Can we rebuff coms?

quote: In Zero-k Currently you can resurrect your commander with the strider-hub engineer, although he'll be reset to level 1, and non-upgradable. I find this an issue

Rezzed commanders not being upgradable sounds like an issue indeed. As in: an unreported bug.

---

Giving commander classes more identity while not compromising their modularity could be cool. Maybe something like this:

- Recon: gets to choose between speed and jump paths, and gets to have a juggernaut impact-jump upgrade in the jump path. Jump is optional (an upgrade), and not taking it means taking something else.

- Support: gets to choose perhaps between buildpower and drone power paths. Almost exclusive access to drones, definitely exclusive access to battle drones. Now that Funnelweb no longer produces battle drones, this is pretty much your unique tech tree ability. Perhaps there could even be a mixed class upgrade where getting drones and buildpower gets you buildpower-drones.

- Battle: gets to choose between run-and-gun skirmisher path (as current Strike) and stomp-and-bomb path (as current Guardian). Unsure in which way this needs to be articulated beyond the already available loadouts.

- Strike: has no meaningful difference to Battle, so is folded into Battle as a specialisation path.

Going with the "cool makes stronk" approach i espoused in the other thread, these general things may happen regardless of any gameplay design:

- There will probably be less increments of stackable modules (max 11 -> max 3, for example), but every module will be several times stronger and will visibly be shown on the model.

- This also goes for guns, shields, and other non-stackable modules. You should be able to see how the new toy makes your boi bigger in its unique way, and seeing the enemy commander should tell you at a glance what you're going to be spanked with.

- The current models will likely be entirely replaced to allow for the above two points.

quote: I think the chassis should probably be selectable during the battle. You would start with a base commander to reduce pre-game RPS for example. The chassis could be just another module although it would be a major one. What if players were also able to uninstall modules for a 50% refund?

I agree, but this means that in our beloved 16v16, on the first second of the game, there will be 32 completely identical commanders until they complete their first morphs and diverge. And many players are likely to never morph and stay identical.

This is a bit too monotonous.

quote: I think it will be hard to tell the difference between module configurations unless the module visuals are really distinct.

Allow me to dispel your fears by assuring that here is no intention to represent all modules with identical gray cubes.

All of the dudes in this proof of concept picture have just one differing module.

quote: the map avalanche wich is extremely small was basically all about com-pushes. Just that somehow noone plays it anymore.

Noone wants to play an extra small map in a game which is meant for gigantic maps? I'm shocked! Or no... Wait... Wasn't that my argument in the first place when I said that balancing big-scale game for small maps is impossible and makes no sense?

I agree with necxelos, terve886, Majo, et al on a number of points:

quote: * I understand people wanting stronger Commander because I also feel that right now it's just a little better builder. I feel like both having and loosing Commander should be a big deal and not just an ignorable detail. * The design around weak commander, that would become strong enough as it gets updated would be that it would be worth the risk of even using the commander in frontline action. To balance the risk, there needs to be a reward. Currently the risk is so high (and there isn't any reward really,) that just keeping the commander safe in the back and letting other constructors deal with frontline building and reclaim is a meta choice. * Commanders should not be the ultimate super weapons, but they should be viable metal investment. * Commanders as of right now are nothing more than a starting point to set your economy up and build vastly more cost-effective units and hide your commander in a stealth field or morph level 2 personal cloak. * I also believe commander-centric gameplay is a staple of TA series and was improved upon on every iteration. Denying this piece of legacy is like pretending it's a different game entirely. It's not. The fact Zero-K improved in many areas (like unit variation) doesn't mean it should discards improvements in other areas (such as Commander gameplay).

I'm not convinced that the following points by katastrophe, Aquanim, et al are correct:

quote: * early game on small maps becomes commander-duel. other units get ridiculed. * Buffing commanders to the point where they can be routinely used at the front safely is likely to actually undermine strategic decisionmaking by making several existing strategies non-viable. * I think making them substantially more effective as a direct combat unit would be a mistake.

IMHO, the meaningful use and deployment of the Commander as an active unit with an important role on the battlefield is a key aesthetic for any TA-descended game, and is an aesthetic which Zero-K is currently lacking. That said, the Commander has always been something of an oddity, a piece that doesn't quite fit, which is why Zero-K has effectively optimized the Commander's existence away in our continuing drive to produce better and more meaningful gameplay.

I'm not persuaded it has to be that way. I just think that in all this time and with all the effort put in we just haven't figured out how to do it right. Not yet, anyway.

In TA the Com is an anti-rush unit, in the early midgame it can be a strong unit, and by late midgame it's a liability. In SupCom it's basically the exact same thing, but adding in the upgrade system extends the period of viability somewhat IF the player so chooses. ZK undercuts this whole dynamic by removing the liability of com-ends and by making commander upgrades a very poor value for the metal investment. That smooths out what is otherwise a wart on the gameplay but in doing so erases the Commander.

One nice thing about the SupCom upgrade system is that it allows the player to keep the Commander active in the game by gradually increasing their power level in response to the overall power increase in the game. At first the Com is unstoppable, but the enemy units get more numerous, more capable, and better-deployed. The Com becomes threatened... but with an investment, can step itself up and stay viable. If the player upgrades too soon, it's a waste of mass. If the player upgrades too late, they get stuck behind the power curve and might as well not have bothered. It's up to the player to decide how long to play the upgrade game, and at any point they can drop out and shift into the "protect the com" game.

Zero-K doesn't have this dynamic because there's no risk and no reward. Or, at least not a risk comparable to "lose your com, lose the game". Either it's cost-effective to spend metal on a mini-strider, in which case you do, or it's not, in which case you don't. Right now it's not, so you don't - and those who do are probably making a mistake. If we buff all the modules or reduce the upgrade costs, then that could tip things the other way, and suddenly those who spend metal on units instead of Com modules will be making a mistake.

Here's an idea for making Commanders viable as something other than a combination laser tower / nanotower in the base: Make every upgrade level increase the Com's metal and energy production. Fiddle with the numbers so that upgrading just to get the additional econ is a losing proposition, and upgrading just to get more powerful combat capability is a waste of metal, but upgrading to get both is a pretty good deal. This incentivizes upgrading the Commander and then doing something with it, because if you don't put it to some use then upgrading is a waste. But at the same time, upgrading and then putting it to some use has trade-offs, because by putting it on the battlefield you're also putting an increasingly large amount of your economy at risk.

Limit the morph metal spend rate so that with any reasonably-sized economy it's not possible to spend all your metal on upgrading, so that even the most Commander-centric player is still going to have to spend metal making units and fielding an army rather than just rushing a mini-strider and playing DOTA. Fiddle with the numbers until most players are upgrading and using their Coms in the field but that Coms are dying in battle more often than they are dominating the battlefield. Upgrading Commanders should be a profitable play if and only if you use them in battle and keep them alive; if you don't use them, upgrading should be a loss, and if you get them killed, upgrading should be a loss. And note that using them and keeping them alive doesn't necessarily mean they have to be single-unit monstrosities - you can use your Com to support your armies and use your armies to protect your Com and still make a tidy profit from a modest level of upgrades.

Let's put some real risks and rewards back into the Commanders.

Would it make it easier to balance if it was not a module, but levelling itself, that gave the energy bonus?

Considering the economy bonus per level topic, why not make commander chasis bonuses apply for all levels instead of first 4-5 as well?

For rebuffing the coms I'd definitely start off with re-introducing the old removed modules and see how it affects the gameplay.

Increased income with morphs is interesting.

Hi, here's some input from a somewhat new player (some of this has already been mentioned by others in this thread).

The main problem with commanders is that many of the upgrades have a negligible effect compared to their cost. It would feel both more impactful and more meaningful to have fewer but more significant upgrades. Just making the upgrades cheaper would not be as interesting.

To make commander rushing less effective and to make deciding when and where to upgrade it important you can do two things: increase the upgrade time (significantly, meaning minute(s) instead of seconds), and make the commander immobile while upgrading. This also works regardless of the cost of upgrades.

Upgrading the commander should add the gained max HP as health, currently it stays at the same HP percentage (applies for both HP from level and HP upgrades). This would add a way to burst "heal" the commander with upgrades, and would make for some exciting battles over stationary commanders being upgraded.

One idea to make it more reasonable to send commanders to battle would be to remove the metal yield from them, but keep (or increase) energy yield. That way losing a commander hurts, but is something you can actually replace. Increasing income with just morphs as opposed to upgrades would run counter to this.

Commanders are defenseless under water, and often this feels frustrating. Being aggressive on water maps pretty much means you have a deathwish, and I don't see a compelling reason for this.

Regarding the individual commander chassis:

Overall the four chassis suffer from the same problem as the upgrades, other than maybe the recon with its jumpjet they don't really feel different in a meaningful way. I feel like either make them more different, or combine them into one base commander which can be modeled along your chosen path with very different upgrades.

The recon commander is unique in having a significant ability right from the get go in the jumpjets. I'm not sure I like the ability overall, since it often works as a get out of jail card. Could it just be a faster chassis instead?

The guardian and strike commanders are very similar, and could probably be combined into one commander. What is the significant difference between them, they are both battle commanders?

So, overall I think that one of the main issues is, do we want commanders in ZK to have a big impact or not, are they powerhouses or just some starting unit to give defender's advantage in the early game. Even if commanders should take a backseat, I think the upgrade system and upgrades would benefit from changes aimed towards whatever goal is decided.

floating allows shooting right.. its not very op if you cant move so it sounds like its ok

Probably less insane because outside of dgun (?) comms are effectively completely defenseless in water and will get eaten even by a hand full of daggers. I wished lasers could work underwater.