That sounds pointlessly confusing. With a single line of refinements we can label them "Laser 1", "Laser 5" etc. With multiple lines, whatever label the resultant Laser gets will be more confusing and less clear.
I don't really see the problem - you're not unlocking a new type of Laser, you're unlocking a refinement to the Laser tech. So instead of "Laser 1" etc, you would have "Laser" as the base application, then refinements such as "Improved Range Laser" and "Shield-Piercing Laser". You wouldn't be putting "Improved Range Laser" or "Shield-Piercing Laser" in your ship designs though; you would be putting in "Laser", along with all (or perhaps optionally, some or none) of its refinements.
Then how is the player going to know what's going on, when he adds a laser or comes against an enemies' ship with a laser? With such an approach there's, the label "Laser" is unhelpfully indefinite, since it includes a broad array of powers and effects. You can't even learn what it means, you have to look up /tooltip the stats and effects for a particular laser each time.
IMHO the top-level weapon name should be associated with the most important details: i.e. the qualitative (non-numeric) effects. A Rail Gun might be: a short range weapon that requires ammo, and has vulnerability to point-defense. This would be true of all
Rail Guns-- those details that define what "Rail Gun" means. Refinements might
also provide minor qualitative benefits -- if there are enough left over after the applications take what they need. But primarily refinements are about numbers getting bigger. Thus "Rail Gun 1" and "Rail Gun 5" are meaningful and useful for quick comparisons.
I do agree with you that the player shouldn't be choosing between different refinements of the same base weapon when he is designing a ship. The newest refinement should always be the right choice, and it is pointless to clutter up the interface with a lot of absolutely wrong choices -- and if they weren't absolutely wrong choices, the there would be too many choices.
em3: Some of your effects ideas are creative, but not the kind of thing that's likely to work in a quick combat of dozens of ships. This is what we are aiming for:
0.4 design pad wrote:
> The player controls (at least) dozens of ships simultaneously. FO is not an arcade action space shooter where the player has control over a single, high customizable, fighter craft. The level of detail of the ships design system should reflect this distinction.
> The level or detail of player control of ships should minimize the need (or ability) to micromanage individual ships. Not requiring players to be concerned with single-ship facings or subsystem activation will eliminate a major potential source of the "clickfest" micromangement problem. Most interesting tactics can arise from the relative positions of groups of different kinds of ships, and do not depend on details such as the facing of an individual ship.
See here for more infohttp://www.freeorion.org/index.php/0.4_ ... let_Points
I thought of a another weapon effects:
"Stun" chance of temporarily incapacitating a ship
Also, do we necessarily want the next SR weapon tech to be always "better" than the previous one? In general it should be better, but I think there should still be some situations in which the previous one is better (similar to ship hulls, where we want different hulls of all sizes to be used throughout the game).
Yeah, we want small hulls to be useful throughout the game. That's like Short-range weaponry being useful throughout the game. It doesn't mean that the particular short-range weapon, and small hull that you start the game with should be still have some sort of unique edge. Kinda the point of advancing up the tech tree is to make your current stuff obsolete.
I'm open to the idea that there may be more than one weapon tech on roughly the same level, neither of which is superior, but each having different advantages. But for the purposes of this topic, i'm ignoring such things. I just want to make one
line of weapon applications with appropriate refinements..
Geoff, BigJoe, correctly me if i'm wrong, but none of the qualitative effects we've listed so far in this thread are actually currently possible, are they?