| 1 |
[quote]@Anarchid: There are too many morphs, and are too few explanations. The redesign specification stated that every morph should have an explanation.
|
1 |
[quote]@Anarchid: There are too many morphs, and are too few explanations. The redesign specification stated that every morph should have an explanation.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
There are no design principles i can infer from this graph, and none are stated - except "let's have a lot of morphs", which is barely admissible.[/quote]
|
3 |
There are no design principles i can infer from this graph, and none are stated - except "let's have a lot of morphs", which is barely admissible.[/quote]
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
[quote]@Sprung: Some seem even more arbitrary than previously: for example, the Hermit -> Redback -> Recluse path keeps shuffling roles around[/quote]
|
5 |
[quote]@Sprung: Some seem even more arbitrary than previously: for example, the Hermit -> Redback -> Recluse path keeps shuffling roles around[/quote]
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
well
its
a
draft.
i
didnt
make
this
with
design
principles
in
mind
and
i
didnt
come
up
with
an
explanation
before
adding
a
morph.
i
am
a
bit
uncomfortable
with
finding
an
explanation
for
something
i
already
did,
it
also
is
a
bit
of
work
and
didnt
fit
into
the
beatiful
image
:)
thats
why
i
didnt
do
it,
for
now.
|
7 |
well
its
a
draft.
i
didnt
make
this
with
formulated
design
principles
in
mind
and
i
didnt
come
up
with
an
explanation
before
adding
a
morph.
i
am
a
bit
uncomfortable
with
finding
an
explanation
for
something
i
already
did,
it
also
is
a
bit
of
work
and
didnt
fit
into
the
beatiful
image
:)
thats
why
i
didnt
do
it,
for
now.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
one clear cut goal was that each factory have a number of options, that is also why there are so many morphes.
|
9 |
one clear cut goal was that each factory have a number of options, that is also why there are so many morphes.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
the concept of this tree is based on inner-factory morph (which you may consider a design goal too), so there arent really many options other than role changes. it is difficult to find upgrades within the same role without changing other things too much, i wouldnt want hermits to morph into halberds morph into reapers morph into grizzlies.
|
11 |
the concept of this tree is based on inner-factory morph (which you may consider a design goal too), so there arent really many options other than role changes. it is difficult to find upgrades within the same role without changing other things too much, i wouldnt want hermits to morph into halberds morph into reapers morph into grizzlies.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
[quote]@Sprung: Same for Pyro -> Placeholder: it looks totally off and the only reason seems to be "helps synergy" which could be a reason to justify anything.
|
14 |
[quote]@Sprung: Same for Pyro -> Placeholder: it looks totally off and the only reason seems to be "helps synergy" which could be a reason to justify anything.
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
Some take a different path from the obvious one: why does Outlaw morph to Aspis/Felon, and not Thug? Of course an explanation might exist (eg. both Outlaw and Aspis have some area-based effect) but it would be good if the paths were somehow intuitive[/quote]
|
16 |
Some take a different path from the obvious one: why does Outlaw morph to Aspis/Felon, and not Thug? Of course an explanation might exist (eg. both Outlaw and Aspis have some area-based effect) but it would be good if the paths were somehow intuitive[/quote]
|
| 17 |
\n
|
17 |
\n
|
| 18 |
well there are reasons for these, there is a role overlap between pyro and placeholder, where the morph lets you focus on the riot part. similar for outlaw->aspis, apart from the style part that you mentioned, this one is also about the cost difference and a bit about role. thug is cheaper than outlaw, the gap would be too large, and its much more spammy than outlaw, which usually have a supplementary role in their unit cluster.
|
18 |
well there are reasons for these, there is a role overlap between pyro and placeholder, where the morph lets you focus on the riot part. similar for outlaw->aspis, apart from the style part that you mentioned, this one is also about the cost difference and a bit about role. thug is cheaper than outlaw, the gap would be too large, and its much more spammy than outlaw, which usually have a supplementary role in their unit cluster.
|
| 19 |
\n
|
19 |
\n
|
| 20 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 21 |
[quote]@Anarchid Glaive and raiders in general have too many morph options. Insult to injury, the ones with most morph options are also the strongest ones already.[/quote]
|
21 |
[quote]@Anarchid Glaive and raiders in general have too many morph options. Insult to injury, the ones with most morph options are also the strongest ones already.[/quote]
|
| 22 |
\n
|
22 |
\n
|
| 23 |
[quote]@Sprung: Raiders being able to morph to both skirms and riots directly (eg. Glaive -> Rocko/Warrior) means that raider spam becomes self-sufficient, as you can get counters to everything from it [/quote]
|
23 |
[quote]@Sprung: Raiders being able to morph to both skirms and riots directly (eg. Glaive -> Rocko/Warrior) means that raider spam becomes self-sufficient, as you can get counters to everything from it [/quote]
|
| 24 |
\n
|
24 |
\n
|
| 25 |
[quote]@TheSponge: I can see morphs like glaive->warrior being problematic because they completely change the game early on. Imagine losing some raiders to a glaive pack in the north of altair crossing. You would have to instantly get a bunch of rockos to deal with the warrior your enemy now has when you would normally keep going with raiders.[/quote]
|
25 |
[quote]@TheSponge: I can see morphs like glaive->warrior being problematic because they completely change the game early on. Imagine losing some raiders to a glaive pack in the north of altair crossing. You would have to instantly get a bunch of rockos to deal with the warrior your enemy now has when you would normally keep going with raiders.[/quote]
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
all raiders except fleas have 3 morph options. some of which may be better than others, like dagger->mace, overall its even.
|
27 |
all raiders except fleas have 3 morph options. some of which may be better than others, like dagger->mace, overall its even.
|
| 28 |
\n
|
28 |
\n
|
| 29 |
i dont think morph options qualifiy as self-sufficiency, only if you do exceptionally well, or possibly if this tree was to be implentend on a system other than xp. otherwise its more of a situational advantage, which can be a rather large one as in Sponges example. but that particular one was around for as long as i play and have never seen it happen.
|
29 |
i dont think morph options qualifiy as self-sufficiency, only if you do exceptionally well, or possibly if this tree was to be implentend on a system other than xp. otherwise its more of a situational advantage, which can be a rather large one as in Sponges example. but that particular one was around for as long as i play and have never seen it happen.
|
morph tree discussion