves (imagine a well planned war where you manage to get your engineers in an disable the enemy HQ 30 minutes before you start attacking all their members, when their ETA view will now be crippled down to 1 or 2 ETA view). This "stat" (how many times you disable/get disabled) could be used similar to the originally planned/intended "war stat" (perhaps not though).

Anyway, was just a vague brainstorm idea, maybe it'll inspire some other HQ related ideas by posting it here.

 

[Garrett]

snip

ok hopefully i'm summing up correctly...

1) no unit bonuses. you are correct in that. eta viewing and other things are bonuses - but we could label them as HQ perks as I mean bonuses to pertain to units or individual production... to me the game is a mad dash for acres... so if you want more individiual production - get more acres and fight for your life.

2) I don't want an economy wing. so I agree with you there, but I have ideas for HQ expansion that would have the HQ have it's own economy. still wouldn't be a major part of the game play or making even the top more overloaded with goodies.

3) the engineer idea might work, but i think this idea HEAVILY relies on YOUR interpretation of the HQ and the direction you want to go with it. In some of my ideas I don't think it would work and other revisions of my idea it could.


I may try to catch you on IRC shortly (as in today a few days) ... It's going to be difficult depending on your sleepy schedule... but if you want to talk about HQ and it's direction - I think an IRC convo would be more suitable to kinda iron out the direction you are looking for/most comfortable with... then I/you/we could post more about the HQ here.

I'm not interested in playing or looking for favors, but I've always found the potential of this place to be enormous and I get a righteous fury when I see the potential squandered in my eyes. So I'd be happy to talk theory and ideas. It's what I do all day and what I love to do.

 

[Matthew]

as in my design:resistance thread, I think techs should follow only 3 paths: intel/obfuscation, offence, defence.

Going on from your other replies in this thread though, I was a bit confused about some of your comments... were you saying... it shouldn't affect the players directly - as in - there shouldn't be a bonus that gives, say, +10% attack power to hippies & yobs (if so I agree with you - I don't think any such "augmenting" of units or unit abilities should be possible, it's why I got rid of experience afterall)... or were you saying no bonuses at all that affect individual ID's in an alliance? (other "bonuses" could be something like... every member gets 1 extra mob slot for defending purposes only or something).

Thats what I mean yes. I am 100% against these augments/perks

 

[Hobbezak]

Anyway, while having an IRC discussion 2 nights ago on this very subject, another idea was brought up that perhaps warrants it's own thread (I may split this and any replies to this in to a new thread later, if necessary/if lots of replies come of it):
Have a special HQ unit, for now call it an "engineer"... every alliance can hire them... if you attack an enemy HQ, and at the end of the 3rd tick, X amount (say 500k) "Engineers" manage to fire, you can "Disable" the enemy HQ for a set period (1 hour, 3 hours, whatever, then it automatically comes back "online") - while disabled, it could temporarily cancel all benefits of the HQ - like, no ETA view boost, no ETA defence boosts in the alliance, things like that.

hehe that reminds me of the time when I was a new player, and someone convinced me that if someone attacked your HQ, and you didn't defend, that all developments from the HQ were destroyed (empty lands etc ).
I have to say I quite like this concept of being able to temporarily disable the HQ-devs, an HQ would be much more important during a war (as imho it should, atm you get no penalty for letting your HQ unguarded).
In this context I'm not quite sure if stealing from a HQ would be a good or a bad thing. Stealing from HQ could be stealing a certain percentage from every player in that ally, as suggested before. Maybe if a balanced % could be found, it could work?

The other ideas of certain HQ devs giving bonuses to individual players are not really my cup of tea. As Garrett said, if you want more production, go steal more land.
And giving bonuses to individual units would make the planning of attacks a lot more difficult, as you would have to know the nature of the HQ of the ally you're attacking, before you can make decent estimates how what unit will do how much damage. But maybe that could make battles more interesting, I don't know.

Conclusion: I would be really interested to see the HQ as an extra actor in the game, apart from the players. But making it influence the players by bonuses etc, would need to be really balanced and should not be too complicated, so the emphasis would remain on battles, and not on getting the right kind of HQ.

 

[DarkSider]

I quite love the engineer thing.
I'm always in favor for introduction of ingame tactics, atm the only tactics availeble are defence mob / attack mob / declare war. Hell there's no tactics whatsoever about acre types at least or different attack types etc.
Possibly the engineers could only be sent in wars and they are given a certain task to complete like:
- disable defence boost
- disable eta 3+ view against only your alliance members
- give members in that ally only a 33% chance of an intel scan to be succesfull, rest 66% they get a 'matrix' screen. (At first look nothing important but should be quite anoying and you can loose the idea of your plan while hacking again and again)
- disable defence with HQ units (they can be evacuated tho)
- Plague (a small percentage of members seeds are lost every tick for a few hours)
- Sabotage ( Planting seeds give a reduced planting rate )

Maybe a few more But yeah i think this comes from utopia - the game i played hardcore before bush and i miss all the thief and mage spells that could soften up your target and it took a bit of skill to know what to cast, in what order, what's your aim, how much you should focus on 1 target and how much mana you should consume since having lower mana let yourself weaker against enemy thiefs/mages.

 

[Garrett]

Ok resurrecting this thread, rather than making a new one....

doing the suggestion in stages... as if there is little to no support or if azzer doesn't like the direction then I want to change and tweak parts before going from a-z and tying everything together and everyone possibly saying 'no' in one fail (yup meant fail and not fell) swoop.

The HQ lacks and redesigning the HQ and it's tactics are the only things that are probably going to keep me playing the game. So this topic I'm heavily interested in.

In this post I'm going to start tackling the 'HQ Units'. Once I have units down then I move on to the tech tree with costs and dev times. Then I move on to HQ and Leader Functions. Then finally I will tie all the pieces together in a streamlined dynamic post. These posts are to start generating feedback for direction so we can all get excited about a new HQ possibilities. There are no 'Power Ratings' or 'Init' right now but they are forthcoming.

As previously stated, I think the Units/Tech should be Offense Defense Intel aligned.

Generic HQ units. All units will belong to one of the 3 branches. However, there will be basic access to *some* units from all 3 branches.

forgive formatting I hit submit and it's all over the place and so now i have to just put it up here S for stealth and I for immobile

Offensive Unit
Privates close LET
Officers all LET
Commandos all LET (S)?
Predator Drones r/m LET
Tactical Assault Squad all LET (S)?
Tanks all LET
Weapons Platform r/m (orbital) all (mobile) LET I?

Defense
Attack Dogs close LET
Camoflaged Gun Nests all LET (S) I
Fortified Encampment all LET I
Humvees all LET
Peacekeepers all/stun LET
Defensive Batteries all LET I
Orbital Defense Platform r/m LET I

Intel
engineers close NLT
mis-informants m/close NLD
search lights eta 5 viewing construct
spin doctors all NLD
data scrambler HQ hax/spy scramble construct
cyber terrorists all/stun LET

Now one thing I did have down for Intel was 'Blackout' I didn't know if I wanted to make this a stunning unit and do something with cyber terrorists... or if blackout was going to be the tech for CT's... because originally blackout would affect individual hax/spies... I don't think this is a coding possibility....

Azzer - would you be able to change an individual's mob to show only as stealth even tho it's not a stealth unit? Ie. someone has blackout in their alliance... any mob sent would show as an unseen force to an unknown target... I don't know if that's feasible...

I think I had another idea for blackout but it escapes at the moment and probably will just try for another construct or unit. I can't make up my mind if i want the weapons platform to be a mobile kill everything unit or if it would be an orbital weapon system. I'm leaning on orbital weapon system as it would be in line with the data scrambler and defense option and would help my tech tree balance.

Thoughts on this please.

EDIT: OH OH OH I think I was going to replace blackout with a security light upgrade (like thermals or something) and have stealth mobs reveal 1 tick earlier.

 

[Garrett]

OH GENERICS!! mah bad...

(available to all no matter tech route)
privates
dogs
search lights
mis-informants
camoflaged gun nests.
officers


Once units are sorted, I will put up a tech tree for discussion. I already have the skeleton of the tech tree in excel and getting ready to move it to visio to make it easier... and i think from now on I will post links or pics rather than trying to battle the forum editor.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Garrett can you tell us what some of the more obscure units do? Like what does an engineer do?

Very interesting proposal though. I like the idea.

Am I thinking too far ahead for unit bonuses (+ and -) ? Would be nice to see some realstic-ish unit bonuses in there, eg Tanks doing % less damage vs airborne units etc.

 

[Garrett]

engineer. close. nlt. they disable. their description would be akin to 'a corps of engineers. software, hardware, civil and mechanical'... basically they 'disable' a wide variety of things. they are a combat unit. all things unless labelled construct are for combat. they just have names to go with their branch along with their uses. try to think of intel as a 'protestor' lite route with some other fun things going on.

bonuses. I want to stay away from them if at all possible.

 

[Dark_Angel]

I agree with the three-branch route thing, it makes sense. Nothing overly complex about it, yet theres the potential there to drastically improve the current route system.

Generic HQ units. All units will belong to one of the 3 branches. However, there will be basic access to *some* units from all 3 branches.

This bit, however, is quite complex. Presumably you mean you can have units from all three branches, but only 2-3 from each? Perhaps that's how you'd go about it on a practical level, there being a cap on the number of developments you can have from each branch? OR an overall maximum number of HQ developments, like 6-7?

I don't see how else it'd work? (The development of one unit/item from one branch, then locking the development of another, and so on, could be quite difficult to code??)

 

[Garrett]

as far as the tech tree classification goes, all units/structures will fall into a category. HOWEVER, you will have to choose a branch. Basic building/pre-req buildings will allow you access to the basic 6.

i guess I should have started with the tech tree first, or wish that when i was trying to use the code editor, it hadn't submitted when I was trying to preview. but once I say start devving for commandos, the other units/tech structures turn off just like in a players development screen.

don't get hung up on mechanics. right now I want to talk about what units people want to see. whether or not stealth HQ troops are a good idea and if an extra eta reveal is not unbalanced.

let's take a step back because like I said I want to do this in parts and after a couple pms back and forth with azzer I may make a new thread and restructure how I present the idea...

I want to go in stages as interest develops so the 'idea' can be fluid and tweaked to something that fits rather than go top down with all this detail and then be protective of the idea that it has to go in a certain way... first I want to lay down the foundation of units leading up to power ratings and inits, then down to tech tree and dev costs/times, etc and so on.

maybe I should start over with a synopsis of what all the parts will contain.