You're right it would be a lot of work, but Empire's UI is one of the biggest complaints from newbs. Modifying the research tree like this would really help newb commander's and, hence, create a larger pool of competent commanders per side.
For what it's worth, I think Scardybob is kinda right...it really reduces the need to have to learn the research tree. And if the comm is a noob, it means at least the team will be able to get fairly good research - shouting out "go abs" doesn't really help when you don't know it's in chemistry.
Yes, this would be excellent, or taking the C&C approach with researching specific things via seperate buildings(IE infantry upgrades at a barracks). Either way, if you're going to specialize and want to get more content out there other than "RUSH THIS ARMOR AND GET DU" then multiple paths need to be taken at the same time to ensure more game diversity.
My god, Drag, I love that tech tree. Having something like that would be amazing. I definitely agree with the C&C approach; it'd fit well with Empires.
The thing is that when the comm fails, the game is just no fun for their entire team. Really, it gets old fast even for the winning team. I think it should generally be made difficult for a comm to fail completely. Good comms should be able to do more for their team, yes, but the learning curve for comms should be as easy as it can be made, since the game is just no fun when your comm screws up.
Revive! Alright, The new research tree is designed to do a couple things: Armors are now all available in the same place for the same cost/time, main difference would be the actually effects or cost / weight. Engines are in the same situation I think. Not sure, can't remember exactly. Now, tbh, I don't want to see our research tree go away. it's very unique, and kinda fun to play with. It's research, not something boring and lame like "Weapons" and "Armor". Each tree describes how the weapons and armors seem to work. I dunno, Just love the names of the research trees. As a whole, they jsut work. What I think should be done, Armors go into the first tier of the tree. Also, each tree should be opened by default. you shouldn't have to do any research to open the tree. In fact, i'd go as far to say that you should only PAY for a research if you get something out of it. That would mean something like advanced chassis wouldn't cost anything, but heavy tank chassis would cost a ton. Lastly, Fit the new tree design into the existing tree names in this fashion. This research tree has really grown on me. I know what to expect from each tree, and I would hope that no matter the changes, the trees will each contain their own generic style of gameplay they provide.
Metal Smith, all those "arguments" are either opinions or they have exactly the same effect as the proposed research tree, only that yours is more confusing and convoluted. The assumed fact that it's "unique" and "kinda fun" does not weigh up to the fact that it fails to deliver any kind of diverse gameplay other than the option between HE, UML or arty spam.
That's the point. what do the names "Physics", "Chemistry", "Mechanical Engineering", "Electrical Engineering", and "Biology" have to do with HE, UML and artillery? (coincidently, all of which usually occur in just the Mechanical Engineering and Chemistry trees). I don't mind changing the second and third levels of the research tree to be more streamlined. I would love that, and have also made a script that reflects that. The only difference is that I think it would be stupid to make a tree called "Armor" and stick all the armor in it. a tree called "Engines" with engines in it would suck even more. I also think that engines are far more unique than armors ever will be, and should remain in a second level of research after the initial tree, if only to make some commitment to the engine you choose, rather than just grabbing everything cause it's all right there. What harm does it do to leave different engine and armor types in their respective trees, if you make no time or cost for opening that tree?
The harm is in the the part of my reply that you forgot to quote: I don't understand why some people religiously cling to the location of an armor / engine in a field if all it does it further obfuscate the item.
First, i didn't leave that out of the quote. I don't cling to the location of the armor and engine, I just flee from the idea of having a tree called "armors" and a tree called "Engines" I mean, seriously, common. Next we should rename all weapons to be named "1 Slot __ Cannon" with the __ being AI, AT, or AP standing for Anti Infantry, Anti Tank, or All Purpose. Don't dumb down the game so far as to make everything so obvious. The location of items in the research tree doesn't matter at all, as far as gameplay is concerned. As long as it takes as long and as much time to do something, where it's located doesn't mean a damned thing. but I would consider it an all time low if we went so far as to just call a tech tree "Armors". It puts 5 or 6 armors in one tree, and gives no reference as to what the properties of those armors are unless you read through the description. At least with the current tree you have some sort of reference as to what kind of armor you are getting. I don't understand why some people want to just throw away the entire research tree rather than restructuring it so that it works. There is absolutely nothing wrong with leaving engines or armors in the tech trees. As long as it's easy enough to find. Putting it at the bottom tier of a tech tree will solve this problem. Really though, if you go with this tree called "Armors" and this tree called "Engines", lets go ahead and rename the teams to "team 1" and "team 2". That way noobs can't mistake which team is which.
Woops my bad :< Making things more obvious is not dumbing down. Dumbing things down is dumbing things down. We are not changing the way the way research is handled or how it even works, we are just making it more obvious to new commanders (and easier for veteran ones) where everything is. Anyway I'm done discussing this point as it's kinda ridiculous discussing over a proposal that may even change later on. The only discussible point is that one of our two ways of presenting the research makes it easier to see what type of research is available and where you can find it, and I believe it Drag's way is the strongest in that point.
Rename the new tree, not chemistry or phsyics. It should be named in a way to show the playstyle that the tree encourages.
Yup, we should in fact call it FAST CRAP, BIO CRAP, SLOW, HARDHITTING CRAP, etc until we've really defined which playstyles work and which don't and then give them a final name.
you may be mocking it but i think this would do great for the end result as long as you fix it back later
No, what I'm getting at is that HEMG would be an ideal weapon for a light tank, it's just that at the moment we put them on APCs and use APCs as light tanks instead. You could restrict it to light chassis only if you wanted.
I wasn't really mocking, Krenzo did the same with the infantry weapons and Valve usually just puts in placeholder models with a custom sound for new types of weapons they try out.
Quote myself from IRC <Mayama> but it would lead to the "hunt for the best gun" <Mayama> imo you can only avoid the best gun with hard counters <Mayama> but how to implement hard counters without making a team automatical lose <Mayama> if it has researchd the wrong stuff <Mayama> if theirs would be a way to resarch two trees at the same time <Mayama> you can be sure that you always research one tree that is at least average against the enemy tree
