Fewer production upgrades [NEW POLL]

[Zarel]

As promised... I'm right now somewhat dissapointed with the direction this project is going :-S Here's my post that I have prepared earlier, sorry that it's so long.

I just can't agree with everything that's going on with Warzone 2100 these days...

What "direction"? All I'm doing is asking for feedback on an idea. Is that suddenly a bad thing? It's not like I'm going to do it if so many people are against it.

1st you wanted to get rid of structural requirements for research designs, now this

Getting rid of the structure requirements was a good idea, and you still haven't given any reasons otherwise. <_<

Zydonk wrote some nice lines in the last "rebalance" topic and I can't but copy some of them here:

"But a lot of what I'm reading here seems to have little to do with WZ itself and more to do with the kind of game individual players want to be comfortable with. As such, the modifications sought have little or nothing to do with fairness or rewarding play, but more to do with fitting WZ to the comfort zones of people who may never have engaged with the WZ vanilla." I'm still very much agreeing with this myself.

I don't think that's a very fair characterization of what's going on. The modifications are about nothing but fairness and rewarding play. I don't know what you mean by "comfort zones", but I'm pretty sure it's inaccurate.

In any case, you'll need to be less vague for me to actually reply. I really can't tell what you're dissatisfied with.

I don't know if you think much about the future of this great game, but I do... and I think that if such "rebalances" will go on, warzone will diminish in to mediocrity and oblivion very fast. Therefor I can't agree with this, since it's effectively CHANGING and REDUCING one of the major aspects of Warzone - research & upgrade :rolleyes:

Psh. If your only disagreement with the change is that it's giving you less choices, I can make up for it with more choices in other areas. I've introduced more upgrades than I've removed. Here are some new research topics that we didn't have before:

- Sensor Upgrade Mk3
- Radar Detector
- Rocket Autoloader Mk3
- APDSB MG Bullets Mk3
- Tungsten-Tipped MG Bullets
- Tungsten-Tipped MG Bullets Mk2
- Tungsten-Tipped MG Bullets Mk3
- Depleted Uranium MG Bullets
- HE Bomb Shells
- Improved Bomb Warhead
- Advanced Bomb Warhead

As it stands, I've repeated this thousands of times - unit production upgrades simply aren't a good choice. Refer to Sirlin's essay on Fairness - having choice is meaningless if the choice isn't viable. And a choice of factory production upgrades simply isn't viable.

Ask any good Warzone player. Acidjnk? Sperrfuerr? Mabsterone? Weedle? Researching that many production upgrades simply isn't worth it.

Well, sorry, but that's just not true (at least not all the time); much is dependant on your Let's make a case study:

You have 5 factories, 10000 power and want to produce 5 units which cost 2000 power each. Let's say that normally it takes 1 min to produce 1 unit, with mk2 it takes 45 sec and with mk3 it takes 30 seconds.
Now, if you start making all 5 units in one factory, it will on normal take you 5 min and 10000 power to have all 5 built. However if you build 1 in each factory, you will have all 5 built in 1 min (however probably not on the same location), power cost stays the same. If you upgrade factory production to mk2, in the first case you will have 5 in 3,75 min, in the second case in 45 seconds. At mk 3 you will get 5 in 2,5 min, in the second case in 30 seconds.
Note, that in any case the power consumption stays the same - therefore you have to produce your units carefully and not hastilly; that's the whole point of MICROMANAGEMENT! Another "whole point" is speed upgrades for production - they make units come out FASTER - which is GOOD! Why should that be removed?!

Actually, you consume more power since you have to research the production upgrade. In the late game, this becomes lots more, in fact.

Here are actual numbers. Given a unit that takes 1 min to produce with RFP Mk3, with AdvFP it'll take 55 sec, with AdvFP Mk2 it'll take 50 sec, with AdvFP Mk3 it'll take 46 sec.

Making 5 units in one factory, if you have 4 sitting unused, is suboptimal. So we'd only look at the case where we make 1 unit in each factory.

With AdvFP Mk3, you get your 5 units 14 seconds earlier. You could, of course, have had the same effect if you had started manufacturing them 14 seconds earlier, so it gives you practically no advantage. You get a slight tactical advantage of getting new units faster if you change your mind, but it's outweighed by the amount of research you have to do to get there: 1350 power, and three endgame research topics' worth of research time.

It is, after all, three endgame research topics. With that kind of time+money, you could've, among other things, doubled the amount of damage Scourge Missile does (AMAS + AMW + AMW Mk2).

Double damage on an endgame weapon, or practically no advantage? This is what I mean when I say the choice simply isn't viable.

You also have to keep in mind that I'm not removing the ability to upgrade factory production. I'm just scaling the number of upgrades from 9 down to 3, and making those 3 a bit more effective. Many other upgrade lines only have 3 upgrades: Sensor Upgrade, Engineering, most T3 weapon upgrades... and I'd argue those are more worth it than factory production. You still have your choice, it just isn't an extremely deep choice, since it's not worth going that far down the upgrade line.

Haven't you played any other strategy games? In most of them you have some kind of speed upgrade for your unit output... Now imagine if all of the developers would start remodeling their games and delete all the speed upgrades on the premise that "sooner or later you will run out of money/gold/power and faster production speed won't bring you any bonuses (becouse you won't be able to build anything without the resources), so let's get rid of these upgrades preemptively!"

Most strategy games don't have any production speed upgrades at all, for precisely that reason. I've played StarCraft, WarCraft 3, Supreme Commander, Red Alert 3, CNC 3, and as far as I remember none of them have production speed upgrades.

Well, if this is the case, then why the hell do we still use the research speed upgrades & modules? "Sooner or later you will run out of money for research, so speed won't matter anymore, so let's delete them!"

Actually, you never run out of money for research - two full generators is enough to keep 5 research facilities running full blast, even with the research speed upgrades. In addition, researching a single topic faster can do a ton of good, while getting a single unit faster isn't going to make much of a difference.

So why do we still use the weapon speed upgrades? "Sooner or later you will run out of money for vehicle & defence production, so speed of weapons won't matter anymore, so let's delete it!"

Higher DPS? Which means you do more damage before you're killed. It's one of the biggest upgrades you can get. You can't run out of money for ammo - if you could, or if there were some other factor that restricted fire rate, weapon speed upgrades would indeed mean a lot less - such as in VTOLs, where ROF upgrades mean practically nothing.

Imho you all should REALLY think about making a REDUX MOD instead (I mentioned it in the earlier rebalance post) where there would be just 1 speed to make 3 models and only 1 research line would be required to build everything; just leave the original game alone... I like the weapon power balancing, speed balancing and such general stuff; but simply removing upgrades and structure requirements is like amputating parts of the game body! If you slowly train your arms, you can make them swifter, stronger, more skilled for various reasons and jobs, but if you cut them off, you can't do anything more with them. I'd vote for preserving the original game structure and just balancing it's workings, not taking out whole parts of it - becouse once you take away one part, all the others become imbalanced and then you have to take away another one to make it even, then the third part becomes obsolete etc. etc., untill you have only the skeleton of the original game left.

Seriously, I've only made minor changes to the research tree. They're small enough to be practically unnoticeable to a casual player. And even if I implement this one, it'll still be minor. Cannon still requires Hardened MG Bullets. Mortar still requires HEAT Cannon Shells and Factory Module. The endgame weapons are still Gauss, Scourge, and Pulse. We still have tanks, VTOLs, and cyborgs. Honestly, in total, my changes from 1.10 are even less than Troman's, who upset T3 balance.

As a side note... I could compare this with the next fictious (or maybe not) scenario:

Your scenario is mostly a non sequitur. What I'm doing is more comparable to "fixing up" than ripping out the insides and replacing them. After all, the core of Warzone is all staying, the research tree is simply being adjusted to make more sense.

Ok; having posted this I can safely say that if such procedures will be implemented in the normal version of the game instead of any redux mod, then I'm done with Warzone 2100 ressurection. You have CONTROL over a great game, but instead of trying to preserve it and improving it with various addons etc., you want to rebuild and change the whole thing in to something it is not and something it will never be - a new game which is easy, shiny and fast.
There are many such games out there at this time, but there will always be only one Warzone 2100. I'd like to keep it this way, but since all strings are in your hands, I guess I'm done here Bye, T.

Rest assured, this particular suggestion isn't going to be implemented if the vote trends continue.

Honestly, all the strings aren't in my hands. And even if it were, it wouldn't matter, because I listen. I'm no tyrant; I don't abuse power. I'm not going to implement a change if there are so many people against it. I'm still debating here since I still don't understand why people are against it, but I'm not going to go against everyone's ideas so quickly.

[whippersnapper]

.

- Have all the strongest WZ MP players voted ?

- From what I've read most of the naysayers have little if any WZ MP experience (or if they do their comments
reveal them as not strong MP players.).

- Strong Players, ironically, can understand truly what is being proposed here. Those that mostly play Campaign &
Skirmish are incapable of appreciating the differences in playing the MP mode.

- I say ironically, because strong MP players already can exploit all extant weaknesses and imbalances and yet they can
understand the value of these changes for enhancing the MP experience out of the 8-9 year doldrums..

- What Zarel's is doing is totally responsible and explicitly in-line with Pumpkin-Warzone Creator's vision for the game's
continued evolution-development. They never saw WZ to be like a prehistoric insect trapped forever in a gob of amber.
Quite the contrary is the actual fact of the matter. The whole of the Re-balance effort is really bringing renewal to the
game in an area where it is most deficient, something we've known since 1999 and have tried to address several times
over the years but never to a level of competency that Zarel's putting into it.

- As much as I love WZ I'm not blind to the fact that by no metric over the last 10 years has WZ ever been held in the greater
RTS genre-community as great or classic like TA has, for example.... no where. Are millions of RTS fans blind ? No. And there
are very good reasons for that judgment and most fall squarely on the MP experience as any veteran of WZ MP from 1999 onward can attest to. One of the most difficult things to achieve in an RTS is game play balance in MP and Pumpkin NEVER came close to finishing this because they were put out business a few months into it when they thought they had years ahead of em to develop WZ in this crucial area. SC is older than WZ and Blizzard have still been tweaking it's balance all these long years later.

- Somehow this poll should reflect those who are voting being serious MP gamers or predominantly Campaign-Skirmish players.
That's a relevant distinction that also needs to be captured in this context.

- That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

- Regards, whipper
.

[ThomasCarstein]

What "direction"? All I'm doing is asking for feedback on an idea. Is that suddenly a bad thing? It's not like I'm going to do it if so many people are against it.

Ok, ok... I'm just giving you my feedback on the idea What i meant with "direction" is my fear that if i stop playing WZ now and pick it up 5 years later, it will be so changed that I won't even recognize it... but you're probably right, i tend to overdo things sometimes - for the things & people which mean something to me (WZ included, now that i have finally re-discovered it)

Getting rid of the structure requirements was a good idea, and you still haven't given any reasons otherwise. <_<

I agreed that probably some non-logical ones should be removed, yes, but not all of them. As for a good reason, I simply cant give you a technical one like "becouse the production factor is raised x 3.5 times by tier 3 structure requirements" (i know this makes no sense - i made it up); my reason is more irrational: it is plain nostalgia and fondness of the game I used to play almost 10 years ago and the urge to preserve it (mostly) like I knew it from then - along with the tedious research and large tech tree - and so I can't give you an "exact" answer.

I don't think that's a very fair characterization of what's going on. The modifications are about nothing but fairness and rewarding play. I don't know what you mean by "comfort zones", but I'm pretty sure it's inaccurate.
In any case, you'll need to be less vague for me to actually reply. I really can't tell what you're dissatisfied with.

By "comfort zone" i (and probably Zydonk too) mean this: the game has a long, messy research tree with many prerequisites that lead to many possibilities - it's Warzone 2100.
Newer players are uncomfortable with so many choices, options and posibilities and probably mostly think that becouse of the complexity it's not worth the effort of playing the (for today's games standards) "unpretty" "old" game. They say this: "Why should I invest so much time and effort to learn how to effectively play a 10 year old game with box tanks, when better games like "Dungeon siege 2" and "Medieval - total war" are just a few clicks away?"
I think you (and we all) are aware of this and have set yourself a good cause: keeping Warzone 2100 alive, popular and with a growing community of fresh players. But sadly, those players are inside their "comfort zones" of simpler research trees, easier unit production and faster, more dynamic gameplay; amongst other things. So in order to at least try to get their interest back or at least keep it, you have to say: "look - we made the research simpler, the requirements smaller, the production faster, etc. so that now it is more similar to the games you guys are used too these days - so now you can try it too!" So basicly you have changed the game's design, workings and implementations to fit the "comfort zone" of potencial new players - so that it will be easier, nicer and more interesting for them.
When you mentioned the "1.10 balance and implementations mod", I was just wondering why the older players, fond of the original complexity and depth of the game, should be reduced to constantly use mods, instead of keeping the original game style and design intact and keep a "rebalance mod" for the ones who like to stay in their "comfort zone".

Psh. If your only disagreement with the change is that it's giving you less choices, I can make up for it with more choices in other areas. I've introduced more upgrades than I've removed.

Agreed, you have put in new choices which didn't exist before, but that's not an excuse to take stuff out, "becouse it can be replaced with different stuff". It's kind of like saying: "You don't need a spoon to eat food, so I'll remove it - but i'll give you a fork and a knive instead!" That's generally true, but if a person would like to eat soup instead of the main course, then it can become a problem - that's why there are always spoons on the table, regardless if someone wants to eat soup or not and regardless if the spoon is mostly just taking up space on the table without usage (figuratively speaking).

As it stands, I've repeated this thousands of times - unit production upgrades simply aren't a good choice. Refer to Sirlin's essay on Fairness - having choice is meaningless if the choice isn't viable. And a choice of factory production upgrades simply isn't viable.
Ask any good Warzone player. Acidjnk? Sperrfuerr? Mabsterone? Weedle? Researching that many production upgrades simply isn't worth it.

The thing is that I simply don't care so much, how all of those people view "fairness", "viability" "good choices" and "worth" - becouse people are different from other people. I am generally not going to relate to any manual or opinion where someone tells me his view on fairness and expects me to embrace them as my own - that is, untill I can relate to them myself from my own point of view (later in this post you will see this process). Granted, the manual is a good read, with passages like:

"If those thousands of options all accomplish the same thing, or nothing, or all lose to the dominant move mentioned above, then they are not meaningful options. They just get in the way and add the worst kind of complexity to the game: complexity that makes the game harder to learn yet no more interesting to play."

But here is the thing - this is a general guide! It isn't necessary to apply all of these pointers everywhere, just becouse they make sense... In my opinion, the above statement does not apply for my personal view on Warzone 2100, becouse I know that the "thousands of options" mostly DO accomplish very different things - even if I decide to research faster unit production and I eventually loose becouse of this, I at least had a choice of researching it or not; but more likely the game loss or win is determined by many more interconnected factors then just one or two aspects. And that's the freedom of choice - to research this or that, now or later. And in my opinion this complexity of choices and results makes the game truly harder - but in my case also more fun to play; which can't be said for somebody in a "comfort zone" (not targeting anyone particular btw).

Actually, you consume more power since you have to research the production upgrade. In the late game, this becomes lots more, in fact.

So, here you have once again a choice between researching this upgrade or not. If you decide not to, ok, but maybe some of the players would like the choice to research it, "viable" or not. That's what is so handy on mods - if you don't like something, you have a choice of starting up a "rebalance mod" and eliminating all the choices which you may not see as viable.

You also have to keep in mind that I'm not removing the ability to upgrade factory production. I'm just scaling the number of upgrades from 9 down to 3, and making those 3 a bit more effective. Many other upgrade lines only have 3 upgrades: Sensor Upgrade, Engineering, most T3 weapon upgrades... and I'd argue those are more worth it than factory production. You still have your choice, it just isn't an extremely deep choice, since it's not worth going that far down the upgrade line.

Ok, I AM RELEAVED now I agree with this statement and the general reduction, just not with any total removing of stuff.

Seriously, I've only made minor changes to the research tree. They're small enough to be practically unnoticeable to a casual player. And even if I implement this one, it'll still be minor. Cannon still requires Hardened MG Bullets. Mortar still requires HEAT Cannon Shells and Factory Module. The endgame weapons are still Gauss, Scourge, and Pulse. We still have tanks, VTOLs, and cyborgs. Honestly, in total, my changes from 1.10 are even less than Troman's, who upset T3 balance.

I admit it - my bad. I'm sadly too busy to review all the prior changes and stages of WZ development, so I admit that I don't see the "whole picture" yet; that's why I may sometimes step a bit out of line, sorry about that :-S Anyway, i agree with you here as well, the general gameplay feeling hasn't changed much as far as I can tell - but it's probably much more "refined" than it was.

Your scenario is mostly a non sequitur. What I'm doing is more comparable to "fixing up" than ripping out the insides and replacing them. After all, the core of Warzone is all staying, the research tree is simply being adjusted to make more sense.

Once again I admit: after you explained that you are NOT going to remove ALL build rate upgrades, i agree with you here as well.

Rest assured, this particular suggestion isn't going to be implemented if the vote trends continue. Honestly, all the strings aren't in my hands. And even if it were, it wouldn't matter, because I listen. I'm no tyrant; I don't abuse power. I'm not going to implement a change if there are so many people against it. I'm still debating here since I still don't understand why people are against it, but I'm not going to go against everyone's ideas so quickly.

Nice to hear that (Ithought as much anyway ) It's the right thing to do after all - to debate and allign views with all others until everyone comes to an exceptable conclusion. So, thanks for your patience, I think I know enough now to generally leave this matter alone - as long as Warzone will not be changed radically (very noticably), fine with me; for everything else please consider keeping the "rebalance" mod. Bye, T.

[bugger]

Zarel why dont you code it so that it not only speeds up production but also reduce unit build cost?

That way you could keep it as it is and make it usefull.

[Zarel]

Zarel why dont you code it so that it not only speeds up production but also reduce unit build cost?

That way you could keep it as it is and make it usefull.

That is a great idea.

The only problem is balance.

The tech is really designed so that nothing makes anything significantly cheaper. It'd need to be something ridiculous like a 3% step... Maybe a 5%, and get rid of Advanced Factory Production and higher?

[stiv]

I don't think that's a very fair characterization of what's going on. The modifications are about nothing but fairness and rewarding play. I don't know what you mean by "comfort zones", but I'm pretty sure it's inaccurate.

You don't understand what he means but you are pretty sure he is wrong? That is simply insulting. Please remember we are discussing opinions and preferences here and not everyone is doing it in their native language. Reasonable people will differ. That in itself does not make them wrong. This thread is taking on an ugly tone.

As it stands, I've repeated this thousands of times - unit production upgrades simply aren't a good choice.

I'm going to ignore the Mom-like "I've told you a thousand times" rhetorical flourish, and simply suggest that maybe production upgrades *should* be made into a valid choice. After all, industrial production rates did help determine the outcome of World War II.

In addition, researching a single topic faster can do a ton of good, while getting a single unit faster isn't going to make much of a difference.

A misleading argument. A big part of WZ is managing resources and time. As you say, producing a single unit faster will not make much difference, but over time the advantage of a higher production rate can be huge. All else being equal, the side that can produce more units quicker will win. (Yes, I know all things are seldom equal - in part, thanks to the varied choices and paths WZ provides)

Finally, as whippersnapper notes in another post, all WZ discussion is complicated by the fact that right now there are three quite different games inside the box: campaign, skirmish and multi-player

[Zarel]

I agreed that probably some non-logical ones should be removed, yes, but not all of them. As for a good reason, I simply cant give you a technical one like "becouse the production factor is raised x 3.5 times by tier 3 structure requirements" (i know this makes no sense - i made it up); my reason is more irrational: it is plain nostalgia and fondness of the game I used to play almost 10 years ago and the urge to preserve it (mostly) like I knew it from then - along with the tedious research and large tech tree - and so I can't give you an "exact" answer.

I can't think of any structure prereq that actually makes a difference. I mean, you needed to build a cyborg factory to research some cyborgs. Now you don't. But you still need a cyborg factory to manufacture those cyborgs, anyway, so it's not like it's any different.

Newer players are uncomfortable with so many choices, options and posibilities and probably mostly think that becouse of the complexity it's not worth the effort of playing the (for today's games standards) "unpretty" "old" game. They say this: "Why should I invest so much time and effort to learn how to effectively play a 10 year old game with box tanks, when better games like "Dungeon siege 2" and "Medieval - total war" are just a few clicks away?"
I think you (and we all) are aware of this and have set yourself a good cause: keeping Warzone 2100 alive, popular and with a growing community of fresh players. But sadly, those players are inside their "comfort zones" of simpler research trees, easier unit production and faster, more dynamic gameplay; amongst other things. So in order to at least try to get their interest back or at least keep it, you have to say: "look - we made the research simpler, the requirements smaller, the production faster, etc. so that now it is more similar to the games you guys are used too these days - so now you can try it too!" So basicly you have changed the game's design, workings and implementations to fit the "comfort zone" of potencial new players - so that it will be easier, nicer and more interesting for them.
When you mentioned the "1.10 balance and implementations mod", I was just wondering why the older players, fond of the original complexity and depth of the game, should be reduced to constantly use mods, instead of keeping the original game style and design intact and keep a "rebalance mod" for the ones who like to stay in their "comfort zone".

Not really. The research tree is just as complex, if not more so. There's no "easier unit production", either, as far as I know. Not a single change is to fit the comfort zone of new players.

In 1.10, strategy was simpler. There's a reason we nickname it "Warzone 2100 Lancer Edition". There is more complexity and depth in Rebalance, and 1.10 suffers from many flaws fixed by Rebalance. On the contrary, the 1.10 balance mod is for players used to 1.10 and want to stay in that particular "comfort zone". That's why Rebalance is the default and 1.10 balance is a mod.

I could debate the merits for hours, but I simply ask that you try playing Rebalance. It really is better.

But here is the thing - this is a general guide! It isn't necessary to apply all of these pointers everywhere, just becouse they make sense... In my opinion, the above statement does not apply for my personal view on Warzone 2100, becouse I know that the "thousands of options" mostly DO accomplish very different things - even if I decide to research faster unit production and I eventually loose becouse of this, I at least had a choice of researching it or not; but more likely the game loss or win is determined by many more interconnected factors then just one or two aspects. And that's the freedom of choice - to research this or that, now or later. And in my opinion this complexity of choices and results makes the game truly harder - but in my case also more fun to play; which can't be said for somebody in a "comfort zone" (not targeting anyone particular btw).

Of course, I agree with you here. The hundreds of options (I counted ) accomplish very different things, which is why I'm keeping them. Even with this change, you'd still have the freedom of choice, to research production upgrades or not.

You don't understand what he means but you are pretty sure he is wrong? That is simply insulting. Please remember we are discussing opinions and preferences here and not everyone is doing it in their native language. Reasonable people will differ. That in itself does not make them wrong. This thread is taking on an ugly tone.

Let me summarize what just occurred.

Thomas: Your idea panders to newcomers.
Zarel: No, I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
stiv: By saying "no", you're implying that Thomas is wrong, which is implicitly insulting him!

First off, I find the implication that my rebalance effort is engaging in any sort of pandering to be far more insulting. Second, though I don't know exactly what he's talking about, I know what "comfort zone" is enough to know that I have not been pandering to anyone's comfort zone.

I'm going to... suggest that maybe production upgrades *should* be made into a valid choice. After all, industrial production rates did help determine the outcome of World War II.

That's exactly what I'm doing. By decreasing the number of upgrades, I can increase the effect of each upgrade, thus making them more of a valid choice.

A misleading argument. A big part of WZ is managing resources and time. As you say, producing a single unit faster will not make much difference, but over time the advantage of a higher production rate can be huge. All else being equal, the side that can produce more units quicker will win. (Yes, I know all things are seldom equal - in part, thanks to the varied choices and paths WZ provides)

Over time, the advantage of a higher production rate will only be huge if you have the oil resources to keep it up. Since, in practice, this never occurs, the higher production rate doesn't help. I believe this was the first argument made in favor of the change.

[stiv]

Let me summarize what just occurred.

Thomas: Your idea panders to newcomers.
Zarel: No, I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
stiv: By saying "no", you're implying that Thomas is wrong, which is implicitly insulting him!

First off, I find the implication that my rebalance effort is engaging in any sort of pandering to be far more insulting. Second, though I don't know exactly what he's talking about, I know what "comfort zone" is enough to know that I have not been pandering to anyone's comfort zone.

First, your summary mischaracterizes the discussion and second, to say "I don't understand what you are saying, but it is wrong" is explicitly insulting. Nothing implicit there at all.

I realize you want to defend and promote your ideas, but you are becoming increasingly volitile and argumentative - even to the point of taking both sides of an argument. It does not add anything to the discussion that you yourself solicited when you asked for opinions. This discussion is *not* a personal attack. Take a deep breath.

[Zarel]

First, your summary mischaracterizes the discussion and second, to say "I don't understand what you are saying, but it is wrong" is explicitly insulting. Nothing implicit there at all.

My summary's somewhat of a simplification, yes, but the basic idea is there - all I'm doing is saying "I disagree" - no insult, explicit nor implicit.

My exact words were: "I don't think that's a very fair characterization of what's going on. The modifications are about nothing but fairness and rewarding play. I don't know what you mean by "comfort zones", but I'm pretty sure it's inaccurate."

I meant to use "I don't think" and "I'm pretty sure" as qualifiers - to mean "I'm not completely sure, but from what I know of what 'comfort zone' means and my understanding of what you're saying, I'm pretty sure that's not what's going on here."

I realize you want to defend and promote your ideas, but you are becoming increasingly volitile and argumentative - even to the point of taking both sides of an argument. It does not add anything to the discussion that you yourself solicited when you asked for opinions. This discussion is *not* a personal attack. Take a deep breath.

I don't think the conversation is taking as ugly of a tone as you seem to imply. I went and read over my past posts, and they seem fine to me:

"Of course, I agree with you here. The hundreds of options (I counted ) accomplish very different things, which is why I'm keeping them. Even with this change, you'd still have the freedom of choice, to research production upgrades or not."

I guess they could be taken the wrong way, I didn't mean them in that, way, and judging from Thomas's reactions:

"Nice to hear that (Ithought as much anyway ) It's the right thing to do after all - to debate and allign views with all others until everyone comes to an exceptable conclusion."

...I don't think he took them in that way, either. I appreciate the concern, but I think things are fine.

[ThomasCarstein]

...I don't think he took them in that way, either. I appreciate the concern, but I think things are fine.

True, I didn't take them any "wrong way"

That's exactly what I'm doing. By decreasing the number of upgrades, I can increase the effect of each upgrade, thus making them more of a valid choice.

I admit that this makes sound sense. Once again: I am perfectly ok with balancing out existing weapons, upgrades & research, i just don't aproove of flat-out removing some stuff just becouse of vague statements and opinions like "this makes no sense" or "this makes more sense" or "It's better this way" or "noone ever uses this" and then pressing this points until it is accepted by everyone around - a thorough presentation of ideas and opinions is needed in such cases, which is exactly what such forums are for

I would also comment on some further parts of the discussion, but i don't have time to write now, so i'll probably be back here tomorrow... see you then, bye

[Charybdis]

Reducing the research a bit in multiplayer and skirmisch seems like a good idea. Especially if it's nothing vital like the factory upgrades. It's not like you're throwing important tech out of the window.
Perhaps it is possible to make 2 different gamemodes: one with a full and one with a seriously reduced research tree.
Everybody happy...

[Mysteryem]

I have no opinion on the research, but since base structures seem to be getting defenses in the future, I was thinking that the excess research could be replaced by research that give weapons to the structures.

[Zarel]

Update: I'm restarting the poll.

-----

Reducing the research a bit in multiplayer and skirmisch seems like a good idea. Especially if it's nothing vital like the factory upgrades. It's not like you're throwing important tech out of the window.
Perhaps it is possible to make 2 different gamemodes: one with a full and one with a seriously reduced research tree.
Everybody happy...

Keep note that that's not what I'm doing. While I'm decreasing the number of topics in this specific case, that's in the interests of balance - no one really researches it, so it doesn't really add to the for most users, so I'm making it more worth researching. In that, sense, I'm not reducing the research bit, but rather increasing it.

If you want a smaller research tree mod, I think you'd have to make it yourself, since that's really not a direction I want to go in.

I have no opinion on the research, but since base structures seem to be getting defenses in the future, I was thinking that the excess research could be replaced by research that give weapons to the structures.

Sure.

[Per]

I agree with the whole philosophy behind Zarel's changes, and if there is no way to make these techs not be pointless, I'm for removing them.

However, I would very strongly prefer that the tech trees in campaign and multi-player are kept as similar as possible, so that players who learn one can use the same experiences in the other. I know they are far apart now, after years of multiplayer-only changes, but I would like that to change, not get any worse.

[Zarel]

I agree with the whole philosophy behind Zarel's changes, and if there is no way to make these techs not be pointless, I'm for removing them.

However, I would very strongly prefer that the tech trees in campaign and multi-player are kept as similar as possible, so that players who learn one can use the same experiences in the other. I know they are far apart now, after years of multiplayer-only changes, but I would like that to change, not get any worse.

These specific changes are easily applicable to campaign.