Stealing tech

Psychosis · Post by **Psychosis** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:37 am

vly, i feel like your really out there on this one. While i think the IDEA of it is slightly interesting as an argument point, i feel that overall this should be tabled and our time spent on something else

Adaven · Post by **Adaven** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:17 am

Vlymoxyd wrote:QUOTE (Vlymoxyd @ Sep 11 2009, 06:25 PM) Adaven, I think you're confusing floating tech with tech dropped by the enemy.

Ah, yeah sorry.

Xeretov · Post by **Xeretov** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:48 am

Psychosis wrote:QUOTE (Psychosis @ Sep 11 2009, 08:37 PM) While i think the IDEA of it is slightly interesting as an argument point, i feel that overall this should be tabled and our time spent on something else

I'm inclined to agree with this.

Its an interesting idea, but not something I see being implemented in CC anytime soon. Its also a code change far more than a core change, so discussing it here isn't going to get much done. We have more pertinent issues to be working on at the moment.

Vlymoxyd · Post by **Vlymoxyd** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:55 pm

I have to disagree that this isn't the place for code changes discussions. I think it's completely wrong to have the FAZ devs separated from CC on stuff that impact on gameplay. New FAZ features have all been ignored by the CC. On the other hand, many good ideas posted here weren't used because they required a code change. There's a lot of good ideas comming on both teams, but unless they work together, nothing will get done. I could have posted this on the FAZ forums 1st, but it would have been stupid to make a FAZ dev waste his time on it if it wasn't to be put on CC. Having code changes ideas comming from the CC, made by FAZ and then implemented in CC would be the best way to go imo.

Cortex · Post by **Cortex** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:36 pm

I agree that it shouldn't be the FAZ team *offering* features to the core teams, but rather the core teams *requesting* core-related features from the FAZ team. Although you could argue whether this is really core-related, but I agree that at least some of the options are.
It just must not digress into technical discussions. And I also think the core teams shouldn't bother too much about whether something can be implemented, but rather figure out what would improve gameplay and then let the FAZ team do the evaluation whether it's doable with reasonable effort.

However, I still haven't seen a single good argument about how this improves gameplay.

Regarding the "lower the chances" argument: I actually think that would actually *increase* randomness, not remove it. Right now, you can pretty much assume that the enemy will get tech you buy. If you lower the chances, you just make it a game of "maybe they will, maybe they won't." I'm pretty convinced lowering the chances is not the way to go if making games more strategical is your design criterion.

Xeretov · Post by **Xeretov** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:32 pm

Vlymoxyd wrote:QUOTE (Vlymoxyd @ Sep 12 2009, 10:55 AM) Having code changes ideas comming from the CC, made by FAZ and then implemented in CC would be the best way to go imo.

In regards to core features, yes I agree with you. Still, there haven't been that many ideas shot down purely because it would be a code change. If we haven't been asking much from FAZ its for the exact reason you mentioned: We don't have an idea on how to balance the feature so we don't plan to put it in. Ergo, we aren't going to bother the FAZ team to put in a core feature we aren't going to use.

Vlymoxyd wrote:QUOTE (Vlymoxyd @ Sep 12 2009, 10:55 AM) New FAZ features have all been ignored by the CC.

it would have been stupid to make a FAZ dev waste his time on it if it wasn't to be put on CC.

We aren't going to implement new features right away just because they're suddenly an option. One sided aleph res and base-supplied lead indicators come to mind on this point, and there'll probably a whole bunch more come R5. They're both awesome features and I can think of uses for them myself, but none of them are exactly balanced. Work on the CC right now is aimed at Shipyard and some other minor topics. After that, who knows. If you want to see more of these "New FAZ features" implemented, then please come up with a balanced proposal for using them.

On another note, because we have to wait about a month before any changes can reach AU right now, we do have to make sure our releases are playable. If we put in a broken (read: unbalanced) feature that seriously overpowers one faction or techpath, then people are stuck with it for a month and gameplay suffers. I think once the time between development and autoupdate goes down we might be more willing to experiment with entirely new features.

Vlymoxyd · Post by **Vlymoxyd** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:03 am

I think I wasn't clear enough when I talked about CC not using FAZ stuff: There is imo nothing wrong with the CC team not using FAZ stuff. I agree with everything you've said. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that some code changes can be made in such a way that further modifications can be done in the core. When possible, it's the best way to go.

As for the reasons as to why I think lowering the drop rate of techs would be good, I'll keep my answear as short as possible since I think it's obvious it won't get looked at for a while.

A quick summary would be:
There are 2 ways to get new Techs. You get them either by buying them(System #1) or by stealing them(System #2). Let's ignore floating tech for the sake of this discussion.

The current drop rate is so high that the knowledge that the enemy team will almost instantly steal new technologies force commanders to not buy any new tech which ends up destroying System #1(Which is the main feature that makes allegiance what it is).

If both team refuses to buy new techs, there's no tech to steal which ends up destroying System #2.

By reducing the drop rate(Or by using any other methods that makes it usefull for a team to buy tech), there's a reason for a team to buy tech(Use System #1). If a team gets new techs, then the other team has techs to steal(And can use System #2).

So why I think it would be funnier:

-Commanders would have more options(buying or not buying techs instead of just not buying), adding to the dept of the game(Which is fun imo)
-Tech stealing is fun(imo) and it would happen much more than it does now if commanders actually starts buying tech.

Psychosis · Post by **Psychosis** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:17 am

While lowering the drop rate slightly might be beneficial, it is my experience that you have to do a good chunk of killing before you get what you want.

that being said, i still dont see any good reasons for doing this, because the new decisions are just going to replace the current decisions. overall its at best a 0 sum game