dieaready
Corporal
Reged: 11/15/05
Posts: 74
|
New IDF system
#163252 - 01/10/12 01:39 AM (218.186.8.12)
|
|
|
IDF now has to be manually targeted at individual hexes (AI does not fire IDF, or at the most, have an extra option for all arty to target a single hex) and has a flight time based on distance it travels (0 - 20 hexes next turn, 21 - 30 hexes 2 turns later, > 30 hexes 3 turns later). Artillery shells suffer shell deviation based on to-hit rolls, so IDF units won't be able to accurately hit a specific hex all the time, but if they are very skilled they get a better chance of hitting (hit anywhere from 1 - 5 hexes away).
IDF now deals splash damage (IDF 2 splashes 2 dmg to everything in the hex, IDF 5 splashes 5 dmg to hex, IDF 10 splashes 10 dmg to hex and 5 dmg to surrounding hexes, IDF 20 splashes 20 dmg to hex, 10 dmg to surrounding hexes and 5 dmg to hexes after that [maybe]). IDF will damage all units in game, so they will be much harder to use for fear of friendly fire.
Advantages:
1. Massed snipers will no longer be an issue as they won't be able to hit moving units (unless you are good at predicting movement).
2. IDF still useful against towers and especially useful against tower clusters.
3. IDF could possibly be useful against those dreaded hunter/grd swarms.
4. IDF requires more player input, so less of them would be used overall.
Of course all the numbers up there are not fixed, but are to give an idea of how it would work.
--------------------
In the land of the Insane, the Sane man is Crazy.
If Brute Force does not work, you are not using enough.
|
Darkseraphim
Newbie
Reged: 12/31/09
Posts: 6
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: dieaready]
#163253 - 01/10/12 02:21 AM (62.143.139.145)
|
|
|
i like the idea
my suggestion for this would be to keep the spread of fire like large range like 9 hexes around declared hex; medium 6 ; close 3. so u itīs harder to kill everything/crit everything before itīs in range. and fire will allways be heavier the closer u came to the enemy. the splash sounds rly good and can be easy implemented on the base of shrapnells of explosions so no big thing to code. adding u might pump up the bv costs of SNPīs so no mass bombardement could be made with batts of snipers. amount of towers could be depending on pop in zone. so u wont have those bottlenecks filled with hundrets of towers fighting through and the opponent HAVE to face his enemy with troops if he wants to get him out of his citys. and that bigger citys are better deffed than a village in the desert is the normal way uīd allways focus on your capitol.
sry for my freaking english ^^
good day
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Darkseraphim]
#163255 - 01/10/12 04:15 AM (173.168.109.218)
|
|
|
IDF now has to be manually targeted at individual hexes (AI does not fire IDF, or at the most, have an extra option for all arty to target a single hex) uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so idf will be 100% a joke if im not on or a bper? i read this right. lmao l8rs DABOSS
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
Darkseraphim
Newbie
Reged: 12/31/09
Posts: 6
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: cbtgod]
#163256 - 01/10/12 04:42 AM (62.143.139.145)
|
|
|
yeh ok missed to make a note to this one
>IDF now has to be manually targeted at individual hexes (AI does not fire IDF, or at the most, have an extra option for all arty to target a single hex) and has a flight time based on distance it travels (0 - 20 hexes next turn, 21 - 30 hexes 2 turns later, > 30 hexes 3 turns later).<
iīd just let ai fire on target units as well as players no hex markers ( even it could be a possiblity for later to implement, but first we want to make stuff more balanced) and the flight time should be at long range + 1 round max
wouldnt make sense if those would hit 3 turns later and rockets also only take no time to fly 21 hex
aat least enemies are spottet and no hopping for them to stand still for 3 turns
true
|
Tigre
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 02/10/03
Posts: 1833
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Darkseraphim]
#163257 - 01/10/12 05:04 AM (216.130.147.106)
|
|
|
Hard to code, bigger issues out there, just remove IDF. . .
--------------------
- Tigre
Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
- Francis Bacon
|
Darkseraphim
Newbie
Reged: 12/31/09
Posts: 6
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Tigre]
#163258 - 01/10/12 05:08 AM (62.143.139.145)
|
|
|
the only thing hard to code is the random hit around the target
the rest is allready existing in slightly other form
and the 1 round later hit for artillerie is just a gimmic not needed and at least done by nevlags itself :-P
|
Tigre
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 02/10/03
Posts: 1833
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Darkseraphim]
#163259 - 01/10/12 05:13 AM (216.130.147.106)
|
|
|
But coding it not to fire on AI (which is already balky) and coding hexes as targets (all snipers would be used for is targeting towers or repair facilities.). . . I don't like the idea. Just remove IDF. . .
--------------------
- Tigre
Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
- Francis Bacon
|
Darkseraphim
Newbie
Reged: 12/31/09
Posts: 6
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Tigre]
#163261 - 01/10/12 05:29 AM (62.143.139.145)
|
|
|
said so thatīs just for maybe later not for now, right now we just want to have it get ballanced without getting lost of unitīs researches thousands of RPīs billions of funds and a main part of nearly everyones def which i guess. i think just removing the idf at all is way to hard for the game and just modding it is way to keep game more variable. just make it a bit weaker and/or more expansive
so there are no thousand rounds hitting and critting u each turn.
|
Baroness
Newbie
Reged: 12/22/11
Posts: 3
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Darkseraphim]
#163262 - 01/10/12 05:54 AM (84.128.249.127)
|
|
|
I think that discussion makes minor sence! We have much bigger problems then IDF!!! If you have problems with Sniper or towers: just use Hovers! Or implement VTOL! Both will not be hit by IDF! Or just fast Mechs! The real world will not remove artillery only because they do damage to the opponent. Each system has a weakness, and IDF in useless against speed. Just stop crying and find the right weapon to fight IDF with! And the variaty of multiple choices makes war interessting!
|
dieaready
Corporal
Reged: 11/15/05
Posts: 74
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Baroness]
#163273 - 01/11/12 03:36 AM (218.186.8.11)
|
|
|
coding in the deviation isn't that big of an issue. its just several lines of code:
1. select hex (maybe use a select hex system based on the move orders command)
2. x = (roll 2d6 (standard attack roll) - skill level)
3. if x > 8, hits target hex, if 6 < x < 8, y = roll 1d6, else if 4 < x < 2, roll 1d12, else if x = 3, roll 1d18, etc (which hex it hits)
anyway, coding issues aside, the point of this is to make IDF used sparingly instead of just throwing snipers into a zone then retreating when the enemy gets close. and this would also make IDF towers useless for defense, so we should not have the issue of having to toss hunters into IDF tower defended zones to drain the IDF towers of ammo.
--------------------
In the land of the Insane, the Sane man is Crazy.
If Brute Force does not work, you are not using enough.
|
Tigre
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 02/10/03
Posts: 1833
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: dieaready]
#163275 - 01/11/12 05:17 AM (216.130.147.106)
|
|
|
you would have to balance it though Dieaready. If you take away AI fired IDF towers, then snipers just kill towers, period, especially in non-flat zones where direct fire towers and units don't get LOS. A batt of snipers with a few pilots (don't need to move, just target and fire) and a raven would clear any zone that doesn't have pilots online. We want to drive player on player fights, not automatic offense wins over AI. Want to fight AI? Get SM to keep working on quests.
--------------------
- Tigre
Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
- Francis Bacon
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Tigre]
#163282 - 01/11/12 01:14 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
The flight times is still a good start, but make it all the same. Nev doesnt use variable powder shells to hit units, so it has the same power when firing straight out, straight up, or anywheres in between. To hit something close, you need to fire up more. further, lower.
The actual to hit should be higher, maybe like city idf which is 10+. That should be the best hit. As was stated, idf targets hexes, not units. Units should need a set up time and a tear down time, so they would have to stop firing, retract the stabilizer legs, and pack up to avoid being in combat. They would still be useful, but enough of a hassle to limit their use.
And tigre. player vs player could very well be done, its just players dont want to inform their targets they will hit them at x time. This entails players being ready to hit the attackers bv, which means losses no matter what. Thats something players dont want. Otherwise, code it so you cannt hit someone that isnt online.
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: ghostrider]
#163285 - 01/11/12 01:43 PM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Just remove it. Golly, all these new rules to fix something. It is rediculous.
ghostrider, are you sure you are not Randy?
And yes, every single vet out there wants to pummel noobs, raze empires and lose nothing. Every single one of them thinks like this and that is all there is to it. Despite us arguing till we are blue in the face to the contrary.
Think of it like this. There is a video game you really enjoy playing. You get to level 32 of the dungeon and you just cant make it by the dragon. So, you look up some cheats. GODMODE, YEAH! Five minutes later you stop playing and never pick it up again. Why? Too easy. Not fun anymore.
I really wish you would STFU about this crap, enough already.
Edited by TRK (01/11/12 01:48 PM)
|
Tigre
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 02/10/03
Posts: 1833
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163291 - 01/11/12 02:43 PM (216.130.147.106)
|
|
|
Finally, someone who agrees with me to just remove IDF!!!!
--------------------
- Tigre
Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
- Francis Bacon
|
buc
Captain
Reged: 08/12/05
Posts: 710
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163293 - 01/11/12 02:52 PM (210.86.1.168)
|
|
|
IMO, either remove IDF completely, or reduce it to AC range. AC range IDF would be the easiest change, surely only several lines of code to change.
|
dieaready
Corporal
Reged: 11/15/05
Posts: 74
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Tigre]
#163298 - 01/12/12 02:14 AM (218.186.8.11)
|
|
|
Quote:
you would have to balance it though Dieaready. If you take away AI fired IDF towers, then snipers just kill towers, period, especially in non-flat zones where direct fire towers and units don't get LOS. A batt of snipers with a few pilots (don't need to move, just target and fire) and a raven would clear any zone that doesn't have pilots online. We want to drive player on player fights, not automatic offense wins over AI. Want to fight AI? Get SM to keep working on quests.
true, hadn't thought of that. probably can take out the bit about not firing on ai then. even then, zones should be defended by both towers and vees in the first place for a proper defence, so you shouldn't be able to just shell the towers from a distance anyway.
--------------------
In the land of the Insane, the Sane man is Crazy.
If Brute Force does not work, you are not using enough.
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: dieaready]
#163299 - 01/12/12 06:25 AM (109.246.129.160)
|
|
|
Remove IDF, shorten the range multis on towers, maybe give extra 25% or extra 50% as a max so they can engage Rhinos/Nemis etc but not completely smash normal units.
This would remove the necessity for IDF.
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Malachi]
#163301 - 01/12/12 07:32 AM (173.168.109.218)
|
|
|
and our own military today dsnt use it? so will i get the rps back for the vechs i researched that have idf? just curious. an now since you have taken away all these vechs what about alllllllllllll the empires with the idf vechs in them what do you guys suggest gets done to refund the costs of these items? i wont hold my breath on this. you guys think idf is bad lets add swarm ammo. hmmmmmm how about arrow 4? why not add inferno rounds that just out right kill vech crews but lv the vech ok? how about in direct targeting so i can fire around hills like in cbt? lol nev is way vanilla then CBT. so from what i hear maybe in 2-3 yrs this stuff might get looked at. l8rs DABOSS
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: cbtgod]
#163304 - 01/12/12 09:44 AM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Anyone with half a brain will tell you. You dont own Neveron. You dont OWN anything on Neveron. Things can be taken away and given as SM pleases. Expecting compensation for rules changes to balance the game is just douchy. IIRC we got zip for infantry, but I could be wrong.
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163308 - 01/12/12 10:24 AM (173.168.109.218)
|
|
|
well thank god i have a brain and half by IQ tests. the point is for the new player that may have donated to get the cash for his snipers or what ever idf vech he wanted now its sooo sad to bad you get nothing for that stuff im sorry to bad? neveron is a bizz 1st to sm. new players are the main stay of income for neveron. not saying that vets dont donate. once you get your empires set you really dont need to donate as much? taking away every single thing a player could poss use to defend his empire while asleep or god forbide at work ,is beyond any type or real post changes for the game. as far as me being a douche. you were not on my x-mas list anyway lol. l8rs DABOSS
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: cbtgod]
#163309 - 01/12/12 10:34 AM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
I didnt say you were a douche, I said it was douchy to expect compensation for rules changes. Could be everyone (but me) that plays for all I know.
And yes, too bad so sad, here's a straw, suck it up.
If a player buys something in an online game then that item gets nerfed, do they get compensation?
NO.
Aint gunna happen.
If it does, I have long **** lists of stuff I have lost that I shouldnt have. Yes, due to bugs and no fault of my own. 100's of REAL LIFE dollars in DP mechs.
So yeah a noob can STFU about his 4 DP for a sniper.
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: cbtgod]
#163310 - 01/12/12 10:39 AM (109.246.129.160)
|
|
|
Our own military doesn't use mechs. Want to take them out too? Thats the most retarded argument ever. In the real world the heaviest guns also have the heaviest punch, they don't hit with the power of a machine gun burst. We have guided artillery shells. We have vehicle mounted missiles that can hit targets at ranges of 70km. We have UAVs that allow us to see all the battlefield. We have infantry carrying equipment that can knock out a tank in one shot, and tank armaments that do the same. Do you want these things? Probably not, because they don't make for a fun game.
All the tanks are auto-scrapped. No refund on research, no refund on anything. OR the only 2 vehicles that have no direct fire varient are simply changed to carry 4 AC-2s in place of 2 IDF-2s and 2 AC-5s rather than 1 IDF-5.
I would honestly say that the best idea would be to leave all indirect fire capabilities out of the game. Yes this makes the game more "2D" but at the same time it makes it more interesting.
Do you really NEED any of the things you have mentioned, or are you just trying to **** at the owner because hes not moving fast enough?
As previously stated, reduce the range multies a little on towers and you reduce the need for IDF. If you complain again about the whole I'm at work etc all I can say is don't play a perpetual game.
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Malachi]
#163311 - 01/12/12 11:35 AM (173.168.109.218)
|
|
|
act a bionic suit is in the works right now? lmao allows a foot soldier to carry 400 lbs with out any type of fatigue. although not a mech it is the 1st step to getting one done prob 1st line mechs will be small like the ones in avatar. trk and malachi so uhhhhhhhhhh sm wants to nerf 1k zones. you spent dp on this. and now it so sad to bad? i think not the **** storm that would start i can assure you it would be an ohhh well to bad sit. ive played alot of mmos, and mmo-rts games and act id say you are right and wrong, about 75% of them do some kind of compensation for major game changes. so im sorry i dont like change and want to have to redo everything for what seems a small % of players wanting massive changes. if i wanted to **** at SM id just call him. i dont see any real problems with idf. the major issue is ranges which have to be looked at. the weapon it self isnt a nev killer as people seem to make it out to be. i remeber a time poeple did the same thing with troops in this game. so we adapted after they got nerferd, and never replaced. you guys make the idf weapon to sound like the death star in star wars? l8rs DABOSS
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: cbtgod]
#163313 - 01/12/12 11:50 AM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Not even going to bother to respond to that nonsense daboss.
Do yourself a favour and learn some English.
I need an ignore button...
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163316 - 01/12/12 12:07 PM (173.168.109.218)
|
|
|
goo goo gah goo?
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: cbtgod]
#163318 - 01/12/12 11:04 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
thought they had submersival exoskeleton. That might be considered the beginings of a mech.
I agree with daboss on the fact it seems like people wanna remove the ability of someone to defend themselves.
Idf in its current form needs change. Pull it out, change how it works, doesnt matter. I just need fixing. Really think making it take x rounds to hit the target hex, and maybe shorten the range of them would be the best thing to do. Make it hit on 10+ with skill level 0-3, 11+ with skill 4-6, and 12s with 7-8. That woulkd be for the target hex, not anything in there. Do like btech with the arrow IV and it damages units in the hex on a 4+. Splash damage would be good as well, though with the current ai, this might be a bad thing, since it likes stacking lots of units in one hex.
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: ghostrider]
#163319 - 01/13/12 02:43 AM (109.246.129.160)
|
|
|
If the attacker can't use it, and the defender can't use it then whats the problem?
If the attacker doesn't need to counter a huge range tower, then its relatively decent. The defender still knows the terrain, can plan defences accordingly and outnumber the attacker. I am not saying remove towers, so you can still build very nasty defences but with the change that both sides have to see each other to engage. If I was a defender I would also be thinking about how to set up very nasty units such as demolishers in holes on the map.
As a defender this gets away somewhat from a huge cluster of towers in the centre of the map, or a corner if you are walled/cored. There would be no benefit to cookie cutter defences such as this because both sides need to see each other.
This is not a question of translation of real world technology. I am aware of the exoskeletons being developed, I am also aware of their unwieldiness and lack of stamina. Anything developed in the next 50-100 I am still confident could be engaged and destroyed by a fin (sabot for you yanks) round from a current MBT.
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: ghostrider]
#163321 - 01/13/12 10:01 AM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Quote:
I agree with daboss on the fact it seems like people wanna remove the ability of someone to defend themselves.
Wouldnt that include themselves ghostrider? Or are you going to come up with some other excuse that we vets use in that scenario? Go ahead, get your paper and pencil out and grab 4 hours and try to make a comprehensible argument. You wont, you never will, give up on this perceived one-sidedness, it is all in your head.
P.S. SM can change all the rules he wants to make things "fair". Not only we will have a castrated game, but you are still going to be bitching about how the new changes favor the noob over you. Or whatever lame argument you can come up with.
Maybe learn how to play, then you wouldn't have to **** about how unfair everything is.
Edited by TRK (01/13/12 10:05 AM)
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163322 - 01/13/12 10:26 AM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
Low level lw empires dont have any real defence except hd only tents. Now if you remove the ability of non lw to defend themselves with any but mech, well i guess that will make it that much easier to avoid scratching the paint on your mechs. I mean being able to kill the best tanks in the game with one hit isnt bad enough, but now you wanna make sure they dont have that.
Remember someone saying something about having options in the game, but i really see the removal of options by people like trk here.
Guess you couldnt sell your empires. either that, or you are still trolling the forums.
sheesh. another threadjacked conversation.
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: ghostrider]
#163323 - 01/13/12 10:40 AM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Everyone wants to have fun. Bottom line. Some people are never going to be happy with the rules because they will continue to lose. Not because of rules, but because they cant play.
You are attacking people in the first place ghostrider, you brought it on yourself. No trolling involved. Get a grip.
I dont think we need a new IDF system. Just remove it. Very few people seem to be defending it.
Of course this "unblances" things in people's eyes, but whatever, it is never going to be balanced the way you want it to be ghostrider. You seem to want to be able to do the same thing, never get a scratch on your mech or lose a unit. I think you are just jealous of some poeple's skills in this game. You **** and moan about how unfair it is because you will never be as good as them, thats what really bothers you isnt it?
For the record, I have lost countless mechs and armored vehicles. I dont care if I lose units, all I want to do is have fun again.
I only put one empire up for sale. It is none of your business anyways so STFU about it.
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163325 - 01/13/12 10:59 AM (109.246.129.160)
|
|
|
Yeah, we need to get rid of tents, completely agree. Low level non-LW empires can still defend themselves, but if they don't tent then withour IDF snipers aren't there to edge camp and kill all their tank forces and direct fire towers. Now, your direct fire tanks won't be move critted out of range in some really bad position with no chance of firing back, only for the attacker to withdraw, reset their placement, re-attack with the vehicles likely facing the wrong way, unable to move.
You can still kill that massive tank in one shot. But you will get fired back at. This goes both ways. Balanced? Well now both vehicles can fire on one another and could 1 shot each other. Also you almost certainly have numerical superiority as the defender and have tailored your defences to the zone. The attacker should have aimed to build a generic force which will likely be less suited to attacking your zone, than your defence force is to defending it. With direct fire tanks set in nasty places (as I previously mentioned) the attacker has to risk units engaging rather than render these vehicles pointless. Therefore one unit, well placed with AC-20s, or tons of SRMs or even MLs (ontos) forces something to die to defeat it. Most vehicles wont live more than 1 round against them, so its a minimum of a 1 for 1 trade assuming both die in 1 shot.
Snipers and IDF actually reduce the effectiveness of every vehicle in the game. Their removal opens up a lot more viable units with better survivability. Since attackers generally use mechs and snipers, and defenders use vehicles and towers you actually have more options as the defender to set up a really nasty defence.
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Malachi]
#163326 - 01/13/12 12:27 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
It was suggested to use the old btech set up for idf. It could very well work with them in effect as well as shortening the range. I would also say that it cannt fire if their is a shell in the air, ie if its 3 rounds to hit target, then the 4th round is when it can fire next. One suggestion to add is that you need to have a visual los on the target. The targetting a hex would also allow for people to fire on buildings as well as suspected hiding places of units.
Then again it could become the same thing as it is now, and just sit out of range/beyond a hill and fire away, just taking even longer to fight a battle.
The lack of being able to set an ambush in a zone is a tactic that needs to be addressed. Sensor proof or extremely difficult to spot bunkers/prepared positions would be nice. Make certain units more dangerous, as they should be. A demolisher should be feared. same with the ontos, as well as things like srm carriers.
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: ghostrider]
#163330 - 01/13/12 06:33 PM (109.246.129.160)
|
|
|
Without IDF, they would be. Large cities would be very nasty to fight in with AC-10/20 tanks popping out from behind corners, and to win the zone you have got to engage them with mechs or tanks rather than relying on criticals from our snipers. Your second paragraph has it about right. Its like someone sitting plinking on a 9 because you have 12 to hit and therefore eventually they will win. The reason I would go with removal is that a balanced system is simply too hard to code with what we have. We need a simple fix that is within SM's ability to code.
If at a later date IDF could be brought in, in a proper and effective manner then I would support its return, but right now the system is not good enough and would be better off out of the game.
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Malachi]
#163334 - 01/14/12 10:55 AM (128.243.253.104)
|
|
|
Remove IDF.
Remove tower range multipliers, or at least drastically reduce them.
Then maybe remove Rhinos and Nemmies.
Simples.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
|
dieaready
Corporal
Reged: 11/15/05
Posts: 74
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: mattbuck]
#163339 - 01/15/12 12:15 AM (218.186.8.12)
|
|
|
Can we have more constructive criticism than just saying IDF should be removed, etc. Keep your flames and personal grudges out of this. Especially you daboss.
--------------------
In the land of the Insane, the Sane man is Crazy.
If Brute Force does not work, you are not using enough.
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: dieaready]
#163341 - 01/15/12 04:24 AM (173.168.109.218)
|
|
|
lmfao goo goo gah goo?
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
NeverSayNever
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 11/18/02
Posts: 1655
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: cbtgod]
#163349 - 01/15/12 10:31 AM (92.226.143.135)
|
|
|
Applause, applause, a highly amusing little thread, SCNR ...
The "Too Long Didn't Read" (TLDR) it all version could be summarized as follows:
attackers telling the defenders: "IDF sucks and it needs to be nerfed or removed entirely because ...., well, there are no other targets left ..."
Correct?
Might as well watch a Tyrannosaurus Rex (a carnivore) telling a [edit: Stegosaurus (a herbivore) [not Triceratops (another herbivore)]] that bone shields / armor and a spiked tail as a weapon are entirely unneeded for defense and or survival, maybe even 'unfair', yeah, sure, and of course T-Rex's claws and fangs are for self defense only ...
Sarcasm and such has been turned off now. sorry for the inconveniences, if any ...
Have a nice day / night.
Edited by NeverSayNever (01/16/12 06:20 AM)
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: NeverSayNever]
#163351 - 01/15/12 12:32 PM (128.243.253.104)
|
|
|
dieaready, that is my constructive criticism. I think that these rules are complex for no reason, and that frankly IDF is a soul-destroying weapon, the removal of which would make the game better. I'm not arguing this from the attacker perspective, it's more a general thing:
The game is more fun if you can shoot back.
As it is, we have snipers which sit in corners, plink vehicles to death and retreat without the other side being able to even get into range. It's not fun at all: For the attacker it's just plain boring, and for defender it's incredibly frustrating.
IDF was implemented because of extra range towers, which were implemented because of Nemmies etc. Now, Nemmies have range 25, which isn't too much more than 21, so a mobile defence has a better chance here, and if we just change the way range multis work (eg 1/6 or 1/3 extra range instead of 2x or 3x) then they don't have an advantage at all. Defenders still have an advantage from towers, but it's not such a big deal that you need the insanity that is IDF to counter it.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
|
dieaready
Corporal
Reged: 11/15/05
Posts: 74
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: mattbuck]
#163360 - 01/16/12 07:11 AM (218.186.8.12)
|
|
|
The point of my changes to IDF is to keep it still useful to towers while making it much more difficult to use so we can still keep their effectiveness against towers while reducing the threat to vehicles, so no more
snipers in corners plinking vehicle hordes.
While it probably would be a bit to code in, it could be for future improvements when SM has the time. This would add another layer to nev that could potentially make LW more fun.
--------------------
In the land of the Insane, the Sane man is Crazy.
If Brute Force does not work, you are not using enough.
|
NeverSayNever
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 11/18/02
Posts: 1655
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: mattbuck]
#163361 - 01/16/12 08:23 AM (78.49.236.131)
|
|
|
Quote:
The game is more fun if you can shoot back.
That much is true, but IDF weapons based units are available to both sides of a conflict: attacker and defender.
Of course I can see the counter complaint coming already: "... but range multis are for towers only ..."
Yeah, sure, but on the other hand towers can't move, or leave their homezone and attack, and of course the towers worth using (the ones with range multis) are prohibitively expensive.
Quote:
As it is, we have snipers which sit in corners, plink vehicles to death and retreat without the other side being able to even get into range. It's not fun at all: For the attacker it's just plain boring, and for defender it's incredibly frustrating.
Huh? As a defender one could simply use a couple of IDF2 equipped towers with range multi to shoot at the edge hugging Snipers.
Of course any attacking Snipers would have to move closer towards the range multied IDF towers while taking advantage of movement related to hit penalties for any incoming IDF shells, thus negating most of the range multied IDF towers range advantage.
IMVHO IDF towers with or without range multis are far from being the unsurmountable uber weapon for defenders simply because they are expensive to research, build and maintain, plus they can't be used for attacking (static defense only) and are vulnerable to ammo drain tactics (well, they would be without the ammoless tower designs firing exploit).
In addition any unsupported, specialized, range multied IDF towers are extremely vulnerable to attacking fast hover tanks and or fast jumper Mechs (target movement related penalties for IDF based weapons).
Quote:
IDF was implemented because of extra range towers, which were implemented because of Nemmies etc. Now, Nemmies have range 25, which isn't too much more than 21, so a mobile defence has a better chance here, and if we just change the way range multis work (eg 1/6 or 1/3 extra range instead of 2x or 3x) then they don't have an advantage at all. Defenders still have an advantage from towers, but it's not such a big deal that you need the insanity that is IDF to counter it.
Funny fact is I keep reading way, way, way more "attacker wins" messages than "defender wins" messages in the war logs, and yes, I know, lots of undefended zones out there, that much is true, but even well defended tower zones won't last forever, well, maybe except some heavily 'walled' / 'cored' ones but that would be an entirely different issue ...
IMVHO the current IDF towers with or without range multis are working as intended, they offer a way to successfully defend a zone with serious terrain and or buildings related Line Of Sight issues for some time, e.g. while sleeping, at work, etc., but they are not cheap to research, build and maintain - and you can't attack your neighbours with uber towers of doom (with or without range multis), though insanely uber upgraded, utterly unbalanced Mechs of Doom might work as "Land Acquisition Gear" ...
So much for a carebear's / defender's point of view regarding the ongoing IDF and balance discussion ...
Have a nice day / night.
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: NeverSayNever]
#163362 - 01/16/12 10:18 AM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Lets just get a new game to play... x_X
No one is ever going to agree.
IF we want a balanced game, I mean tried an true, move to CBT rules or as close as is feasible. It is already balanced for us. Some of the rules, such as regarding static defences, would completely nerf towers. Neveron isnt even remotely close to getting this right.
As far as IDF goes, we have two types of artillery in CBT on board and off board. Looking at the rules for both, they both target a hex not a unit. my information is second hand, so I could be wrong about the direct fire bit. That said, all damage is prtty much "splash" damage. Just seems like too much of a hassle to code, people wont like this either, critting and or killing 4 tanks with one shot.
So, my idea was:
Leave IDF as indirect fire. Shorten ranges to AC ranges. Get rid of multi-ranged towers. Settle terrain in buildables a bit. Remove upgrades. If all this is done, all people have left to **** about is the Clan tech on some mechs. This is the reason they created multi-range towers to begin with, so we are back to where we started. The root of this seems to be the problem with "uber" mechs that people have.
Edited by TRK (01/16/12 10:18 AM)
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163363 - 01/16/12 11:55 AM (128.243.253.104)
|
|
|
Oh yes, also, FIX TERRAIN.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: mattbuck]
#163365 - 01/16/12 06:39 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
Its not nerfing towers really, its bringing them in line with the rest of the game. It is something that most people are saying needs to be done. A few are concerned that without doing a few other things at that time, it would screw up defending oneself, I am included in this.
CBT targets hexes. You need a forward observer to even begin to do so. A few hexes are 'set' for firing on. Biggest problem with nev on the splash damage is the ability and problem of nev to stack every unit under the sun in one hex.
Otherwise, everything that trk said with the last post, has been what ive been saying on those issues.
|
Tigre
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 02/10/03
Posts: 1833
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: ghostrider]
#163415 - 01/18/12 12:58 PM (216.130.147.106)
|
|
|
As for towers, how about each level of tower adds 3 hexes to weapon ranges. EG, a level 1 has range 24 on an LRM, level 2 27, etc. . . no 2x and 3x in small towers (explain that logically. . .) Then remove IDF and expand the SOI rules on number of units in a zone (e.g. towers don't count since you can't mobilize them anyway.)
--------------------
- Tigre
Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
- Francis Bacon
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Tigre]
#163417 - 01/18/12 01:12 PM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Why do towers need extra range? they already get benefits that are not meant for static defences in CBT. They have turrets for one...
|
Tigre
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 02/10/03
Posts: 1833
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163420 - 01/18/12 01:20 PM (216.130.147.106)
|
|
|
but they are supposed to be fortifications, yet they crit as do vechs. . .
--------------------
- Tigre
Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
- Francis Bacon
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Tigre]
#163423 - 01/18/12 01:22 PM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Is that why they need extra range tho? Then why not every vehicle in neveron?
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163424 - 01/18/12 01:26 PM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Static Defenses:
Bunkers
Field Works
Fortifications
Installations
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Tactical_Handbook
I dont know all the secific rules for them, but there it is. Some of them may be level 3 rules. I will do some more looking.
I know Neveron is different. However, I dont think the wheel needs to be re-invented.
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163446 - 01/18/12 05:42 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
could use all the old arguements, such as terrain bites, or the waves of cannon fodder tanks being thrown against them to waste ammo, and other things like this.
But I will use one simple thing. You dont have an automatic reload feature on towers, nor do you have the automatic hit the enemy, unless you have someone with access to your empire. So unless you are on line 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you need to rely on something. Towers range should be brought in to balance with the rest of the stuf, but quite frankly, an attacker can keep a battle open with a single unit, while there attack force is reloading. Without some benefit like a little longer range, towers become almost worthless. Unlike a real war, where you would be restocking ammunition in a tower as a battle rages around, this game doesnt allow for it. As for cbt. How many fights do you have that someone else isnt playing the defenders? Is there EVER a time that you dont have a human controlling the opposition? Nev has that happen all the time, and ai bites.
Now why would you feel turrets arent meant for static defense?
Really. What good would a defensive building be if it could only fire in one direction?
Maybe having to have towers create their own power would limit what can be done with them, as is in the fortification rules.
|
Phred
Sergeant
Reged: 01/20/12
Posts: 174
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: ghostrider]
#163473 - 01/20/12 04:44 PM (137.186.132.65)
|
|
|
Static defences could not just shoot one direction. IIRC they had three sides with weapons. This covered 360 degrees. No turrets though. Those are expensive and can be used on a mobile unit.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
