Forged Alliance Forever

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-09-08T23:11:29+02:00

The fighting/simcity balance is determined mostly by map. I don't know why people on faf insist on playing only maps that allow some or all players to be almost completely protected from attack.

because people are lazy. Too be honest (one of) the best game i had, wasn't an ultra long game with tons of experimental and explosion. It was a 1v1 coop (Vee and I vs patchu/BH) on painted desert. With constant raiding from both side. the APM required was kinda crazy.
I'm not sure people want to bother with game like that. It's too difficult for them (at least it's what i think)

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 08 Sep 2015, 23:11

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-09-08T21:36:40+02:00

FunkOff wrote:
Well, I want...

^^ This seems to be the main justification for your ideas...

1) Remember, the HQ upgrades were a forced solution to a balance problem, they never "made sense" in the first place. (All of your units are controlled from your ACU, which already has all of the tech stored in it, tech levels only describe the complexity of the equipment.)

2) The fighting/simcity balance is determined mostly by map. I don't know why people on faf insist on playing only maps that allow some or all players to be almost completely protected from attack.

3) "Anyone who's Telemazer'd someone knows how much fun teleport is." I read this sentence and thought you were being facetious... but you're serious?!

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 08 Sep 2015, 21:36

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-09-04T21:41:43+02:00

So you wanna save phantom gameplay, cause i dont think you would see something like this elswhere, you always need hq for units

Statistics: Posted by speed2 — 04 Sep 2015, 21:41

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-09-04T21:41:43+02:00

epic fail gorty <3

although, when i read that, i thought maybe i misread it originally, purely on the grounds that makes even LESS sense.

Also, funkoff, judging normal gameplay by what people do in phantom (the most turtley of turtles, where everybody is initially allied well, who needs offensive units...) is just off...

Statistics: Posted by d-_-b — 04 Sep 2015, 21:39

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-09-04T21:34:50+02:00

keyser wrote:
Gorton, what funkoff suggest is to get T2 hq and T2 engie before getting T2 mexx.
or T2 com before T2 mexx

Just T2 HQ or T2 ACU. Then the mex upgrade is unlocked and you can upgrade mex straight away.

Think about it. I saw VIP play a phantom game with me the other day. All he did was make double RAS and spam RAS SCUs. No pgens. No factories. Nothing. He circumvented MOST of the tech tree because he didnt need it. That's game-breaking (innovative, but game breaking lol)

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 04 Sep 2015, 21:34

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-09-04T20:30:10+02:00

That's not what it read the first time I read this post ^^ my bad, I guess

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 04 Sep 2015, 20:30

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-09-04T18:44:42+02:00

Gorton, what funkoff suggest is to get T2 hq and T2 engie before getting T2 mexx.
or T2 com before T2 mexx

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 04 Sep 2015, 18:44

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-09-04T18:35:08+02:00

fail ->

Spoiler: show

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 04 Sep 2015, 18:35

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-09-04T18:24:13+02:00

1. Terrible, just terrible. This would force people to go T2 HQ as quickly as possible to get the eco, actually shortening the T1 stage that's already pretty short. Moreover, this would completely remove any reason to have huge T1 spam on T2 mex.

2. Not a bad idea, at least an interesting proposition. In comparison to upgrading your first T2 mex, T3 mexes are ludicrously expensive. I wouldn't mind at least testing cheaper T3 mexes with slightly less output.

As it stands, to get T3 mexes you either need loads of T2 mexes, and stall your production so hard, OR, stay completely on T2 eco, and only pay for T3 mexes with reclaim from a won battle that you got because you have more production than your enemy, as they are spending mass on mexes, then feeding you that mass to spend on your own eco.

Imo, on a map that isn't turtle-oriented, it seems pretty standard to funnel most economy into spam, or 1 or 2 t2 mex, but only really pay for your eco upgrades with reclaim.

Many times i have been behind on Eco and simply thought: "i need to kill something to get reclaim so i can catch up." That T3 mex upgrade is alot less painful when you're busy sucking up a field of pillars

3. No. The point of upgrades is that they are optional. Like with #1, removing a strategic choice from the game is not what you want to do. If anything, maybe rebalance teleport costs a bit, but NEVER make it mandatory. Maybe the reason teleport is only used for sniping critical targets on a suicide mission, is because it is so prohibitvely expensive, that is the only cost-efficient use for it, when nothing else can do the job. At the stage of the game it is available and viable also, an SCU with no defensive upgrades is hardly able to stand to being instantly stratted, or w/e else is on the field at that stage.

Statistics: Posted by d-_-b — 04 Sep 2015, 18:24

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-09-03T16:47:43+02:00

I think teleporting SACUs is a great idea.

Statistics: Posted by KD7BCH — 03 Sep 2015, 16:47

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-08-31T19:06:08+02:00

1. Interesting but frightening at the same time.

2. Bad idea, the game happens exactly when you are in the middle of upgrading your economy and fighting. Making upgrading economy cheaper will make ecowhoring the meta even on 5x5 maps. This will shrink the size of maps on which oyu can have non turtle gameplay.

3. Intesting and even more frightening than 1

Statistics: Posted by SeraphimLeftNut — 31 Aug 2015, 19:06

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-08-30T17:04:52+02:00

The standard tele on SCU's is a terrible idea im sorry. I think your justification of it is not very well put and doesnt make sense in terms of balance at all. "they were originally designed for that" is just in terms of looks, in terms of game mechanics i dont think you can justify this standardization.

Statistics: Posted by theeggroll — 30 Aug 2015, 17:04

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-08-29T19:14:49+02:00

I guess if it would only affect SCUs... But I still don't like having them pre-equipped with tele, cant we just make a preset? That sounds way more logical to me.

Statistics: Posted by D4E_Omit — 29 Aug 2015, 19:14

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-08-29T19:13:19+02:00

Well then it could be made so anti-tele only affects SCUs, so telemazor is still viable. In any case, teleportation could only work if it is not possible to tele next to important targets. SCU's tele would have to be either with random spawn or with some mechanism so it ends up outside the enemy base.

Statistics: Posted by angus000 — 29 Aug 2015, 19:13

Re: A Couple of Necessary Gameplay Evolutions

2015-08-29T18:47:06+02:00

Plz no anti-tele, it'll make cybran telemazor useless and right now there is nothing wrong with it.

If it aint broke dont fix it ffs

Statistics: Posted by D4E_Omit — 29 Aug 2015, 18:47