Design Directions: HQ Tech Trees

[Azzer]

This thread is an official Design Directions thread.

Should HQ tech trees have routes, like player tech trees, where if you develop down one route, it disables the other route - so that alliances become tactically distinct/unique from eachother?

What should the "themes" be, how complex or simple (linear or multi-branching) should these be? What sort of features (pros & cons) should each route give, and how many routes? Eg one route might give a -1 ETA defense boost, but cause all attacks to be +1 ETA. One might be +5% seeds generated for all members each tick, but give your members a maximum land cap on enemies of 10%... etc.

Please discuss any ideas for route "themes/names", the actual tactical advantages/disadvantages these could give (any features, unique or already found in the game), possible "HQ Units", whether the routes should be totally linear, or a little complex, etc.

 

[timthetyrant]

My suggestion is a nature route, helps with growth (+5% seed creation like your example)
units could be like bears, lions, rhinos and ants(uber cheap flac like lesser vamps except cheaper). Units are very cheap have a decent amount of health, some units get armor (eg rhino hides), do decent health damage, low ETAs, low dev time and dev costs. i dont have any cons at the moment. but im sure there is sum. And hippies should get better cause they are hippies

 

[ViVi]

Expensive armour based units and unique perk.
Cheap health based units and unique perk.
A middle road that combines both (sort of like what we've got now) and a unique perk.

Perks including bonuses to launch time, seed growth and bounty multiplier (lol!)

I really haven't got a clue. I'll just spout nonsense and hope someone smarter than me can make something that's actually viable.

 

[Polo]

Should HQ tech trees have routes, like player tech trees, where if you develop down one route, it disables the other route - so that alliances become tactically distinct/unique from eachother?

I definitely think so. HQs at the moment are quite obsolete aside from Search Lights. They need to be improved somewhat.

What should the "themes" be, how complex or simple (linear or multi-branching) should these be? What sort of features (pros & cons) should each route give, and how many routes? Eg one route might give a -1 ETA defense boost, but cause all attacks to be +1 ETA. One might be +5% seeds generated for all members each tick, but give your members a maximum land cap on enemies of 10%... etc.

I think there should be 6 linear branches each based on one of the 6 player development routes. This would allow each branch to have a specific focus, like the player routes do. I would suggest against bonuses such as modified ETAs, land caps or seed growth, etc. I think these would be extremely hard to balance and make the game slightly too complex. However, I do think unique features for each route could be implemented, just less extreme ones. For example, one route could have the access to an additional mob (perhaps for attack or defence only) whilst another could have advanced hacks where they see what developments a player has or is doing, things that provide a nice bonus without imbalancing anything.

Please discuss any ideas for route "themes/names", the actual tactical advantages/disadvantages these could give (any features, unique or already found in the game), possible "HQ Units", whether the routes should be totally linear, or a little complex, etc.

Here's just a rough suggestion for a Military route (note, none of the current HQ techs would be kept, so no Search Lights etc and I'd also remove the need to tech Empty Land/Basic HQ Buildings):

Police HQ - 96 Ticks - £15,000,000,000
- Enables unit Military Police

Reconnaissance - 144 Ticks - £50,000,000,000
- Enables unit Scout
- Increases incoming ETA view by 1

Armour Plating - 288 Ticks - £250,000,000,000
- Enables unit APC

Watch Towers - 288 Ticks - £250,000,000,000
- Enables unit Watch Towers
- Increases incoming ETA view by 2

Tank Factory - 576 Ticks - £750,000,000,000
- Enables unit Challenger II

Battlefield Tactics - 288 Ticks - £150,000,000,000
- Provides an additional attacking mob for each alliance member

Military Police NLT Disables [close] LET ALL 405 3 £20,000 ** ** ** **

Scout LET Kills [r/m] LET 275 4 {2} £45,000 S *** * *** *

APC LET Kills [all] LET 845 3 £75,000 * ****** * *

Watch Tower LET Kills [all] LET ALL 10 £200,000 I * ***** ****** *****

Challenger II LET Kills [all] LET 375 4 £500,000 * ****** ****** ******

 

[DarkSider]

Alliances with one tech tree that will enable a bonus like Azzer suggested can't work since unlike effectiveness the current score allows you to get all your 20 members and migrate in your other alliance that has other tech enabled that you currently need.
However the tech tree can work if you only limit it to having different HQ units/facilities. Say one gets a larger amount of HQ humvees while another can get many tanks and another an HQ briber ?
I like alot the offense/defense/production bonuses for players but they should be attached to the id rather than alliance tech.

 

[Cyrus]

i think ill have a look at redesigning the HQ tech trees later on i would like to see Options of either or for your alliance to like you say azzer distinguish different allis

maybe options like either:

increase land steals
more output from your land
unit deal 10% more damage in defence?

also unit options

Either:
HQ Tank - that whoops
a Converter unit like zombies which converts into itself

ill have to think up some more stuff but i think the different combos of what you choose would be interesting and add a different dimension to alliances

please note these are off the top of my head, constructive critisism is welcomed

 

[Twigley]

Imo make the units cheaper, less powerfull and then obviously a higher cap on them

Then we can have alliance wars all round while we are bored.
If you kill enemy HQ troops all your members get x% of bounty or something.
If you lose HQ troops insurance goes to HQ funds in X ticks.

 

[Cheese]

What about incorporating a land stealing unit, high cost but steals 5% total off an alliances land and adds it evenly to the attacking alliance.
Would mean HQ staff would really be used alot more.

 

[Dennis]

"Battlefield Tactics - 288 Ticks - £150,000,000,000
- Provides an additional attacking mod for each alliance member"

Polo, how can I see this? When I send out an ETA 5 attack it becomes ETA 6 because of this tech? :S What's the advantage in that to tech it?

 

[Polo]

"Battlefield Tactics - 288 Ticks - £150,000,000,000
- Provides an additional attacking mod for each alliance member"

Polo, how can I see this? When I send out an ETA 5 attack it becomes ETA 6 because of this tech? :S What's the advantage in that to tech it?

I meant mob.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

Alliance techs - 4 subroutes

Alliance techs - 4 subroutes

So as we were discussing on IRC, perhaps we do away with the current HQ tech tree, and replace it with 4 mutually exclusive subroutes. Here's my basic idea, prices and dev times can be determined later as fits, and the specific developments I've come up with can be changed. My real purpose is to present a framework for the new system. The bonuses these developments provide must be minor, else balance will be affected. The first development in each branch should be fairly pointless, the second somewhat useful, and the third really noticeable (as it must be, because it won't be cheap).

Note: Everybody gets to tech searchlights. They're absolutely necessary.



Aggressive
1: Less wheels/geos needed to steal an acre for alliance members (+50% effectiveness?)
2: Slightly lowered thresholds for adren rush
3: Increased base bounty (something small...+5%?)


Defensive
1: Stronger hippies and yobs (+10% HD/AD for each? more/less? can't be too much)
2: Hostile mobs trigger landcap more easily
3: Increased insurance/injuries on defense (something small...+5%?)


Economic
1: Harvesters do double the work
2: Less harm from planting in bad weather (seed loss -50%?)
3: Slightly increased seed production (something small...+3%?)


Intel
1: +10% detection of scans on alliance members
2: Overview expanded to see ETA 6 incomings (assuming searchlights are done)
3: Some inaccuracy on hacks of alliance members (maybe staff numbers are off by +/- 15%? something like that?)



Debate/discuss.

 

[rooney]

i like the general idea, not sure about the numbers though and i dont like the idea of increased seed production available to anyone

 

[Matthew]

IMO no, HQ techs should not influence to this degree at all. Just another way to confuse this game which has been dumbed down already to accomodate for the community. It will just complicate the game and cause more arguements. All 20 people will never agree on a single direction and it will annoy everyone.

Basically if you implement this change I will lead an alliance of 20 shield android players and go the defencive tech tree.

 

[rooney]

although tbh i would prefer a choice of units, that were cost effective

 

[Garrett]

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

anything in relation to economy would be for the HQ's benefit only, as I see HQ's having their own acres (not necessarily tons, but you need support for your buildings/troops) and a small amount of income to purchase and maintain troops.

Maintain? Yes, if the HQ has income, then I think you should pay some sort of maintenance for your capabilities. If you can't pay for upkeep through Alliance Income, donations and/or taxes, then you don't get to use them or have only basic access.

But I digress into too many details.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

IMO no, HQ techs should not influence to this degree at all. Just another way to confuse this game which has been dumbed down already to accomodate for the community. It will just complicate the game and cause more arguements. All 20 people will never agree on a single direction and it will annoy everyone.

Basically if you implement this change I will lead an alliance of 20 shield android players and go the defencive tech tree.

I figure that since there are no drawbacks to any of the branches, there won't be any real grumpiness within an alliance. Nobody will be at a serious disadvantage because their alliance developed aggressive instead of intel, for example. Let the leader set the tone by choosing the route.

And by all means go shields if you will, but even going defensive wouldn't give you a huge advantage.

 

[Garrett]

Well still I don't think HQ's should necessarily augment any 'power' a player or their unit has. The HQ should be there to supplement. I think your approach nameless needs to be rethought.

If you make HQ it's own structure (which it is, targettable id and all) the techs will allow you to do things... like search lights and scrambling haxors.... then the defensive route would have more eta 2 and eta 1 (using bonuses ofc) units to help counter rushes.... Offensive would have units designed to pound the enemy when you are waging war.

But rather than routes, you have 1 solid tech tree. sure plenty of branches... but in order to get a specialized intel tech... you just lost access to the ubertank machine shop. Your concrete bunkers remain available however.

 

[Matthew]

In short what i am saying is that a "perk" based HQ route would be too influencial. It Could be abused to a large extent. E.G. With wings. Using TBA as an example, if they were to have developed seperately with one of the wings being defence, one being offence and one being economy. They would shift LARGE or SMALL players to make growth far faster. Then if they were planning attack move these players who have grown at an accelerated rate into the offencive alliance whilst swapping small players into economy to grow again and large ones into the defencive alliance ot preserve them.

Just no, it is far far far far too abusable with the current approach that having more than one alliance working in collaboration with each other (and rightfully so). It would be an epic fail of abuse and pish.

 

[Garrett]

In short what i am saying is that a "perk" based HQ route would be too influencial. It Could be abused to a large extent. E.G. With wings. Using TBA as an example, if they were to have developed seperately with one of the wings being defence, one being offence and one being economy. They would shift LARGE or SMALL players to make growth far faster. Then if they were planning attack move these players who have grown at an accelerated rate into the offencive alliance whilst swapping small players into economy to grow again and large ones into the defencive alliance ot preserve them.

Just no, it is far far far far too abusable with the current approach that having more than one alliance working in collaboration with each other (and rightfully so). It would be an epic fail of abuse and pish.

let's say you do nothing to the alliances and next round had 2 wings and at first you put all your powerstarters into 1 ally and your up and comers into the 2nd. the first wing races to searchlights in record speed and then starts swapping with the other so they can be defended easier and grow faster....

basically instantaneous alliance swap is the issue. not improving or tekking the HQ.

 

[Matthew]

In short what i am saying is that a "perk" based HQ route would be too influencial. It Could be abused to a large extent. E.G. With wings. Using TBA as an example, if they were to have developed seperately with one of the wings being defence, one being offence and one being economy. They would shift LARGE or SMALL players to make growth far faster. Then if they were planning attack move these players who have grown at an accelerated rate into the offencive alliance whilst swapping small players into economy to grow again and large ones into the defencive alliance ot preserve them.

Just no, it is far far far far too abusable with the current approach that having more than one alliance working in collaboration with each other (and rightfully so). It would be an epic fail of abuse and pish.

let's say you do nothing to the alliances and next round had 2 wings and at first you put all your powerstarters into 1 ally and your up and comers into the 2nd. the first wing races to searchlights in record speed and then starts swapping with the other so they can be defended easier and grow faster....

basically instantaneous alliance swap is the issue. not improving or tekking the HQ.

Instantaneous alliance swap isn't the issue, without it you could still interchange players every 90 mins. The issue is that wings and multiple alliances would gain a greater advantage over other alliances promoting the use of multiple alliances working in collaboration. By all means change the HQ even implement certain "routes" but not a perk based change.