Wayward_Son
Major
Reged: 07/05/02
Posts: 1287
|
Revamping Battle
#139574 - 11/10/06 07:50 PM (69.92.11.248)
|
|
|
If you choose to leave a comment please be specific about what you like or don't like.
I have spent a lot of time over these past weeks thinking about what further improvements to the game will help make it more tactical, interesting, player friendly and generally enjoyable. I believe the following will make great strides towards that end:
1. The default location for all non-tower units will be "off-planet." When units are off-planet they will be able to train and duel but nothing else. This keeps units safe from attack when the player is offline. Units may be brought to the planet at any time for a small fee and transit period, and sent off-planet after a 30 minute “waiting” period similar to waiting for an airlift.
2. The dueling stable will be removed and all units that had been placed in the dueling stable will simply be listed as off-planet. They will require maintenance to upkeep and be usable in war.
3. OMT will be taken out. In its place we will use support points to structure how many units an empire can have on-planet at any time. This means that nobody will ever be stuck in the position of having to sell/scrap units to get their OMT in line, they simply will have less support points to be used to bring units on-planet. The calculation for support points will be altered to account for this new usage of the system. Large empires will clearly have very large SP thresholds, allowing for significant on-planet garrisons. As with OMT, towers will not count towards the threshold.
4. In addition to limiting the total support points of units you can have on-planet at any time, there will also be a limit to the support points per unit that can be used. This will easily and clearly create a limit on the size and power of units usable at smaller levels. The per unit cap will increase as your total support points increase, so level 0 and 1 empires will be using generally
light mechs and low-end vehicles, and then increase as their support points do. This way you will never see a skill 0 Starslayer marauding through level 1 empires, or a Nemesis in a level 4. That is, the empire could HAVE one of those units, but they would never have enough per unit support points to bring the unit on-planet.
5. All double and triple range towers will be removed from the game completely. Towers of these types will be decommissioned and the designs will be “liquidated” for approximate Treasure Points so the RP can be used on other things. Towers will be given a +1 range to all weapons per level of height, so a level 6 tower will have a +6 range to all weapons. The range bonus will likely only apply to weapons with a max range of longer than 3.
6. IDF ranges will be altered to match those of their LOS counterparts. An IDF-2 will have the same range as an AC-2. An IDF-20 the same range as an AC-20. The +2 penalty to hit for IDF will be removed, however the double target movement penalties will remain.
7. Towers will only be allowed to be placed in the middle 35 x 35 hexes of the battle map. Any towers outside this area will be decommissioned and placed back in the armoury in that zone.
I believe that this will go a long way towards cleaning up a lot of the systems that we currently have implemented. It will also bring battle back in to the ranges that standard LOS units currently use, and remove IDF as the preeminent weapon in the game while retaining a strategic relevance. It will also go a long way towards protecting smaller empires from overpowered enemies and also protecting everyone’s most precious assets (units) while they are off-line. The OMT spiral that empires can get into from a devastating loss of infrastructure will be eliminated allowing for greater security and enjoyment for all. Reduced ranges of towers and other units will also result in a significant decrease in lag during battles.
Please remember that these are ideas based on feedback that I have gotten from players, issues that I see in the systems and what is actually codable and feasible with the systems and technology available. A lot of times player suggestions aren’t codable, are easily abusable or do not address the needs of the issue at hand.
Player suggestions also tend to reflect the play-style and personal interest of the player making the suggestion. Warriors tend to think attacking is too hard while empire-builders believe it is far too easy. Simply because I don’t follow your exact suggestion doesn’t mean that I’m not listening or taking your opinion into account. A lot of times players are able to point out abuses that I haven’t thought of, or issues that had not come to light while fleshing out the ideas and have been invaluable over the years.
Still, there is no single “player voice.” You can read the Infantry thread and see the wide, wide breadth of opinion that is expressed there, and is representative of the feedback we have gotten on nearly every topic since the game began. I have to look at the overarching needs expressed as well as the long-term viability and needs of the game.
Additionally, I do not presume that this will fix ALL of the issues in the game. Simply because your pet peeve is not addressed doesn’t mean that you should discount the things that this proposal does address. If you see a way to work a fix of your pet peeve into the above proposal then feel free to make the suggestion. Even if it does not get addressed now does not mean it won’t be addressed later.
Thanks to everyone for their time and consideration, and especially their continued support.
WS
*Edit* I forgot to add that CF's and surrender's would be heavily weighted towards infrastructure losses instead of BV losses. Otherwise you would be able to make unsurrenderable empires.
If you choose to leave a comment please be specific about what you like or don't like.
|
This is an excellent move forward even if some minor tweaking is needed.
|
|
|
Significant changes are needed but overall the proposal is good.
|
|
|
I don't like the sounds of these changes but I can live with them if I had to.
|
|
|
Most of the changes are unappealing to me but there are a couple good ideas.
|
|
|
This is completely off track.
|
|
|
|
|
Katrar
Major
Reged: 09/15/02
Posts: 1314
Loc: Seattle, WA USA, Terra
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#139575 - 11/10/06 08:18 PM (214.13.141.100)
|
|
|
Wayward, I applaud two very important things here. First and foremost, recognizing that the status quo on Neveron pleases -nobody-. And second, that you are not only tackling the issue head on, but doing so in a way that stands to remove a great deal of complexity, rather than increase it.
I fully and whole heartedly support your decision to consider these sweeping changes.
Change on Neveron, while always the best intentioned, has rarely produced the best results. Perhaps this time can be different.
Katrar
|
Sid
Corporal
Reged: 08/08/03
Posts: 50
Loc: California
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Katrar]
#139576 - 11/10/06 08:25 PM (71.135.68.61)
|
|
|
I like this except that the on-planet stuff needs some tweaking.
|
mechjman
Newbie
Reged: 09/18/06
Posts: 2
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Katrar]
#139577 - 11/10/06 08:29 PM (220.245.178.132)
|
|
|
WWS, i like your proposal very much. The reduction in reliance on IDFs is important to make people use their other vehicles, and not relying purely off crits. To make things even fair, IDFs should be only allowed to fire every 2nd round, or increase their SP values, to counter their reliance.
mechj
Edited by mechjman (11/10/06 08:31 PM)
|
Gilgoreth
Sergeant
Reged: 06/11/06
Posts: 174
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: mechjman]
#139578 - 11/10/06 08:40 PM (72.208.97.30)
|
|
|
wws i love it all, not only would they take away the idf reliance on the game, it is a huge shift to making this a mech based game, wich is what it should be
|
Baku
Newbie
Reged: 06/17/05
Posts: 14
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: mechjman]
#139579 - 11/10/06 08:45 PM (138.130.79.82)
|
|
|
will the soi stuff still be taken into account? or will units be automatically mobbed when brought planetside? and how many towers will be allowed per zone?
|
The_Colin
Sergeant Major
Reged: 08/09/06
Posts: 222
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: mechjman]
#139580 - 11/10/06 08:50 PM (216.250.12.37)
|
|
|
WW, I am once again very glad to see you taking the initiative to improve the game.
Some of the changes look very good.
I think, though, that some don't.
For starters, if an empire can have any number of units off-planet, players can still create the uber-military empires OMT was intended to stop. In war, as soon as a battle is lost they could replace all of the units. I think a good, practical approach would be to have the same cap for off-planet units as on-planet ones.
Secondly, as long as you are completely taking away the advantages of IDFs, why don't you just remove them altogether? Large empires attack with just a bunch of snipers and a few big mechs to guard them. It takes DP, but it's incredibly easy save for the cost and planning. There's no strategy involved there.
And IDF units could be replaced with equivilent units with the same soldiers. For example, all BEH-IDFs would be replaced with BEH-44Vs. I don't know what you'd do for snipers, ripostes, etc. though.
And for the towers, people put RP into the designs and money into their production. The cost of a decent tower is usually many times the 'cost' listed on the design, with weapons and ammo. Perhaps you can offer players an option, liquidate the towers for compensation or simply take the range multipliers out.
However I think the ranges should remain. Perhaps just take out 3x. But I think the advantage should always be for the defender. The attacker has a huge advantage as he can pick his target and go after an empire with little comparative means to defend himself. And one of the few ways (at lower levels at least) to successfully stop a large attack is with long range towers.
One thing that should be done is to remove snipers. It's snipers vs everything else right now, and that sucks.
And for OMT, here's an idea: simply change it so it doesn't apply soon after a war. After a war it won't kick in until you get your SP up for the first time. To prevent abuse of this (empire surrenders, then accumulates lots of units needing no pop) put a time limit on this porportional to empire level or something.
I like the idea of being able to have units off-planet. This way people won't not donate because their DP mechs can be easily killed. And I have heard quite a few people list that as a principal reason for not donating. However, units off-planet must not count for surrender rates, because otherwise it would be easy to make an empire that could not be surrendered. And probably the surrender rate should only take into account units that were on-planet since the start of the war.
--------------------
- COLiN
Edited by Colinaria (11/10/06 08:57 PM)
|
Baku
Newbie
Reged: 06/17/05
Posts: 14
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Baku]
#139581 - 11/10/06 08:50 PM (138.130.79.82)
|
|
|
and also a mandatory no war time so that people can adjust
|
Bartman
Newbie
Reged: 03/17/04
Posts: 18
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Baku]
#139583 - 11/10/06 08:58 PM (60.228.64.169)
|
|
|
Firstly, in general I like all of these ideas.
A few questions though.
1: When you say default location will be off planet for all non-towers units, I assume we can decide if we wish to place non tower units (up to the sp threshold) on planet for defensive purposes?
2: As we are pretty much negating the purposefulness of idf towers, will there (or can there) be a period of non loss of skill when we decomission those towers?
3: I assume that snipers and other idf tanks will now have their range adjusted accordingly?
4: Would be good to see the sp thresholds for each level emp for this proposal.
Bartman
|
Countergod
Lieutenant
Reged: 08/07/02
Posts: 484
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#139584 - 11/10/06 09:00 PM (128.211.247.148)
|
|
|
I do not like most of these changes. The whole reason why towers were introduced was because people were using uber DP units (nemis and stoned rhinos) to kill off the entirity of the defending units without coming into range to be shot back at. people like Pimp and Dragion were killing entire empires while people watched without being able to respond. they would just hit, shoot, hop out of the zone, then hit again immediately. if you remove towers, then it will be just like that again. If you nerf IDF, you cant hit towers, and suddenly we will have all tower defended zones which are impenetrable. The only way to do it properly is either remove all clantech DP mechs, or leave it as it is now. I like the removal of OMT idea, and the off planet idea is workable, but the tower and idf idea needs SERIOUS work or else it will revert to the old problems again.
--------------------
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck 
Maj. NevLord Madman
|
Dee
Sergeant Major
Reged: 02/15/06
Posts: 248
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: mechjman]
#139585 - 11/10/06 09:07 PM (142.177.213.225)
|
|
|
I like the idea, needs some tweaking here or there, but generally I'm just wondering how other systems of neveron will interact with this one.
For instance, removing the duel stable adds maintainence and BV to empires that might not otherwise want it. Making people level up with units that aren't useful in LW or that they would never use in LW but that they enjoy using for dueling. (and we want the arenas to be successful don't we?)
When at war, when you lose pop do you lose the ability to bring down units some units? ie- I attack you, steal 12.5% of your empire in pop. Does that make you be able to bring down less units and me be able to bring down more now?
Will you be able to bring down units to the planet and have them hot drop instead of having to land in a zone you control?
Could we have an option for having our units be put out of planet as default? Some larger empires wouldn't want to have to move a couple thousand units back planetside to defend themselves, especially with a "small fee" on the movement.
How do you surrender people who have higher BV than pop, 50% surrender and keep all their BV off world? You will litterally be unable to surrender them, since you need to kill their BV? And if they have no CivPop they can't bring down units, and then you time out the war and lose skill on all your units in your empire.
Could we find out more about HOW MUCH each level will be able to have on planet before implementing it? You need to keep it reasonable.
Make wars cancelable again. Maybe bring back lower surrender settings again. That will help keep people from being stuck in non-winnable wars. Maybe give an option for the other person to DoW back after the first DoW was canceled (within a set time) where all losses remain the same but it counts as the other person DoWing?
Will SoI even matter anymore?
And people keep telling me about tower ranges to beat uber mechs. I dunno, since I don't have many towers in my little empires and haven't run into many companys of 8 rhinos and 4 nemesies. So, people want to be able to defend against that, what you got in mind?
I know I have more concerns, but I can't think of them at the moment. I'll post again (or edit) when I can think of them.
~Dee
Edited by Dee (11/10/06 09:26 PM)
|
Dom6789
Newbie
Reged: 10/07/06
Posts: 1
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Baku]
#139586 - 11/10/06 09:07 PM (24.107.123.100)
|
|
|
For the most part, I find myself agreeing with the above changes. There are a few issues that I believe need to be adressed though.
Specifically, units being on and off planet. While bringing units otherwise off planet to the surface during wartime is possible, bringing units that are on planet to orbit is something that needs some tweaking. If you are attacked, then you should not be able to bring units that are on-planet to orbit. If you want to keep them safe, just bring them to orbit when you are going AFK, not when you are under attack.
IDF's. I agree with Colinaria. Just get rid of them. All they add is frustration.
An aspect I think should be considered is using Off planet forces in hot-drops. Can you use the forces you have in orbit to hot-drop an enemy position? Granted that would be a LOT more expensive than a "normal" hot-drop.
Storage: I hope we can't store stuff in orbit like un commissioned units in orbit. I can imagine a level 4 with enough potiental BV hidden in orbit to make it a level 6, or possibly 7 in no time. (They'd store that stuff to make sure big empires cannot hit them, while they can crush smaller ones at will) That stuff should be vulnerable just like troops on-planet.
Those are just my thoughts on the above suggestion.
Edited by Dom6789 (11/10/06 09:10 PM)
|
Octurion
Private
Reged: 01/30/04
Posts: 37
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Countergod]
#139588 - 11/10/06 09:15 PM (172.145.206.119)
|
|
|
I agree with countergod, The new support rules would end many of the issues with low level DP raiders but ther are some high level empires that got forces like a company of 8 rhinos and 4 nemis which wihtout the IDF towers would be able to kill most other normal high level empires without much risk of dmg. These uber of uber DP mechs just have too much firepwer at such a long range that you cant counter with normal mechs or vehicles. I wont support any IDF change untill you can tell us how we can deal with with forces or how these high level DP raiders will also be limited.
|
darkpegesus
Newbie
Reged: 02/01/04
Posts: 11
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Countergod]
#139589 - 11/10/06 09:18 PM (69.63.29.60)
|
|
|
I like the changes. but more than I like the changes, I like the way they are being approached and the respect it implies for the player base.
This needs to be said: I really appriciate being approached with "what do you think about this" instead of "this is the change, its for the better believe me, deal with it or quit"
thank you.
for a long long time this game has (IMHO) been going downhill, I definately think this is a step in the right direction.
quick comments about tweaking:
quoting COLiN :
"For starters, if an empire can have any number of units off-planet, players can still create the uber-military empires OMT was intended to stop. In war, as soon as a battle is lost they could replace all of the units. I think a good, practical approach would be to have the same cap for off-planet units as on-planet ones."
-or- you could make the sp during wartime a depleatable resource....thus effectively "locking in" what forces were chosen to attack.
ie. empire A has 500 sp to drop with. when he declares war, he can drop 500 sp worth of stuff. if he loses 100 sp worth of stuff during a battle, then after that he can drop 400....ect..when you are out...if your opponent hasnt been surrendered..you lose. Think clan bids (but please dont crucify me over using something like "clan" im just using a common for example)
this would allow limits without creating the situation where when you lose some cities, and your sp goes down, you dont have to get rid of everything...
Id also like to suggest a "surrender" button....I come home from work and my empire is under a good thrashing, its 3am tuesday, i have to work the rest of the week, just give me the option to surrender and pay the man......
as far as status quo opinion items, I doubt you could find a handful of players that like the rampent skill up policies. needs review.
if you mess with existing units, be it idfs, towers, whatever, please give us the option to scrap/decommission them without skill up/rep penaltys.
just my two cents..and I know i'm not an alliance leader, or known by a lot of people, or popular, or anything else important, but I have played going on 3 years now and I thought I would reply here.
Alexi Ward
--------------------
Darkpegesus
|
Baku
Newbie
Reged: 06/17/05
Posts: 14
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: darkpegesus]
#139591 - 11/10/06 09:34 PM (138.130.79.82)
|
|
|
none of you seem to realise level 6 towers have +6 range, rhinos has 25, lrm have 27 so u can attack them, and i dunno if it can stand up to 200 or those hits and has to make 2 barrages per tower
|
Aetius
Newbie
Reged: 11/05/04
Posts: 8
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: darkpegesus]
#139593 - 11/10/06 09:40 PM (72.177.127.67)
|
|
|
Do you all not realize how much time and effort it takes to completely revamp your entire empires defenses, every 2 months or so? Try running a level 12 or higher, and actually defend it. First, we had to redo our empires to adjust to omt and soi, now this? Oh, before I forget, unit caps....constantly having to reduce numbers there also. This is how much this pisses me off, this is my first forum post since starting this game in 2001, I had to reply to this crap.
|
wildger
Corporal
Reged: 02/17/05
Posts: 56
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Aetius]
#139594 - 11/10/06 09:49 PM (24.71.223.142)
|
|
|
WS, for all the negative comments I made toward you, I appologize. I really like the off planet concept with removal of OMT. I am sure that it will be welcomed by all players. It is too early for me to make a statement about the change in tower and range of IDF. Overall, I like these proposals. I like to see them implemented eventually instead of being forgotten.
|
Logres
Corporal
Reged: 08/27/03
Posts: 74
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#139597 - 11/10/06 09:57 PM (24.155.115.204)
|
|
|
Most all of this is superb, Wayward!! I am glad to see not only some player related solutions, but a CONSTRUCTIVE method of working them, with active feedback and participation. There are some holes in the proposals, as I am sure you have noted, most have been pointed out already. I have two comments in specific:
1)SP points and/or unit caps REALLY need to be realistic. Talk to the higher level empire owners (reopen #Neveron_Giants as the owner if need be). 5000 units is a bad idea, 2000 is just not even remotely realistic for level 10+empires (unless you want to say we can build 5000 buildings in a zone). If you do implement the SP system, please, PLEASE try to be realistic, from the perspective of those that own a level 10+ empire. We will happily tell you what issues we face if you want.
2)IDF most DEFINITELY needs a change, and the one outlined above is almost right on target. The problem is, as stated, uber-mechs. I use some. They are scary, even when I am the one using them. IDF helps balance this, but is, in itself, overbalancing, as you have noted. Rather than completely gutting the IDF defenses that people have worked hard to establish and manage, have IDF towers add HALF their range to their max range you state above, or have IDF located off-board somehow. The risk then, is that someone could find your artillery, then face a round of on-board fire, and kill it. Off board artillery could be limited use, as in number available during war, or MUCH slower transit times (this is what normally slows arty down).
Aside from all that, thanks a TON for having the wherewithal, and respect for us to present such a cogent discussion. I think we all look forward to the positive results of your actions!
--------------------
"I am become death, the shatterer of worlds." -J. Robert Oppenhiemer quoting the Bhagavad Gita on seeing his work come to fruition-July 1945
"The professional soldier does not study TACTICS, he studies LOGISTICS."-Gen. Goerge S. Patton (thanks chetter, for the refresh)
|
DeathStro
Newbie
Reged: 10/06/06
Posts: 1
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Aetius]
#139599 - 11/10/06 09:59 PM (130.85.250.167)
|
|
|
if you are going to do this, you will HAVE to impliment a drop down to 1 city or less and you surrender right away, because hiding units and then having no cities.....but the support thing seems cool,
question:
if an unit isn't still on the planet will you be that lvl or would you drop a lvl??
|
VincentValentine
Corporal
Reged: 02/06/05
Posts: 57
Loc: Virginia
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: DeathStro]
#139601 - 11/10/06 10:09 PM (69.128.46.174)
|
|
|
Keep IDF
--------------------
www.facebook.com/ahanshew21<---- Facebook Me. PROMO - "Dead cats are us"
|
buddy
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/26/03
Posts: 336
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#139602 - 11/10/06 10:10 PM (128.61.51.105)
|
|
|
The Transition:
More needs to be done to ease the transition than is mentioned. There are many militaries that would take rl years to adjust if their snipers loose 1/3 of their range. Perhaps there could be a liquidation system like the tower design system for snipers and small empires with big mechs.
Towers:
1. Limiting towers to +6 range bonuses would make them almost useless against DP weapons. 150cf ac/2 towers can't do much against rhinos. AC/2 attackers aren't as much of problem because they have limited ammo. If the range multiplier were replaced by a +range attribute, the impact of DP weapons would be lessened.
2. Perhaps now that towers have had their greatest advantage over vehicles removed, they could have effective tons/maintenance increased to levels close to that of vehicles. Egg: a 50cf tower with the weaponry of a vng-A3 has higher maint, less armor, and can't move. Of coarse the comparison gets worse with higher cf.
|
CaBhaal
Lieutenant
Reged: 10/11/04
Posts: 599
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: Baku]
#139603 - 11/10/06 10:16 PM (24.32.85.33)
|
|
|
Baku, I'm failry certain towers don't give bonuses to range based on tower height.
CaB
|
The_Colin
Sergeant Major
Reged: 08/09/06
Posts: 222
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: CaBhaal]
#139607 - 11/10/06 10:35 PM (216.250.12.34)
|
|
|
And Baku, the problem is not defending from mechs. The problem is defending from snipers, which were necessary to defeat towers, which were necessary for mechs. Basically everything is in this weird delicate balance, and such a dramatic shift would upset a lot of things.
Now I'm going to suggest something, I'm not saying it should be done, just something to think about. How about VTOL units? (Vertical Take Off and Landing; i.e., helicopters, harrier jets, stuff like that). To my knowledge, currently only the partisan is coded for anti-air, but you could make all AC weapons anti-air or something. These units can replace snipers and other IDF stuff as principal tower killers, provided it is feasible to build anti-air protection.
--------------------
- COLiN
|
Dee
Sergeant Major
Reged: 02/15/06
Posts: 248
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: CaBhaal]
#139609 - 11/10/06 10:40 PM (142.177.213.225)
|
|
|
"Towers will be given a +1 range to all weapons per level of height, so a level 6 tower will have a +6 range to all weapons. The range bonus will likely only apply to weapons with a max range of longer than 3."
There it is Cab, as Wayward said.
New things:
Tower maintainence would need to be adjusted (read: decreased) to allow for a proportionately lesser cost of less effective towers.
The idea of a 35x35 square in the middle of your zone that your towers can be place is a bad idea. There's not a single reason you can give that will make that make sense from a logic standpoint. Why the artificial limit on where things can be placed?
That's all this time for now 
~Dee
--------------------
...my bed was on fire once. I blame the gnomes.
Edited by Dee (11/10/06 10:41 PM)
|
Splurch
Corporal
Reged: 09/04/02
Posts: 60
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: CaBhaal]
#139611 - 11/10/06 10:43 PM (69.109.112.119)
|
|
|
I agree with several of the above posters in regards to IDF, just get rid of it. As long as IDF is in it will see heavy use simply because it has the capability to hit a zone, fire for a few rounds then retreat without losses, a problem that is magnified when the attacker is fighting AI.
As for towers, +1 per level of the tower really doesnt do anything against dp mechs and unless you have a lot of towers wont actually get a chance to kill most big mechs without the attacker getting sloppy. Attackers already have a massive advantage with the ability to hit with a concentrated mech force on an area they choose on the map. Defenders have to defend 4 sides of a zone and almost never have anything comparable to those attacking assualts. Something needs to be done to balance this out otherwise the advantage will rest solely with the attacking empire. 3x Range towers are nice when IDF isnt an issue, something needs to be done to give a defender a chance to actually destroy an attacking force rather then letting it get away easily (perhaps minimum
rounds in combat or something).
As for forcing towers to be in the middle of a zone, that would be devastating. Towers are there to bolster defenses, if they are put in the middle of a zone and their ranges cut, attackers will simply be able to avoid them on most of the maps in this game, deal with the vehicles int he zone, then mop up the towers after repairing.
As for compensation, empires that want it should also be given a few weeks (if not a month+) free of war if they want it. Most big empires rely on IDF defense right now and it will take a lot of time and effort for them to set up their empire so it isnt open to attack.
Edited by Splurch (11/10/06 10:47 PM)
|
Sarelon
Newbie
Reged: 09/16/04
Posts: 22
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: CaBhaal]
#139612 - 11/10/06 10:48 PM (208.190.253.244)
|
|
|
This appears to be a massive and complicated change that I honestly can't embrace or reject without seeing more details on exactly how it will operate. One thing that concerns me a great deal is the statement “I forgot to add that CF's and surrender's would be heavily weighted towards infrastructure losses instead of BV losses”. Due to the way I enjoy playing that change would really hamper my style. I rely on the infrastructure to help recover the BV lost in a battle. I would much rather replace BV than infra any day.
Though I believe that the battle system could definitely be improved on I would really like to see a lot of other things happen first. I think the whole repair system needs to be revamped, the class structure finished and perhaps tweaked, quests should be revisited, etc. I understand Neveron is a constantly changing and growing system but it also seems that there are more things partially done or extremely neglected than there should be. I would personally like to see some of the loose ends tied up before undertaking such a massive revamp of an important, yet relatively new portion of the game.
Keep up the good work and keep thinking.
|
schattenjaeger
Newbie
Reged: 11/10/06
Posts: 1
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: CaBhaal]
#139614 - 11/10/06 10:50 PM (4.248.77.119)
|
|
|
Firstly, the primary purpose of IDF is not their insane range, it is the ability to fire at things regardless of blocking terrain and structures, such as mountains and buildings. This still leaves plenty of room for strategic tower placement.
For the most part, I like the looks of these ideas, but it does need some ironing out as noted by other players.
|
The_Colin
Sergeant Major
Reged: 08/09/06
Posts: 222
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: schattenjaeger]
#139615 - 11/10/06 10:53 PM (216.250.12.34)
|
|
|
I would like to clarify my earlier post. For long range towers, defending against uber mechs is a big problem, just not as big as snipers. So even if snipers were taken out the 2x range should stay in. I think 3x is a little more expendable though.
Admittedly I may be biased on that, as maintainance costs have so far stopped me from researching any 3x towers.
--------------------
- COLiN
Edited by Colinaria (11/10/06 10:58 PM)
|
hellswaters
Newbie
Reged: 12/14/04
Posts: 11
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: The_Colin]
#139617 - 11/10/06 11:23 PM (68.144.234.206)
|
|
|
personaly, i hate all of these changes.
for the off planet, this now makes it no risk for your units. Now, you can just keep your units in orbit, and dont need to worry about lossing anything. Personaly, i think if you buy it, you should be able to loss it.
As for IDF, why not deffend with it, or preplace. Theres enough counters to it in my opinion.
For the tower range, now the only counter to them is DP, however, i would be for removal of the X3 range.
|
Dzurath
Sergeant
Reged: 04/12/04
Posts: 150
|
Re: Revamping Battle
[Re: hellswaters]
#139618 - 11/10/06 11:32 PM (68.219.135.186)
|
|
|
Comments point by point:
1: off-planet idea sounds good, just depends on what a 'small fee' turns out to be. I would suggest 1k nev$ per ton. The old LC costs were often sited as a deterrent to engaging in hostilities. This is a magnitude smaller, so it won't be a deterrent to active war, but will work as one of those necessary small cash sinks.
2. Good idea about the dueling stable being dissolved. It makes sense thematically with the change to off-world. I can see how it would be a problem with empires that keep a number of 'good for dueling bad for LW' mechs. Would there be a negative impact to the rest of the ideas if the dueling stable were kept? I don't think that there would be.
3. This sounds like an excellent idea for the new system. This is also one of the easiest to break, as the number of SP will need to be carefully analyzed to get the right numbers. As a suggestion to this, units that are mobilized should cost less SP than non-mobilized units. This would allow the SP level to be around what's needed to adequately garrison infrastructure, and then as you gear up for war, create the SP cap space needed to bring down attack battalions.
4. This is an interesting concept. Given that we already have a break point at lvl 7 in empire type, would it be safe to assume that lvl 7+ would be able to support any type of unit, and then it would scale down from there?
5. I like this idea, it allows towers to still be dangerous on the defense, but removes the initial reason why IDF needed such extreme ranges to counterbalance. It still gives a method for towers to effectively fight back against the uber DP mechs as well.
6. Will the weight of IDF weapons be adjusted downward to compensate for their drastic range loss? While the smaller IDF will still be useful as a result of this, especially on maps where LoS is hard to get over a certain distance, the 10 and 20 will suffer a much greater loss in effectiveness.
7. I don't see the logic for this one, can't get behind it at all. Recommend dropping this idea.
In general I see this as a major upgrade to warfare on neveron. The extremely expensive mechs, the pride and joy of many an empire, are protected from loss while afk. This has been one of those issues that has driven away so many new players finally solved.
As for implementation, it is such a drastic divergence from the as is state... It certainly screams for a planet wide cease-fire and implementation en masse. So that empires can take the weeks to reorganize their garrisons, research appropriate new towers, organize off-planet forces for the new reality, etc. The amount of time this really takes is going to be highly dependent on how well tuned the new SP numbers for idea #3 come out.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
