|
|
Post by Blackhead on Mar 24, 2016 13:23:15 GMT -8
Let’s finally forget the story for once, and talk about how to further improve the important aspects of the game in future installments.  New Weapons: - Plasma gun/cannon: Extremely devastating close range weapon. (Look at Heavy destroyer for specifics.) - Railgun: Multiple shot mid-range weapon. Average Railgun damage: 6*40=240 max dmg. (Not negatively effected by shields.) - distinction between snipe/kinetics Unit suggestions: 1. Heavy destroyer Role: Destruction. Due to lack of complementary weapons often supported by Ryder squads. Stats: HP: 3500 Energy: 100 Armor: 25 Flak: 0 Evasion: -10 Weapons: Primary: Plasma cannon En: 100 Secondary: none Description: - slowly moves forward towards player. - plasma gun has 4 hax range and damages every Unit within its range. - damage regresses: Field in front of destroyer 2000 dmg, next field 1400, then 800, then 200, then 0 I managed to finish LibDay on Space Whale relatively easily. One thing I didn’t like was that there was too little punishment for super defensive fleet placement. We had these ships with “splash rockets” (forgot the name of those), but they weren’t really a threat. You could always take them down in a turn or two, and keep your defensive set up. 2. Combat Cruiser Role: Extremely versatile. Assault, escort, defense. Finally a reliable backbone. (Design of the standard PACT Cruiser is heavily flawed. I honestly think that the engineers who designed that thing should get fired. ) Stats: HP: 1250 Energy: 100 Armor: 30 Flak: 30/2 Evasion: 0 Shield: 0 Weapons: Primary: Double-railgun (4-shots, max dmg 320 per attack) En: 50 Secondary: Missiles: 3 En: 35 Assault En: 30 Description: - Not equipped with heavy kinetics, or shields and much lighter and less clunky than normal Cruiser. - Has no Laser weapons and encourages player do hide less behind shields. - packs a punch in mid-ranges without running into the player. (Like fast Cruisers) - Makes upgrading armor more attractive. 3. Ryder: Assassin Role: Eliminating high-priority targets, Taking down Ryders. Stats: HP: 450 Energy: 130 Armor: 0 Flak: 20/1 Evasion: 40 Shield: 20 Weapons: Primary: Melee En: 50 Secondary: Stealth (Evasion raised to 80, making it nearly impossible to hit this unit. Important: Assassins can’t attack and use stealth in the same turn. Either they attack and stay exposed, or they use stealth and sneak around.) Explosives En: 130 (Limited to 2 per unit, and can only be used when Assassin is next to target ship. Does devastating damage to any ship, and can’t be used on Ryders.) Explosives would also be a great purchasable upgrade for Icari. Assault En: 30 4. Ryder: Scout Role: Support. Stats: HP: 500 Energy: 100 Armor: 3 Flak: 10/1 Evasion: 20 Shield: 15 Weapons: Primary: Snipe En 50 (Low damage, high accuracy shot for reliable damage on distant targets.) Secondary: Laser-designator En 100. (Marks any unit on battlefield and increases hit-chance for allied units.) Assault En: 30 5. Disruptor No specifics - just an idea. This enemy blocks communication between Captain and one specific allied unit of its choice, causing your unit to do random stuff without your approval. (Most annoying unit ever ) New mission types: - Defend perimeter: Enemies focus on advancing towards specific zones from where they can leave the map. It’s your task to intercept as many as possible. - Collect, activate (insert plot device): Player has to reach different areas of the map, to do whatever the plot requires them to do and then leave. In general: - Include more map/environment in mission design. - In addition to the “big battles” add smaller missions where you only have access to fractions of your squad. Good example: Three missions: Attack a, defend b, collect c. Let the game by default decide who Kayto choses as leader of the respective squads. In this case I’d say Asaga: a, Kryska: b, Icari: c makes sense. So if interaction between Kayto and a Squad is required, you can simply let one of those three speak. Then let the player freely decide who he wants to assign to which mission (rest crew + mercs). Just have a briefing where Ava explains which threats/general conditions the player is likely to face on every single mission. And there you go. Easy to implement, interesting, and tactical meaningful player decision. |
|
|
|
Post by SharrOfRyuvia on Mar 24, 2016 13:48:20 GMT -8
Just gonna point out that the story is one of the game's "important aspects" - hell, I'd argue that they're equally important and that there is no such superiority between the two. Plus I don't get the point of this - LibDay's combat system already got good or great remarks, so it seems like that parts down pretty well - in fact I'd say it's the absolute last thing that needs improvement in light of the other complaints. No need to force an overhaul just because that ONE strategy-nut didn't find it challenging enough  . More constructive note - things like the "plasma gun/cannon" sounds more like something that would make sense mounted on the pre-existing PACT Fast Cruiser/Knife-Fight Cruiser since close-range is already their specialty - a vanguard unit that charges in to knife-fight cruisers with kinetics, only now it can blow holes in clustered Ryder formations with AoE/shotgun-shots. You don't need to create an entirely new ship design. The second ship design... is also basically a re-balance of the PACT Fast Cruiser, just more nimble. Assassins, Scouts and Disruptors sound cool, but they also sound closer to the kind of units Ryuvian forces such as Crow's "Reborn Empire" might use, instead of anything from PACT - his faction, "The Fallen", was described by Sola as an insurrectionist force, so it would make a certain sense.
The rest of it, again, sounds a lot like just trying to stuff busywork into the gameplay if it's all at once - how about one new type per new game? It sounds like there's at least two more Sunrider games coming anyway, so balancing it out would give time to stress-test old and new features. Point being - isn't this kinda pushing a lot for a function that doesn't seem to readily require any sizable expansion as of yet? |
|
|
|
Post by Blackhead on Mar 24, 2016 16:28:09 GMT -8
Just gonna point out that the story is one of the game's "important aspects" - hell, I'd argue that they're equally important and that there is no such superiority between the two. Plus I don't get the point of this - LibDay's combat system already got good or great remarks, so it seems like that parts down pretty well - in fact I'd say it's the absolute last thing that needs improvement in light of the other complaints. No need to force an overhaul just because that ONE strategy-nut didn't find it challenging enough . More constructive note - things like the "plasma gun/cannon" sounds more like something that would make sense mounted on the pre-existing PACT Fast Cruiser/Knife-Fight Cruiser since close-range is already their specialty - a vanguard unit that charges in to knife-fight cruisers with kinetics, only now it can blow holes in clustered Ryder formations with AoE/shotgun-shots. You don't need to create an entirely new ship design. The second ship design... is also basically a re-balance of the PACT Fast Cruiser, just more nimble. Assassins, Scouts and Disruptors sound cool, but they also sound closer to the kind of units Ryuvian forces such as Crow's "Reborn Empire" might use, instead of anything from PACT - his faction, "The Fallen", was described by Sola as an insurrectionist force, so it would make a certain sense.
The rest of it, again, sounds a lot like just trying to stuff busywork into the gameplay if it's all at once - how about one new type per new game? It sounds like there's at least two more Sunrider games coming anyway, so balancing it out would give time to stress-test old and new features. Point being - isn't this kinda pushing a lot for a function that doesn't seem to readily require any sizable expansion as of yet? Yeah, my fist sentence was meant as a joke, it’s entirely subjective as to “what is more important.” In the end it comes down to on whom you ask, some people prefer a good story, some the actual gameplay. For me it’s overall gameplay for you (probably?) the story. On potential “plasma-fast-cruiser”: Wouldn’t really have the effect, I intended to create with the “Heavy destroyer.” This new fast-cruiser (with AoE capabilities) would offensively be so devastating that every player has no other choice than to target it down immediately, which is (regarding their low HP) not really a big deal. Ultimately your formation stays the same though. And if we consider increasing their base HP, we’d really be creating a super op unit (fast, brutal attack, high hp) A unit that is comparable to “Heavy destroyer” can’t simply be prioritized and targeted down in a turn. It will eventually reach you, and force you to split up your formation. (but unlike "fast cruiser" is still slow enough so that you can outrun it.) Purpose “Heavy destroyer”: Punish defensive formation in a way that the player still has time to react. (desperately needed, as of now there is NO reason to even consider an aggressive set up, where you’re not hiding behind thousand flaks/shields.) The combat Cruiser is probably my favorite design out of all I suggested, because it fills in a niche that is completely underrepresented. There is no effective way PACT can deal with you, when they don’t have supports and you hide behind Flak+Shield. Missiles do shit, Lasers do shit, Battleships can’t effectively hit you (low accuracy kinetics.) They can only hope to land a rocket at best. The new combat Cruiser with its Railgun ignores shields and does impressive damage regardless of how much the player tries to turtle. (Finally armor upgrades become more viable, switching up your formation, moving out more, and being more aggressive becomes a possibility - which in the current meta, is just not a thing.) On “trying to stuff busywork”: There are quite a few people that criticized LibDay’s mission-design compared to FA/MoA, if you think it’s less important then that’s your opinion and I’m okay with that. However I maintain the view that gameplay+unit/mission design and expanding upon it, always was and still remains high-priority. There are more ways to spice up and improve gameplay. Just trying my best here in presenting interesting unit-concepts, (balance) feedback from high-tier player perspective, and suggestions to help establishing/ making different play styles more viable. |
|
|
|
Post by SharrOfRyuvia on Mar 24, 2016 18:32:52 GMT -8
Just gonna point out that the story is one of the game's "important aspects" - hell, I'd argue that they're equally important and that there is no such superiority between the two. Plus I don't get the point of this - LibDay's combat system already got good or great remarks, so it seems like that parts down pretty well - in fact I'd say it's the absolute last thing that needs improvement in light of the other complaints. No need to force an overhaul just because that ONE strategy-nut didn't find it challenging enough . More constructive note - things like the "plasma gun/cannon" sounds more like something that would make sense mounted on the pre-existing PACT Fast Cruiser/Knife-Fight Cruiser since close-range is already their specialty - a vanguard unit that charges in to knife-fight cruisers with kinetics, only now it can blow holes in clustered Ryder formations with AoE/shotgun-shots. You don't need to create an entirely new ship design. The second ship design... is also basically a re-balance of the PACT Fast Cruiser, just more nimble. Assassins, Scouts and Disruptors sound cool, but they also sound closer to the kind of units Ryuvian forces such as Crow's "Reborn Empire" might use, instead of anything from PACT - his faction, "The Fallen", was described by Sola as an insurrectionist force, so it would make a certain sense.
The rest of it, again, sounds a lot like just trying to stuff busywork into the gameplay if it's all at once - how about one new type per new game? It sounds like there's at least two more Sunrider games coming anyway, so balancing it out would give time to stress-test old and new features. Point being - isn't this kinda pushing a lot for a function that doesn't seem to readily require any sizable expansion as of yet? Yeah, my fist sentence was meant as a joke, it’s entirely subjective as to “what is more important.” In the end it comes down to on whom you ask, some people prefer a good story, some the actual gameplay. For me it’s overall gameplay for you (probably?) the story. On potential “plasma-fast-cruiser”: Wouldn’t really have the effect, I intended to create with the “Heavy destroyer.” This new fast-cruiser (with AoE capabilities) would offensively be so devastating that every player has no other choice than to target it down immediately, which is (regarding their low HP) not really a big deal. Ultimately your formation stays the same though. And if we consider increasing their base HP, we’d really be creating a super op unit (fast, brutal attack, high hp) A unit that is comparable to “Heavy destroyer” can’t simply be prioritized and targeted down in a turn. It will eventually reach you, and force you to split up your formation. (but unlike "fast cruiser" is still slow enough so that you can outrun it.) Purpose “Heavy destroyer”: Punish defensive formation in a way that the player still has time to react. (desperately needed, as of now there is NO reason to even consider an aggressive set up, where you’re not hiding behind thousand flaks/shields.) The combat Cruiser is probably my favorite design out of all I suggested, because it fills in a niche that is completely underrepresented. There is no effective way PACT can deal with you, when they don’t have supports and you hide behind Flak+Shield. Missiles do shit, Lasers do shit, Battleships can’t effectively hit you (low accuracy kinetics.) They can only hope to land a rocket at best. The new combat Cruiser with its Railgun ignores shields and does impressive damage regardless of how much the player tries to turtle. (Finally armor upgrades become more viable, switching up your formation, moving out more, and being more aggressive becomes a possibility - which in the current meta, is just not a thing.) On “trying to stuff busywork”: There are quite a few people that criticized LibDay’s mission-design compared to FA/MoA, if you think it’s less important then that’s your opinion and I’m okay with that. However I maintain the view that gameplay+unit/mission design and expanding upon it, always was and still remains high-priority. There are more ways to spice up and improve gameplay. Just trying my best here in presenting interesting unit-concepts, (balance) feedback from high-tier player perspective, and suggestions to help establishing/ making different play styles more viable. Yeah, I know it was a joke - just being an ass I was talking more making the attack a new staple of the normal PACT Fast-Cruiser. And that would kinda be my entire point - they would be a severe threat in combat that will force you to not rely on the strategy of bunching up defensively. Not like the strategy for dealing with them would be any different form the normal one - you'd just have to react faster. So again, I don't see the "Heavy Destroyer" being anything but redundant since the Destroyers (missile boats) and Fast-Cruisers fill these roles already. Plus you're really underestimating the whole "Can't be prioritized and targeted down in a turn" - anything at Captain or below can be unless they're over 5000-6000 HP like the Ryuvian Falcon or Nightmare Ascendent. In all honesty, the Heavy Destroyer feels like it would be just an annoyance to deal with on the battlefield as opposed to something revolutionary. And in truth, it STILL doesn't really discourage defensive positioning - if it moves so slowly, it allows for sniping or missiles to whittle it down so that you can knock it down by the time it reaches you. Again, the "Combat Cruiser" just feels like another name for the PACT Fast-Carier we already have, just rebalanced. The strategy for dealing with it - not much different. Only because it felt like they were just thrown in one on top of the other - there wasn't any NARRATIVE PACING for the missions. Again, it was always A priority, but not/never THE priority - LibDay's negative response pretty conclusively proved that, I think. I get that. It just feels a bit too soon to be suggesting it like it should be the focus over all else given, again, what happened in LibDay. |
|
|
|
Post by Blackhead on Mar 24, 2016 21:10:13 GMT -8
Yeah, I know it was a joke - just being an ass I was talking more making the attack a new staple of the normal PACT Fast-Cruiser. And that would kinda be my entire point - they would be a severe threat in combat that will force you to not rely on the strategy of bunching up defensively. Not like the strategy for dealing with them would be any different form the normal one - you'd just have to react faster. So again, I don't see the "Heavy Destroyer" being anything but redundant since the Destroyers (missile boats) and Fast-Cruisers fill these roles already. Plus you're really underestimating the whole "Can't be prioritized and targeted down in a turn" - anything at Captain or below can be unless they're over 5000-6000 HP like the Ryuvian Falcon or Nightmare Ascendent. In all honesty, the Heavy Destroyer feels like it would be just an annoyance to deal with on the battlefield as opposed to something revolutionary. And in truth, it STILL doesn't really discourage defensive positioning - if it moves so slowly, it allows for sniping or missiles to whittle it down so that you can knock it down by the time it reaches you. Again, the "Combat Cruiser" just feels like another name for the PACT Fast-Carier we already have, just rebalanced. The strategy for dealing with it - not much different. Only because it felt like they were just thrown in one on top of the other - there wasn't any NARRATIVE PACING for the missions. Again, it was always A priority, but not/never THE priority - LibDay's negative response pretty conclusively proved that, I think. I get that. It just feels a bit too soon to be suggesting it like it should be the focus over all else given, again, what happened in LibDay. Anything that does splash dmg, no matter shape, size, form is a plus when decently balanced. So I’m naturally not completely opposed to some kind of “fast Cruiser with splash.” Though, I’ve to say that your argument about “Heavy destroyer” is contradictory. A Unit that has like 900 HP, not only close combat weapons+splash, but also missiles is certainly more likely to be targeted down in turn 1 than something comparable to “heavy destroyer” Why? Fast-Cruiser has low HP, taking it down is simple. (You don’t have to waste a lot of energy to do so.) “Heavy destroyer” has besides low-range plasma cannon NO offensive capabilities unlike “Fast Cruiser.” After turn 1 there is literally nothing it has to offer to do any damage whatsoever. Why should I damage/attack a unit that is no threat over all the other heavy hitters in front of me. No, you prioritize different units, because you DIE when you don’t. Wasting everything you have on a far away super tank is not a rational decision, when you have Battleships, Cruisers, Ryders in front of yourself, which will obliterate you if you ignore them. Also: You don’t balance games on low difficulties. It’s normal that you can pull off anything on waifu or casual mode. SC2 for example was/still is exclusively balanced by devs+professional players. In case of doubts the devs even tend to give in when professionals are dissatisfied with something, plainly because the professionals are better at the game + know it better. So if you actually manage to take down “Heavy destroyer” on Captain and then somehow manage to survive the onslaught of your direct threat/enemies you chose to ignore in turn 1, then thumps up. You did it, even against common sense. Man, I’m really upset that you try to actually discredit “combat Cruiser”, while I believe that this one (or something comparable) is by far the best and most needed unit for future games. You don’t even try to explain why. You just say it’s like “Fast Cruiser”, and that’s it. “The strategy for dealing with it - not much different.”You couldn’t be more wrong, and I will once more explain in detail how this unit is supposed to work + compare it to “Fast-Cruiser” “Fast Cruiser” charges into you, often without shield support. (Ships that provide shields are not as fast and often want to keep a safe distance anyway.) This makes it very easy to destroy them, because they simply run in to you. They normally come in groups and therefore have a decent flak-network, but besides missiles you can use everything (kinetics, lasers, pulse, assault when they have low hp) This does NOTHING to your formation/positioning. “Combat Cruisers” on the other hand keep their distance (mid-range) and do impressive, reliable damage to you (Railgun) They operate near Capital ships and carriers, so they have shield support. Now, the super defensive player has huge problems, because all his shields and flaks suddenly do shit. He can try to shut-off (Chigara) shields of the capital ships to laser down the “Combat Cruisers”, but since lasers do rather low damage, he will be punished hard. Or the player tactically advances forward and uses his heavy kinetics to finally bring those pesky “Combat Cruisers” down. “Combat Cruisers” are supposed to effectively zone the player out. (something like this is in FACT revolutionary for Sunrider ironically ) “Combat Cruisers”, unlike almost every enemy so far can’t be hard-countered by sitting back. Hard-counter for those Cruisers would mean to activate your brain and smoothly move forward without getting reckless. "Only because it felt like they were just thrown in one on top of the other - there wasn't any NARRATIVE PACING for the missions."Complains went well beyond narrative passing only, it was also the uninspired, unmemorable mission design that people didn’t like. But we also had positive exceptions like the last mission of LibDay. "I get that. It just feels a bit too soon to be suggesting it like it should be the focus over all else given, again, what happened in LibDay."I merely do what I'm good at. How much attention the devs want to sacrifice in improving gameplay is up to them. |
|
|
|
Post by SharrOfRyuvia on Mar 24, 2016 23:26:05 GMT -8
Yeah, I know it was a joke - just being an ass I was talking more making the attack a new staple of the normal PACT Fast-Cruiser. And that would kinda be my entire point - they would be a severe threat in combat that will force you to not rely on the strategy of bunching up defensively. Not like the strategy for dealing with them would be any different form the normal one - you'd just have to react faster. So again, I don't see the "Heavy Destroyer" being anything but redundant since the Destroyers (missile boats) and Fast-Cruisers fill these roles already. Plus you're really underestimating the whole "Can't be prioritized and targeted down in a turn" - anything at Captain or below can be unless they're over 5000-6000 HP like the Ryuvian Falcon or Nightmare Ascendent. In all honesty, the Heavy Destroyer feels like it would be just an annoyance to deal with on the battlefield as opposed to something revolutionary. And in truth, it STILL doesn't really discourage defensive positioning - if it moves so slowly, it allows for sniping or missiles to whittle it down so that you can knock it down by the time it reaches you. Again, the "Combat Cruiser" just feels like another name for the PACT Fast-Carier we already have, just rebalanced. The strategy for dealing with it - not much different. Only because it felt like they were just thrown in one on top of the other - there wasn't any NARRATIVE PACING for the missions. Again, it was always A priority, but not/never THE priority - LibDay's negative response pretty conclusively proved that, I think. I get that. It just feels a bit too soon to be suggesting it like it should be the focus over all else given, again, what happened in LibDay. Anything that does splash dmg, no matter shape, size, form is a plus when decently balanced. So I’m naturally not completely opposed to some kind of “fast Cruiser with splash.” Though, I’ve to say that your argument about “Heavy destroyer” is contradictory. A Unit that has like 900 HP, not only close combat weapons+splash, but also missiles is certainly more likely to be targeted down in turn 1 than something comparable to “heavy destroyer” Why? Fast-Cruiser has low HP, taking it down is simple. (You don’t have to waste a lot of energy to do so.) “Heavy destroyer” has besides low-range plasma cannon NO offensive capabilities unlike “Fast Cruiser.” After turn 1 there is literally nothing it has to offer to do any damage whatsoever. Why should I damage/attack a unit that is no threat over all the other heavy hitters in front of me. No, you prioritize different units, because you DIE when you don’t. Wasting everything you have on a far away super tank is not a rational decision, when you have Battleships, Cruisers, Ryders in front of yourself, which will obliterate you if you ignore them. Also: You don’t balance games on low difficulties. It’s normal that you can pull off anything on waifu or casual mode. SC2 for example was/still is exclusively balanced by devs+professional players. In case of doubts the devs even tend to give in when professionals are dissatisfied with something, plainly because the professionals are better at the game + know it better. So if you actually manage to take down “Heavy destroyer” on Captain and then somehow manage to survive the onslaught of your direct threat/enemies you chose to ignore in turn 1, then thumps up. You did it, even against common sense. Man, I’m really upset that you try to actually discredit “combat Cruiser”, while I believe that this one (or something comparable) is by far the best and most needed unit for future games. You don’t even try to explain why. You just say it’s like “Fast Cruiser”, and that’s it. “The strategy for dealing with it - not much different.”You couldn’t be more wrong, and I will once more explain in detail how this unit is supposed to work + compare it to “Fast-Cruiser” “Fast Cruiser” charges into you, often without shield support. (Ships that provide shields are not as fast and often want to keep a safe distance anyway.) This makes it very easy to destroy them, because they simply run in to you. They normally come in groups and therefore have a decent flak-network, but besides missiles you can use everything (kinetics, lasers, pulse, assault when they have low hp) This does NOTHING to your formation/positioning. “Combat Cruisers” on the other hand keep their distance (mid-range) and do impressive, reliable damage to you (Railgun) They operate near Capital ships and carriers, so they have shield support. Now, the super defensive player has huge problems, because all his shields and flaks suddenly do shit. He can try to shut-off (Chigara) shields of the capital ships to laser down the “Combat Cruisers”, but since lasers do rather low damage, he will be punished hard. Or the player tactically advances forward and uses his heavy kinetics to finally bring those pesky “Combat Cruisers” down. “Combat Cruisers” are supposed to effectively zone the player out. (something like this is in FACT revolutionary for Sunrider ironically ) “Combat Cruisers”, unlike almost every enemy so far can’t be hard-countered by sitting back. Hard-counter for those Cruisers would mean to activate your brain and smoothly move forward without getting reckless. "Only because it felt like they were just thrown in one on top of the other - there wasn't any NARRATIVE PACING for the missions."Complains went well beyond narrative passing only, it was also the uninspired, unmemorable mission design that people didn’t like. But we also had positive exceptions like the last mission of LibDay. "I get that. It just feels a bit too soon to be suggesting it like it should be the focus over all else given, again, what happened in LibDay."I merely do what I'm good at. How much attention the devs want to sacrifice in improving gameplay is up to them. But wasn't that why the Fast-Cruisers attacked in packs? To mitigate the chance of being intercepted? Coupled with other units, they'd be a far greater threat then a slower and more ponderous unit - if anything I'd thing it would actually cause imbalance because it would be extremely easy to prioritize what to attack if their movement speed was that starkly differing. Taking down ONE Fast-Cruise might be easy, but taking down six - three from each flank - when you've got other units in front of you is another thing entirely. Those bearing down on you would cause more of a speeding-bullet feeling then a slow ship that won't be an immediate concern/need to focus on for the next two turns because it has only one attack that it can't use unless it's right in your face. And you do realize that you really did just kinda discredit your own argument, right? Range that short and speed that slow, you're basically saying you have the chance to clear the field of dangerous opponents before the Destroyer becomes close enough to be a threat. You also... well, completely and utterly misinterpreted what I said. I said WEAKEN them at a distance with missile barrages so that they're easier to gut by the time they finally reach you a few turns later. I never - NOT EVEN ONCE - said to focus exclusively on them to the point of ignoring everything else, and I really wonder how you even thought of, let alone reached, that conclusion  . So yeah - I still think the Heavy Destroyer would be a redundant unit and that's my final opinion. "Discredit?" I'm saying this kind of unit already exists in the Fast-Cruiser and that the Fast-Cruiser would force rethinking more readily. It is basically just a more nimble, more armored version with longer range, but the role you're proposing it for is once that a rebalanced/upgraded Fast-Cruiser would fill just as well without having to create an entirely new ship breed for it. It's "railgun" won't be much of a deterrent since "impressive, reliable damage" is what EVERY ship can do if the shots connect - and if it's the ONLY ship that has this out of all others, you simply prioritize Sola to snipe them out with her weapon, use support (I assume Lynn(?)) for anti-flak instead of anti-shield (shutdown costs more energy then flackoff so the latter makes more sense) or if pressed you use the Vanguard Cannon to just cut a hole in the guard if you absolutely must. If you think a fleet of close-range Fast-Cruisers won't break a defensive line, what would one new unit do? It would NOT really be revolutionary - it would at best force the player to destroy at least one or two in a turn so take the heat off. You would not need to move forward or change a defensive strategy in the slightest. Applying these traits to a pack of Fast-Cruisers would make them a far greater threat then a "Combat Cruiser" would - it would just be a "priority target" instead of "intense threat." Again, the mission design felt bad because the narrative behind it was bad - it's interconnected. Any battle fan feel uninspired and unmemorable if the set-up for it is bad or nonexistent. I'd think that would involve knowing when to pace something. |
|
|
|
Post by Xechran on Mar 25, 2016 4:42:20 GMT -8
Harsh but fair, I'd have to agree with it. For the sake of argument, if anything should change its the way defense stacks up. You can sit in a tight pocket wrapped in flak and shields, never moving from your initial placement unless 'plot' dictates you reach the far side in 6 turns or what have you (last mission could have used that kind pressure I think). It all comes down to upgrades, placement, target selection and dice. However, changing that so 'proper' gameplay included movement would require an entirely different approach to balancing which in turn requires a rewrite of the AI. Very time consuming. For shits and giggles: I have experience with Java and Python, so its something I considered modding myself if I had the dedication to go through and find all the correct code/learn renpy. I decided I don't once I stood back and looked at how big it would be to do something like this.
Alter shields to an asymptote - 100 shields = 50% damage reduction, 200 = 75% etc.
edit, almost forgot: Shields tapper off and extend farther. A shield with 30 strength and 1 hex of range gives 30 (at source) / 15 (at range) shielding. 30 strength and 2 hex range does 30/20/10 shielding.
Alter armor/damage interaction so that armor takes off a percentage after subtracting flatly from the damage. Example, a 5 armor 100 damage hit becomes (100-5)*.95 =90.25. 5 armor 15 damage strike with 15 hits becomes (15-5)*15*.95 = 142.5
All units get a base armor as a portion of their hp in addition to their bonus armor ratings. Portion decided by class/type. Example, Ryders get 1/100th their hp in armor, bomber/heavy class ryders get 1/50th.
Armor is twice as effective against energy, not kinetics. Applies only to subtracting damage not the multiplier.
Oh, and lets not forget NERF Draw Fire! Now only works as a chance to defend units directly adjacent to the Paladin rather than globally.
Then simply rebalance.
The armor/shield change makes the Pact stand off with laser scheme actually viable in a way that it makes sense for a military to actually build such a fleet(which is what started this line of thought for me). High armor, shielded capital ships trade blows at range in battles of attrition focusing their fire on whichever opposing fleet unit poses the greatest threat. The concept gets turned on its ear by the high risk/reward Assault Carrier, aka Sunrider, which along with its escort dives into knife fighting range to punch outside its weight class!! "Initiating Shock and Awe!" That would be forward Saviors A turret - "Shock" and B turret - "Awe".
But as simple as it seems at first it requires a huge rebalance of all the units and attacks, their tohit and damage, hp shields and bonus armor. Then theres the directional/facing mod and the derelict wreckage mods for MoA, which would play well with the concept. And then to make proper use of the changes the AI would need to be tweaked. In the end theres no guarantee the final result would even work or be worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by saibotlieh on Mar 25, 2016 7:34:29 GMT -8
A bit more diversity in the missions would certainly be welcome, as well as in the strategies that can be used to solve them. The heavy destroyer idea is nice, but I think it looks a bit forced, as it sole purpose is to work against the bulk defense tactic, and I think as well that it might be just "to late to the party", since it will only be useful once it is in point range, and at that point even 3500 HP should not be too much of a problem to be taken out for a bulk defense set-up, especially if one had some turns time before to clean out other enemy ships.
In order to get player use different strategy (without being force by the mission setting), one can either punish the overused strategy, like you are trying to, or reward the lesser used one (or a combination of both). At the moment I would see it as rather unfair to just punish the defense strategy without making others more feasible. From my experience, every unit (except the Phoenix) that is not part of the bulk defense is dead within one or two turns, so for me it is so far a no-brainer to not go for this strategy. However, if the units evasion rate or it chance to hit the enemy would increase being not in a thight formation, it might be a different story. Another alternative would be that a lot more weapons would do some kind of splash damage, but get much less effective against single targets than they are at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfoot on Mar 25, 2016 9:54:07 GMT -8
The other thing to consider is the win-con, If your objective is 'Capture X before it is destroyed' It will need different tactics than 'destroy all ships over 10+ turns'. Am working on my MoA mod again and there is not one battle atm that is just 'destroy all the ships'.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingcapt4 on Mar 25, 2016 13:40:29 GMT -8
How about scenarios where units can't move freely through an entire map? Like a maze or something. For example, inside the hallways of a Ryuvian super dreadnought, and with enemies that have phase-based weaponry that can pass through walls. So far, the physics of all the weapons in Sunrider are line of sight so our units just can't shoot through walls. This scenario would definitely keep the player on their toes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marx-93 on Mar 26, 2016 5:16:21 GMT -8
Hum, in general, while there are some deficiencies, I think that part of it is more simply due to uninspired design and repetitive missions that pure unbalance regarding enemies. I think that "heavy destroyers" feel a tad forced , though some kind of area/short-range weapon could help a lot; remember the mission against the Legion? if the Sunrider can have something like the Vanguard Cannon then even "regular Dreadnoughts" can also have similar weapons; I really like the idea of a "Dreadnought" regular ship that could act as a flagship in battles with tons of HP, weapons, and even the ability to give orders (or auras, like Drath proposed time ago)
On the combat Cruiser, the idea is nice in itself, but I feel that the main problem it solves is kinda more due to bad design level than simply something anyone else can do (and railguns anyway are associated with the Machiavelli's supercannon, so we can simply call them kinetics). If for example Assault Cruisers appeared together with normal PACT Cruisers in similar numbers things could change a lot: they'll be shielded against laser, and if you focused your kinetics on the PACT standard Cruisers you won't be able to focus them on the Battleships and Assault Carriers on the rear.
Of course, an upgraded PACT Cruiser would also make sense; the old one was always an outdated ship, and with Fontana as the leader it would make sense for him to try to refit them to something closer to his Fast cruisers. Still, I think they're generally fairly good as support (which kinda was supposed to be their original role in big battles); they're just no good at dealing damage, but as escorts for more dangerous stuff they do fine.
I like the idea of multiple attack low power kinetics (like the ones in the Black Jack) very much though, but I personally would feel it more on smaller Destroyers. Heck, thinking on how Kuushana seemingly used Destroyer in her big battles (and I doubt it was only the torpedo kind) it could even be her defining unit: they would basically be low HP (500-600), 10 armour, high EV (15), high mobility (20 EN move cost) and have a low energy (40) multiple hit kinetic (3x100, or maybe 4x75).
They would come in high numbers, and would basically accompany every PACT capital ship, hitting at you from mid-ranges while wildly moving around (they could even implement hit&run tactics of the "move one grid, attack, then return to my original position). Perfect target for lasers when they're not shielded, but most of the times they would stick around capital ships using their multiple hit kinetic to simply pepper you with annoying shells that slowly rise your attrition and repair cost.
For the rest, a PACT sniping unit is something demanded since MoA, though it would likely also be very hard to balance, and more varied objectives are also very needed. And I'm all for smaller battles; one of my main previous critiques is that there are too many "big battles", and as they are too similar they end being simply repetitive instead of punctuating climaxes like they should (of course, the writing also helps a lot with that, but that's for another thread).
|
|
|
|
Post by marioo on Mar 26, 2016 16:42:07 GMT -8
They would come in high numbers, I'd rather not have even higher numbers of enemies I also don't think a cheap unit to just throw at us would fit Kushaana. Unlike the other PACT commanders she doesn't seem like the kind of person to use zerg-tactics and sacrifice her people. A very fast enemy unit sounds like an interesting idea. I think right now there aren't any enemies as mobile as the Blackjack (or the Phoenix). I also never saw enemies moving away to avoid getting hit. Regarding smaller battles: I think the problem with small battles would be balancing them. A battle with only few reinforcements wouldn't be very challanging. Different kinds of mission could propably solve this problem, like not being able to use all our Ryders. I think storywise this would work, too. Since it seems like the crew will be split for the first part of the story anyway.
Or like Blackhead suggested, having to form multiple squads to perform different missions at the same time (storywise). |
|
|
|
Post by Marx-93 on Mar 27, 2016 2:25:40 GMT -8
They would come in high numbers, I'd rather not have even higher numbers of enemies I also don't think a cheap unit to just throw at us would fit Kushaana. Unlike the other PACT commanders she doesn't seem like the kind of person to use zerg-tactics and sacrifice her people. Actually, I see it as very fitting. Remember that while with low HP, the destroyers are actually middle ranged and should be always in the cover of shields and flaks; they are not just smaller fast Cruisers, but hit&run small units that can attacks you from where you can't attack them due to their high EV.
Them being cheap is just a product of them being her main unit in the Compact revolution, when Compact couldn't afford much and had very few resources, not of being zerg-rush units (with hit&run I actually wanted to mean the opposite of that).
And well, them coming in high numbers also helps the balance; with high numbers you can't simply concentrate all your SHD Jam and Shut Off to make them totally vulnerable, while at the same time being able to destroy some of them and so not being hit full force.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharrOfRyuvia on Mar 27, 2016 11:42:29 GMT -8
I'd rather not have even higher numbers of enemies I also don't think a cheap unit to just throw at us would fit Kushaana. Unlike the other PACT commanders she doesn't seem like the kind of person to use zerg-tactics and sacrifice her people. Actually, I see it as very fitting. Remember that while with low HP, the destroyers are actually middle ranged and should be always in the cover of shields and flaks; they are not just smaller fast Cruisers, but hit&run small units that can attacks you from where you can't attack them due to their high EV.
Them being cheap is just a product of them being her main unit in the Compact revolution, when Compact couldn't afford much and had very few resources, not of being zerg-rush units (with hit&run I actually wanted to mean the opposite of that).
And well, them coming in high numbers also helps the balance; with high numbers you can't simply concentrate all your SHD Jam and Shut Off to make them totally vulnerable, while at the same time being able to destroy some of them and so not being hit full force.
I think you missed his point - namely that; Kushinna and Fontana don't seem the type to want to advocate that same "high numbers" strategy of old. If they're reinventing PACT, of course the units they use wouldn't logically be products of the Compact Revolution anymore - they wouldn't be based off designs from a resource-scarce time if they now have abundant resources. They'd be more apt to make effective and creative use of what they have and improving it with new tech and abilities instead of just throwing numbers at people. I'm hoping you meant them coming in clustered groups instead of just "high numbers", because that's no different from what we already have otherwsie. |
|
|
|
Post by knightoblivion on Mar 28, 2016 9:06:49 GMT -8
What I want are more mission variations. Random Ideas include
Using fewer units: like only The Paladin and The Phoenix. Problem with this is that some players might not have EVER upgraded those two, or worse downgraded them.
Restricted map: Nobody can enter certain hexes, areas of the map where flak is 100% for either side, hexes where movement costs are doubled, basically terrain in space. Fire Emblem uses this to great effect so I would like to see it in this game as well.
New Mission objectives: Claim certain squares of the map (command points or king of the hill situation), prevent any enemy from reaching the other side, survive "X" number of turns, things like this.
Side Objectives: I realize this is sort of in the game, but it's always "Protect extra units", where the objectives don't give rewards outside of the battle or feel important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardanis on Mar 28, 2016 14:34:23 GMT -8
As far as new enemy types are concerned, I think they've been sorely lacking in medium class. A sort of backbone infantry, that can't be one-shot by Sola (without awakening anyway) and isn't dangerous enough - like Ironhogs or Supports, - to warrant an override kill order. But at the same time, the one whose presence really can't be ignored. Ryuvian cruisers would a be good example, stats wise. Another consistent issue is that spending on accuracy upgrades doesn't pay off as much damage or energy cost upgrades (not counting Sola, as she does need accuracy to snipe out two Supports on the first turn). There're capital ships that you can reliably hit with anything, and there're ryders that only Sola, Icari and highly accurate lasers can hit. So far, the only good reason to invest into accuracy are Fast Cruisers. Using fewer units: like only The Paladin and The Phoenix. Problem with this is that some players might not have EVER upgraded those two, or worse downgraded them. As long as the option to open store/research window before battle remains, I think there'll be no problems with under-developed units. At worst, you can just respec them, if conscience allows. |
|
|
|
Post by Nemjen on Mar 28, 2016 15:13:59 GMT -8
Let me add to our collection of mission types: Although I do not play many tactical based games myself so it may come across as completely uninspired. 
- Destroy the VIPYou are presented with a situation where you need to remove a specific unit in order to win the round, the unit would be given a certain level of protection in the form of distance and resistance that would mean you would have to remove units in order to maximise damage dealt to the VIP. Bonus resourcing could be awarded based on efficiency of destroying the VIP in as few moves as possible.- Issue Your Command
As it sounds, the win condition is to build up a specific number of command points in order to issue a mission generated order (in a similar sense to how the Liberty's Disruption works). There could also be a condition where the opponents have the ability to remove command points from your total for example if they get a unit kill it may cause a demoralisation penalty.- Captain TrainingGoing back to my previous love for challenge maps it could also be quite fun to have a virtual space for Kayto to complete set scenarios (either made up, or a previous battle in Sunrider lore) where you are given a selection of non Sunrider units and have the scenario of 'Win the battle of X', completing this would give you a better understanding of units / the lore / could present the opportunity for a reward system that integrates with the shop via unlockables (eg. clear this map to unlock the 'Y' order or clear this map to unlock this small stat item upgrade for the Blackjack).I also would like to go back to Drath's previous suggestion of unit auras to suggest another effect inspired by the control tanks from the second 'War of the Human Tanks' game. Basically these are special units that if in play will disable all opponent module upgrades that you can apply on your tanks to grant buffs beyond their basic stats (such as additional movement squares, additional shooting range or increased vision). If you didn't already guess I hate these units because they disable some of my cheese strats from the original game involving fast scout units and target area upgrades.  Anyway with this in mind I wouldn't mind seeing more restricted access to orders during mission scenario as these encourage a player to think a lot more of their feet as one of their resource has being removed, LD touched on the idea of this in the second scenario by removing orders until the Sunrider arrives - this could be implemented in the form of a disruption unit that blocks enemy communications and therefore prevents orders from being made. Heck, a less extreme option could give it the perk of increasing the percentage of the command points needed to use orders or lowering the command point cap (your total allowance of points) to a much lower number. For example adding a certain percentage or changing the top threshold of points could push the Vanguard Cannon / the new equivalent over the maximum and this would therefore lead it to being quite a high priority to remove (assuming the Vanguard / the new equivalent could come in handy for that scenario). It would also be nice to see a wider selection of orders being made available to increase the impact of such an idea, however I am sure new orders are not a new idea and people have previously brainstormed their suggestions and the effects it would have on balance. |
|
|
|
Post by Somasam on Mar 29, 2016 14:29:41 GMT -8
There are definitely a few things that I think would be interesting to see.
- Varied Terrain Features/Terrain Hazards: Or space features, as the case may be. While the battles are fun, I do sometimes feel there is a bit of missed opportunity to incorporate some geo-effects to make the battles more engaging and the exact placement of your units much more important.
- Asteroid Fields/Wrecked ships/Natural Cover: So far this is the only thing that has been used in Sunrider, as far as I know, and only in one mission in FA. These basically provide cover for your units so that they are either harder to hit from enemies, or they can take a few shots instead of the ship hiding behind it being damaged. I'd love to see these used by both ourselves and opponents to make the placement of your units more unique, as well as force players' hands to outstretch their own units to kill the one support hiding behind a sunken ship. I feel it'd also be interesting to have some ships you destroy make cover for the ones still alive. (After all, the ships we destroy don't just explode out of existence, their hulls should still be mostly intact.)
- Gas clusters/nebulae: A hazard that takes up large chunks of the map, causing all units inside to have to use twice as much energy to move than normal. Along with this, nebulae could also give major aim penalties on both ships inside the gas cluster, as well as ships outside whom are shooting at ships inside the cluster.
- Ion fields/plasma storms: While this was incorporated as one whole map in Libday, it would be great to see these phenomena take place as only parts of the map. These could have a huge energy cost for any actions taken place inside of them, or alternatively, they could provide a slow, constant damage dealt to any ships that begin/end their turn in the storm. They could also provide a 'no-missile-zone,' basically prevent any and all missiles from flying through them as they fry the guidance software in the warheads.
- Mine Field: Always a fun thing to see in space, and terrifying for world war submarine sailors. Basically, any ship that moves in would have to make an evasion roll to determine if the mines go off or not, allowing for some risk/reward with more agile units like Icari to get sent headfirst into a mine field. If triggered, it'd deal major damage to the unit caught within. Mines would likely be found on entrenched enemy soil or in large areas of conflicted, but unoccupied space, like pirate space.
- Planet-side Flak: This is idea is entirely ripped from FTL, but in some heavily armed and defended planetary-orbits, there could be the risk of planetary anti-ship batteries. On certain maps around planets, there could be a crosshair that moves around in between turns, and if your ships are caught in the crosshairs by the end of your turn, the cannons would fire and deal massive damage; forcing your fleet to stay mobile and prevent turtling when you are supposed to be the aggressor on a planet's defense force.
- If anyone has any other ideas on map hazards, please share them, I am interested on what else could be added.
[/ul]
- More Multi-Shot Heavy Guns: Through First Arrival and Mask of Arcadius, all kinetics and laser weapons were only considered one projectile. Only the legion got the honor of having a kinetic attack that shot 2 round of kinetics in one volley. In LibDay, however, there are now multiple units that get multi-hit kinetics, notably PACT's Fast Cruiser and Asaga's APR. In the future I'd love to see a lot more ships have slightly weaker individual kinetic and laser rounds, but have them fire multiple shots in one volley. This is kind of just my personal preference as it makes our ships seem even stronger, make it seem like their are more shots being traded throughout the battlefield, and it always bugged me that the Sunrider had two Savior Turrets fire in its animation, yet only one bullet accounted for.
- Surviving by the skin of our teeth!: At the end of Liberation day *spoilers* the Sunrider is destroyed and our remaining loyal forces are scattered throughout the stars trying to rebuild our fleet. Not only this, but we are going to be using a lot of makeshift gear and hodgepodged vessels, all without the financial backing of a large faction. I really want the early game combat, or the entire style of fighting this game to be much more pragmatic and cutthroat. Think kind of like how in XCOM 2, a paramilitary force is reduced to black ops and hit-and-run tactics. Instead of running fully maintained, super advanced, custom-made Ryders and Flagship; we will be piloting much smaller scale craft and a random assortment of ships of varying effectiveness.
- Instead of having all our systems at peak performance at all times, one interesting mechanic would be to have to designate power between certain systems of each ship throughout a battle. For example, your hijacked cruiser has flak, shields, engines, and guns at its disposal; however, it requires energy to fully power them, so in order to boost its shield power or shield coverage you would have to spent an action on diverting power to them, but too much and you won't be able to fire all your guns. This could have the distinct possibility of adding too much work and detracting fun from the game, but I think it'd be a very interesting experience to have to micromanage all your ship's individual systems.
- DEFEND THE CARGO CARRIER. Now that we are without an assault carrier, we have no where to store all our fancy shmancy Ryders. So introducing the cargo-ship! With this latest advance in hanger technology, our ryders must be stored in a retrofitting cargo hauler without proper defenses! Any battles with our Ryder's taking place will have the cargo carrier flag ship as their hanger to retreat too and repair. Therefore, we must at all times defend the carrier or else game over, just like the sunrider going down in past games!
- Draw Backs to using Ancient Ryuvian Technology: I think its pretty clear that at some point, Ava and Asaga's expedition on Ryuvia's moon is going to result in the discovery of a grand ship of some sort for Kayto to get back to captaining. While it will be nice to have a super-advanced ship again, I think it'd be fun to give it some sort of draw back for being used over the glorious cargo ship. No idea what this might be yet, but I am up for ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by doncaster on Mar 29, 2016 15:33:54 GMT -8
Here are a few ideas, likely could use some development.
More than 1 kind of health bar.
I think that adding a crew number health bar and maybe even a morale bar could add an interesting new dimension to the combat and also prompt the creation of new weapons or interesting new uses for existing ones. The morale bar could act like a buff / debuff. High morale lends greater accuracy, manoeuvrability or lower energy costs to actions as your crew really put their backs into it. Low morale has the opposite effect. Morale could be effected by taking damage, the loss of allied ships, loss of crew, sinking enemy ships and winning battles. But it could also be effected by story decisions. You could chose not to give your crew the opportunity to send messages off ship in order to better conceal your position and in so doing hunt an enemy convoy. You might have the opportunity to win an easy and important victory, but morale might be sapped. Morale could carry over from battle to battle, reflecting the rising and falling spirits of a crew across a whole campaign. You could also have executive orders to boost it "the inspirational speech." Meanwhile weapons could have a "morale impact" stat. Some weapons like really nasty chemical weapons wont do much to the ship itself nor will they kill a well prepared crew but they are a hammer blow to the spirit of people.
Similarly crew number. Some weapons might be designed to do very litter damage to the ship itself but perhaps kill crew, or crew could die as a result of critical hits. Meanwhile there are story and store opportunities to bring on more crew. Crew again acts like a buff / debuff. Largely it would effect energy cost of abilities as an undermanned ship cannot do everything.
Fire
Fire sinks more ships than most other things. Weapons could have a chance to cause fire, affected by whether or not the hit was a critical and the type of weapon. If a fire is set it could do damage per turn to hull (and morale and crew if that system is implemented) and increase energy cost of abilities as the very small crew of ships like the Sunrider have to spend time fighting fires not firing guns. You could have the option to immediately fix the fire by venting into space at the risk of a semi random blow to crew number and morale, or wait a semi random number of turns that will not be revealed to you for the crew to put it out themselves.
Fire arcs / facing.
This one might be a bit more ambitious with the mechanics as written, but you could say some weapons are only capable of firing in certain directions, mostly everywhere except behind you, and give the ships the ability to rotate at a modest energy cost. Big damaging turret weapons like kinetics might have to spend a smaller amount of energy rotating on their own without rotating the ship. (ryders rotate for free but have smaller weapons) This would make positioning even more important and might play into our new PACT admiral's seemingly legendary ability. She could launch attacks from really odd angles that demand you make good use of positioning and fire arcs or she will overwhelm you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Somasam on Mar 31, 2016 10:49:59 GMT -8
Just curious Vaen, if you are reading this thread. How much of this sounds even remotely feasible given the game's current code set up?
|
|
|
|
Post by 白龍 on Mar 31, 2016 16:31:57 GMT -8
Hm. Just throwing in my own 2 cents.
I think...
They should buff up the HP on all large ships.
And implement "critical" and different hit chances depending on your positioning.
Lemme explain.
A cruiser that is directly facing you, is pretty hard to hit. Why? Because all you can see is its face. The more off to the side you are, the more of the side of his body you can see. And thus more surface area to shoot at. So say you're in the middle of the map, shooting at the cruiser at the very bottom of the map is easier than shooting at the cruiser directly in front of you.
Also, since we're in this far at the angling. Let's take it one step further. This has mostly to due with kinetics and doesn't really affect lasers or missiles but, it'd be a nice thing to have. The face of a ship in this case would have the most armor, as that's where the most fire is coming in from. The sides of the ship however would have the least amount of armor, and gives one the most chance at hitting juicy and critical system. This encourages players to break from a super defensive stance and go more offensively, otherwise it'd just feel like trench warfare.
Now, why more HP? This is mostly a flavor thing. A tiny ryder barely 1 pixel in comparison should *not* have have half the HP of a capital ship. Plus, it'll turn a whole new spin on things when you don't die from like only 5 hits. Instead of HP, Ryders should just be really hard to hit (<10%), all of them. Including the Bombers. But a glancing shot would completely obliterate one. And by HP buff, I mean really big HP buffs. All ships x10. Sunrider now has 25,000 HP, enemy Assault Carriers have 28,000 HP, etc. Meanwhile weapons damage has only moderately increased, X2 or maybe x3. This greatly lengthens the battle length and throws out "wiping the floor in 1 turn" out the window and forces one to take full advantage of the angles of fire and positioning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Apr 1, 2016 6:18:54 GMT -8
1. Heavy destroyer Role: Destruction. Due to lack of complementary weapons often supported by Ryder squads. Stats: HP: 3500 Energy: 100 Armor: 25 Flak: 0 Evasion: -10 Weapons: Primary: Plasma cannon En: 100 Secondary: none Description: - slowly moves forward towards player. - plasma gun has 4 hax range and damages every Unit within its range. - damage regresses: Field in front of destroyer 2000 dmg, next field 1400, then 800, then 200, then 0 5. Disruptor No specifics - just an idea. This enemy blocks communication between Captain and one specific allied unit of its choice, causing your unit to do random stuff without your approval. (Most annoying unit ever ) New mission types: - Defend perimeter: Enemies focus on advancing towards specific zones from where they can leave the map. It’s your task to intercept as many as possible. - Collect, activate (insert plot device): Player has to reach different areas of the map, to do whatever the plot requires them to do and then leave. In general: - Include more map/environment in mission design. - In addition to the “big battles” add smaller missions where you only have access to fractions of your squad. Good example: Three missions: Attack a, defend b, collect c. Let the game by default decide who Kayto choses as leader of the respective squads. In this case I’d say Asaga: a, Kryska: b, Icari: c makes sense. So if interaction between Kayto and a Squad is required, you can simply let one of those three speak. Then let the player freely decide who he wants to assign to which mission (rest crew + mercs). Just have a briefing where Ava explains which threats/general conditions the player is likely to face on every single mission. And there you go. Easy to implement, interesting, and tactical meaningful player decision. Tons of good ideas here! Thanks for making the thread Blackhead.  I will address a specific few first that I feel strongly for. I like the hps of the Heavy Destroyer as I've always felt that combat proceeds too fast. Having heavier, hard to kill units slows the pace down and necessitates some defensive measures instead of relying on offense all the time. I also like the plasma gun having graded damage from distance, which hopefully should serve as an effective deterrent for closing in on it. The numbers of course can be tweaked later. Concepts first. I particularly liked the Disruptor! Any enemy unit that can turn your strength against you throws a wrench into the works and makes you reevaluate your moves. Would make this a Prototype unit as they are already known for mind control and even controlling enemy ships. There can be at least 3 forms of this ability/control. First form would be the "break communications" ability, which places said friendly unit under computer AI for a turn, low energy to cast (hence multiple breaks possible), friendly unit is still friendly though and will probably shoot at the enemy. Make it likely as well that it will break formation and expose itself. Second form would be somewhat of a "induce berzerk" ability, which places said friendly unit under computer AI for a few turns, medium energy to cast. Friendly unit now attacks the nearest unit to it randomly. Third form would be somewhat of a "mind control" ability, which turns the friendly unit hostile for several turns, high energy to cast. Mind controlled units are fully under hostile AI until the effect fades or the effect is dispelled. Make Restore have a range of 3 hexes only so that positioning matters. If you overextend a unit and it gets controlled, it's likely to be controlled for the full complement of turns. New mission objectives would add much needed spice and color to the missions. Hopefully we can implement some of these as well in some form. |
|
|
|
Post by marioo on Apr 1, 2016 6:42:38 GMT -8
Just curious Vaen, if you are reading this thread. How much of this sounds even remotely feasible given the game's current code set up? Not Vaen, but if I'm not completely wrong: Shouldn't terrain be easy to implement? We already had it in MoA (in the mission where we meet Sola) and I think someone made a mod where ships leave debris when destroyed. |
|
.
. So yeah - I still think the Heavy Destroyer would be a redundant unit and that's my final opinion.
Hot singles in your local solar system! 