Fewer production upgrades [NEW POLL]

[Buginator]

Frankly, if you change the poll, then you should start a new thread.

Otherwise, the people that voted before, might not notice, and you just tossed out the overwhelming verdict that the old poll showed...

[Black Project]

Zarel, if you're going to reduce the number of their production upgrades to only 3, how much will cost each upgrade after doing that?

[Zarel]

Frankly, if you change the poll, then you should start a new thread.

Otherwise, the people that voted before, might not notice, and you just tossed out the overwhelming verdict that the old poll showed...

I think renaming a topic is the equivalent of starting a new thread. In fact, since I added "NEW POLL", it's even clearer that it's a new poll.

I can tell especially since we have about as many votes now as we did before. The "overwhelming verdict" of the old poll was growing less and less overwhelming as I explained what I was planning to do more clearly, so I thought it made sense to try again now that more people understand what we're voting for and why. As I noted in my update, when I first made the poll, I didn't try as hard to justify it, since I didn't expect so many people to be against it.

Zarel, if you're going to reduce the number of their production upgrades to only 3, how much will cost each upgrade after doing that?

I think I'll price them at their corresponding upgrade level.

i.e. new "Automated Production" = old "Automated Factory Production Mk2"
new "Robotic Production" = old "Robotic Factory Production"
new "Advanced Production" = old "Robotic Factory Production Mk3"

[lav_coyote25]

as you can see - i voted for your change - now that we are knowing its not throwing out babies with the bathwater. xD

[whippersnapper]

.

as you can see - i voted for your change - now that we are knowing its not throwing out babies with the bathwater. xD

Or as Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "People only see what they are prepared to see."

I re-voted the same - for.

I got to thinking about the "No Opinion" votes. I wondered if they simply had no thoughts on the matter or thought that either way it wouldn't matter to the way they played the game... Just a rambling muse.

regards, whipper.
.

[Black Project]

Does is better to add 90% for the three production upgrades than 60%, or it will break the balance of the game?

With these new one together, your factory had a total increase of 180% of it's output

The another older 9 (30% each) you have a total increase of 270% (VTOL factory still have 180%, 'cause they only have 6 upgrades)

[Zarel]

Does is better to add 90% for the three production upgrades than 60%, or it will break the balance of the game?

With these new one together, your factory had a total increase of 180% of it's output

The another older 9 (30% each) you have a total increase of 270% (VTOL factory still have 180%, 'cause they only have 6 upgrades)

Nah. Max 280% and 370% isn't that different. Plus, they match VTOL production now! I guess I could add one more - there's a "Self-Replicating Production" commented out at EOL.

[ThomasCarstein]

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.

I don't think that production speed research is pointless in any way, and I bet that some players will be also researching these things regardless of their "pointlessness" for some others - as long as they have a chance to do it, so as long as it's there to research; i'm still not for removing them myself.

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.

I agree with this^^ That's also one of the things that I don't like with implementing various rebalances in to the official release games - becouse you learn the tech tree in the campaign (that's almost universal - players mostly follow the path "tutorial-single player campaign-comp skirmish-multiplayer") and then when you want to use this knowledge in multiplayer, half of the stuff is changed or removed :-S
Also some parts of the campaign can not be changed or removed, becouse they follow the storyline (like the synaptic link upgrades), so reviewing this is also necessary imo. Bye, T.

[Asterisk]

Three upgrades... if what you're saying is what im thinking....

Keep it like it is in campaign though....

[Zarel]

I agree with this^^ That's also one of the things that I don't like with implementing various rebalances in to the official release games - becouse you learn the tech tree in the campaign (that's almost universal - players mostly follow the path "tutorial-single player campaign-comp skirmish-multiplayer") and then when you want to use this knowledge in multiplayer, half of the stuff is changed or removed :-S
Also some parts of the campaign can not be changed or removed, becouse they follow the storyline (like the synaptic link upgrades), so reviewing this is also necessary imo. Bye, T.

I don't really think the Rebalance is that big of a change. I definitely haven't removed or reordered anything. Anyway, the tech tree isn't very visible in campaign, since instead of having prerequisites, most topics are just artifacts. And there are differences - you don't need to research Synaptic Link in campaign, and the multiplayer research tree goes further. Plus, MRL has always been easier to get than Lancer in multiplayer, and harder in campaign.

[stiv]

I don't really think the Rebalance is that big of a change.

You don't? Mortars are reduced by half, Lancers have fewer prerequisites, cannons have been nerfed, Scourge missile is roughly doubled, etc. I'm not arguing the changes are bad (they are not!), but they certainly are significant.

I'm sure it is fun, but this thread could be much shorter if you didn't automatically take the opposite postion every time someone makes a statement.

[Zarel]

You don't? Mortars are reduced by half, Lancers have fewer prerequisites, cannons have been nerfed, Scourge missile is roughly doubled, etc. I'm not arguing the changes are bad (they are not!), but they certainly are significant.

I'm sure it is fun, but this thread could be much shorter if you didn't automatically take the opposite postion every time someone makes a statement.

Um, you mean mortars are increased by 20%, lancers have a few more prerequisites, cannons have slightly more damage and slightly less HP, Scourge missile has slightly more damage and slightly slower reload? The changes are significant compared to 2.1, maybe, but not compared to campaign/1.10. When I said "Rebalance isn't that big of a change", it was in response to a statement about its difference from campaign.

Campaign -> Rebalance isn't much bigger of a change than Campaign -> 1.10 multiplayer.

(Especially compared to Campaign -> 2.1 multiplayer, which was a huge change as lancers, missiles, and rails suddenly became worthless, and cannons and mortars suddenly became twice as powerful)

Anyway, with the exception of bolstering some otherwise unused weapons (flamer, Angel Missile, Heap/Thermite bombs...), Rebalance really doesn't change anything by more than 10%-20%.

Plus, I totally said "great idea" to a few people... I don't take the opposite position to everyone.

[3drts]

While on the topic of getting rid of research that no one uses, and staying somewhat close to the original WZ/Campaign.....
Why don't we get rid of Twin Assault Cannon and just increase the Assault Cannon ROF and/or Damage?
It makes Assault Cannon basically pointless to research.... I don't see AC used, just TAC (though I rarely see that used, due to being so far down the tech tree).
AC is just research topic with really no use, but you need it to get to another research topic- much like the factory upgrades are only worth researching to get to Cannon Autoloader/Rapid loader.

The Twin Assault Cannon wasn't in the original game, nor was the Twin Assault Gun.
If I could guess why TAC was added (anything past 1.08 was an unofficial patch wasn't it?), it would be that AC was too weak - and at that point no old weapon stats were being changed- they would just add new things.
I remember one tagline leading up to one of the patches: "Cyborg reinforcements are coming" - or something like that- they didn't adjust old cyborg stats, they just added more cyborg types (engineer, mechanic, supers, transport).
If I could guess why the TAG was added - it was because there were only 3 mg damage upgrades- now that there are 5 more, do we really need the Twin Assault Gun?
Getting rid of these "Twins" both slims the research tree, and returns the game closer to the original.

[Zarel]

While on the topic of getting rid of research that no one uses, and staying somewhat close to the original WZ/Campaign.....

Not so much "getting rid of" as "fixing to make useful".

Why don't we get rid of Twin Assault Cannon and just increase the Assault Cannon ROF and/or Damage?
It makes Assault Cannon basically pointless to research.... I don't see AC used, just TAC (though I rarely see that used, due to being so far down the tech tree).
AC is just research topic with really no use, but you need it to get to another research topic- much like the factory upgrades are only worth researching to get to Cannon Autoloader/Rapid loader.

The Twin Assault Cannon wasn't in the original game, nor was the Twin Assault Gun.
If I could guess why TAC was added (anything past 1.08 was an unofficial patch wasn't it?), it would be that AC was too weak - and at that point no old weapon stats were being changed- they would just add new things.

Actually, in 1.10, TAC was a bit weaker than AC. Both were pretty weak, though, which is why they weren't used much. I think we should make AC a T2 weapon and TAC a T3 weapon. Those were the original intentions - it's just that AC is well enough hidden that most people have NSRB by the time they get it.

Now that TAC is taking its rightful place as stronger than AC, I think the best way to deal with it would be to nerf AC a bit more, and then decrease its prereqs. Then increase TAC prereqs back up.

I remember one tagline leading up to one of the patches: "Cyborg reinforcements are coming" - or something like that- they didn't adjust old cyborg stats, they just added more cyborg types (engineer, mechanic, supers, transport).
If I could guess why the TAG was added - it was because there were only 3 mg damage upgrades- now that there are 5 more, do we really need the Twin Assault Gun?
Getting rid of these "Twins" both slims the research tree, and returns the game closer to the original.

Well, now that cyborgs are more powerful (read: anti-tank weapons aren't as powerful against them), it does help that there are more good anti-cyborg weapons for dealing with them. I think AG and TAG both have a place on the new tech.

[Black Project]

Hey Zarel, why not to add a few more types of Anti-Personel Supercyborgs to Warzone?

The only Super Cyborg which uses an Anti-Personel weapon is the Super Pulse Laser Cyborg. Or it's better to keep it as the same?