Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-07-04T22:01:26+02:00

How about this:
in the supcom books, there is this explanation given about veterancy: units that have enough kills can divert power from their targeting computers, as they "collected enough targeting information" or something. That energy is used to power armor and restoration systems. Thus, this veterancy system makes some sense -> current veterancy system is adequate.

Statistics: Posted by da_monstr — 04 Jul 2013, 22:01

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-07-04T21:36:19+02:00

Firewall wrote:
So if it ain't broke. Don't fix it.

it is broke, kiling yourself units when experimental coming insted of defeanding base with this units is broken mechanics.
And its game, dont talk about inteligent robots etc. It will never be absolut real, that no-one want, but must it has some logic. And this logic what actualy is is broken.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 04 Jul 2013, 21:36

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-07-02T10:06:25+02:00

Gorton wrote:
Mycen wrote:
You talk about 'logic' and so forth, but to begin with, the units in SupCom are all automated robots. They are not going to improve their skills or any such thing as they fight because they do not have 'skills' in the first place - only programming that is already set.

So with that in mind, before I comment on your ideas about veterancy, I would like you to answer a question for me: What do you think is the point of veterancy in the first place?

I am of the opinion that they aren't unthinking; I believe they have limited AI, enough to learn at least somewhat.
Of course we must consider that the vet right now doesn't make too much sense; why does killing some units make a unit tougher?

Well if we were to consider that military robots would have learning capabilities. This would make them better able to adapt to incoming projectiles. Change their targeting algorithims. Learn about critial soft points. Adjust to the local environment. Improve their auto-repair systems, and modify their armour composition. Veterancy would be entierly consistent when you understand artificial intelligence in this manner.

The only problem. Is that true military robots operating in such a fashion would share this information with others. Hence, one would have global veterancy. Futhermore, such abilities would be added to the base unit that rolls of the construction line. Essentially, the process of continual self-improvement would be persistent. But anyway. It is a neat game mechanic, and an appropriate reward for keeping your units alive.

So if it ain't broke. Don't fix it.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 02 Jul 2013, 10:06

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-06-02T00:23:35+02:00

About the wall you has right, it would be master OP when you can fire throught it and enemy not. Now i change it in way what it would work, but it would be extremly hard to code it, so it would be only suggestion what would be nice but never happend. with freindli fire its extremly OP and whitout it would need posibility to build tower on the top of wall or make it problem in build base.

on the air staging, it would help our CPU and take it game another type of defens what is now but in this time it cant be used efective, becase it need extremly micromanagmed my suggestion it only make automatic.

So we only need come up with a way how push veterancy and air crash suggestion on game

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 02 Jun 2013, 00:23

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-05-29T21:46:22+02:00

Im full with the 1st amd 2nd veterancy suggestions, I said that some times, veterancy should give max hp and not intstantly free hp.

about the third veterancy suggestion I dunno exactly the problem

Im ok with the t2 productors buff, but be carefull

I like the air crash suggestion.

I dunno about the t3 walls, if they will sometime exist i know i never will use them like i know i never use walls. t3 walls could be too OP if you can shot through the walls and enemy cant, and i think thats the big code problem for implement something like this

about the last 3 suggestions i dont know xD

Statistics: Posted by Armmagedon — 29 May 2013, 21:46

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-05-09T22:14:06+02:00

Carier/shild
Alow build them on move dont solve problems, problem abotu carrier is the same like is with fabricators, how many players you see that build it and use it like carrier. Not like fast air factory? I dont remember on many games where i see that. On this time carrier is air factory not a carrier, my suggestion bring carrier on battlefield. What is bad to brign carrier on all air warfers, look on navy of earth, carrier is the strongest ship in all navys, becase has air, and can handle it, navy whitout carrier is weak navy.
And when here is only one thing that you can anser yourself why is here only one thin with buf, its a posible to be here when is alone? (Its not alone, shild radar, stelth its same)

I haven't played in years but NOTA airplay was a lot of fun.

Air combat in the mod NOTA is vastly different than most other TA variants.
FUEL: All aircraft baring a few exceptions use fuel. Weapons and flight deplete fuel so aircraft have a limited number of shots and time in the air. Planes that are out of turn back and move to the closest unoccupied refuel pad. If none are available they will land near an occupied pad and wait their turn.

Aircraft weapons deplete fuel and have a limited number of shots.

So bombers dropped their (slightly buffed) payload all at once and then instantly flew home to rearm. It made carriers quite useful and imposed a logistic limitation on aircraft.

Here's some NOTA footage:
http://youtu.be/3qVRCVt8oTo?t=2m45s

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 09 May 2013, 22:14

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-05-06T18:46:12+02:00

qai wrote:
imo veterancy based on damage done, but its hard to do. Current and old are both bad some good but old was better why.

if 1 GC kills say 5X 1hp GC it ranks up dont know how many times
in old system it wouldnt have

mass fab tech2 imo is not unused , u should build tech2 massfab around tech3 pgen so its around tech3 level of gameplay and i do build them. but its sure 'late' game stuff.

mass fab tech3 is less cost effective (yes tech2 is better) only good thing is takes less build space thats all.

To be honest with the mass fabricators I would rather build sacus and the ras on them. It may not be cheaper but it's certainly easier to do and less targets (sacus got much more health and are mobile) for taking out eco. More space efficient.

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 06 May 2013, 18:46

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-05-06T18:39:09+02:00

imo veterancy based on damage done, but its hard to do. Current and old are both bad some good but old was better why.

if 1 GC kills say 5X 1hp GC it ranks up dont know how many times
in old system it wouldnt have

mass fab tech2 imo is not unused , u should build tech2 massfab around tech3 pgen so its around tech3 level of gameplay and i do build them. but its sure 'late' game stuff.

mass fab tech3 is less cost effective (yes tech2 is better) only good thing is takes less build space thats all.

Statistics: Posted by qai — 06 May 2013, 18:39

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-04-29T22:58:41+02:00

That Im sory, when i write it about 3hours that I dont has enoght patience translate it next 3+hours for english, that make it by google translator. Complaining pls send on google translator )

And i can only recommendet you to try read it, because some suggestion are realy good

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 29 Apr 2013, 22:58

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-04-29T20:38:42+02:00

My only suggestion is to learn how to condense your ideas, otherwise no matter how good they are no one will read them.

Statistics: Posted by Ionic — 29 Apr 2013, 20:38

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-04-29T20:31:39+02:00

Mycen;
thx for answer, all reaction is great, as well as bad reaction is welcom, it make discusion about what people mean about game. I try argue you all what you say, why think that you dont has true or its irelevant.

veterancy-
I think that veterancy is about that peaple like veterancy. Thtas the pripary funkcion of that, of course all is bot, but when you wana argue on that styl that we can say what the f*** is in 21K century ship looking like from 21 century? And why is war in galaxy when aeons developed PARAGON ? thats no sense, so we must calcul with that what is it, and veterancy is goint more about how hard units it destroy. Of course still it will be better make veterancy about how many dmg it take not only to kill but it is hard to program, and its quite ussles... So when we has veterancy about tech lvl what is about dificulty, that about mass its the same like it is now only better.

Mass fabricator
Be honest, how many players in ranked game do you see to build mass fabricators?
im quite sure that it would not be more like 5, and one of that would be I.
I actualy has 300 games in faf and dont see nobody to make it. so it mean that with this building is somthing wrong, and i try to say what makes it better. Dont wana make it owepovered that higher dmg on +130dmg and higher cost, becase dont wana make a litle paragon on T2. Its more risky but it is usefull. At now its ussles, when you take energy aroud T2 fabricator it take you discount only 37energy from 150 thats you must have 662,5 mass to get +1mass thats ussles why dont change it?
And why its the strategy on building separete bases? Thats the strategy, not make all on one places when in can take big boom. Why you build power planes in bases it has biger dmg, T3 take you 8000dmg, and can change your bases on ruin very easily. This is the same only it has less dmg and biger radius. More thinks you make diferent you has biger complexity, you has more wayst to win. Why do you think that Chesse is playing today when it has 1500 years?

Air crash
aircraft is light construct and thats a reason why it take so less dmg, today T3 bomber take 500dmg, and T3 transport 25dmg, do you think that T3 transport is so light construck? its big as czar, only its not circle. When air crash that is take dmg aboud not by explosion but by impact, look on asteroid, its small and take it dmg as hell and how big radius it has. That sugesstion is about easy logic how big planes are that more dmg it take and it dont change game play only it bring logic and predictibality.
btw make wall agaist uit limit is wery good idea.

T3 wall
Not that stop experimental but what slows experimental, 8000hp is nothing aganst spider its 2sec against colosus its 2,5sec. not so muth. I know they are gaint, but styll can cros moutain, why? becase they are not able heave theyr foot so hight , ask faty what he think about mountains. But know it can be hard to program it.

Template
about thats enginer or human it dont make sense. When you program him to make this in circle that he make it, that must be human? When you argue about make game easyir to play and remove skills, thats not true, when you look on supcom thats so great game becase there is many and more thinks automatick, Can you imagin when it would be full of skill and you can build only one tanks in factory and then click for another. Or make it like old duna, when you can control only one unit in time. that not about skill this game is not about control units. Or not only. I hope that ist and wana be about taktics and strategy, where move army, and how make your side stronger, thats rasom why here istn micro like in starcraft/ft but macro.

Carier/shild
Alow build them on move dont solve problems, problem abotu carrier is the same like is with fabricators, how many players you see that build it and use it like carrier. Not like fast air factory? I dont remember on many games where i see that. On this time carrier is air factory not a carrier, my suggestion bring carrier on battlefield. What is bad to brign carrier on all air warfers, look on navy of earth, carrier is the strongest ship in all navys, becase has air, and can handle it, navy whitout carrier is weak navy.
And when here is only one thing that you can anser yourself why is here only one thin with buf, its a posible to be here when is alone? (Its not alone, shild radar, stelth its same)

Air staging
You argue by engy mods, but the primary reason for engy mods is the same like you are saying here, that make game more fluent and dont lagy it, becase not all has strong pc (I has). And why must your oponent see your air planes when its in building, thats building is for straging airplanes thats a funcion about it this only make it automatick, whats make game faster and you dont must think about it, and has more time for real strategy. You can look how many air staging he has in base and about that calcul, the same it is with antinuke defense, why you dont see how many rocket he has? beacse it unlogical, thats the funkcion of that building.

only suggestion what change core mechanic is mass fabricators, that realy can change game, another are only improvments thinks what is today. dont be angry im not dictator and isnt in my force make this change whitout people who would wana it, at this its only for discus that it dont make game better, i think that make.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 29 Apr 2013, 20:31

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-04-29T19:57:52+02:00

Mycen wrote:
You talk about 'logic' and so forth, but to begin with, the units in SupCom are all automated robots. They are not going to improve their skills or any such thing as they fight because they do not have 'skills' in the first place - only programming that is already set.

So with that in mind, before I comment on your ideas about veterancy, I would like you to answer a question for me: What do you think is the point of veterancy in the first place?

I am of the opinion that they aren't unthinking; I believe they have limited AI, enough to learn at least somewhat.
Of course we must consider that the vet right now doesn't make too much sense; why does killing some units make a unit tougher?

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 29 Apr 2013, 19:57

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-04-29T18:22:10+02:00

Several ideas, which I'm pretty sure all have seen before. If I'm misunderstanding anything let me know, some of it was hard to read, but I tried!

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
- Veterancy system:

You talk about 'logic' and so forth, but to begin with, the units in SupCom are all automated robots. They are not going to improve their skills or any such thing as they fight because they do not have 'skills' in the first place - only programming that is already set.

So with that in mind, before I comment on your ideas about veterancy, I would like you to answer a question for me: What do you think is the point of veterancy in the first place?

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Mass fabrikator T2/T3:

I think your proposal exaggerates the characteristics of fabricators too much. The damage that fabs do upon death is already quite enough to cause chain reactions and cripple anyone who was taking advantage of adjacency. There is no reason to move things to a point where a player need only get a few shots through an opponent's shields in order to have their entire base self-destruct in a massive chain reaction. That wouldn't make the game more fun and certainly wouldn't be useful to a defensive player - it would just be annoying.

You talk about players having to build resource farms separate from their main base, but I fail to see how that adds strategies or complexity. If anything it removes strategies, because as things are now players are taking a risk integrating fabs into their main base complex. With your changes it would only be done by an idiot with a death wish.

I suggest we get more information on how engymod changes the popularity of fabs before we suggest changes anyway. With the engymod's new emphasis on factories, I suspect we might see more players building fabs to take advantage of adjacency. If you build several factories instead of assisting, and they all have mexes and fabs for adjacency, a half-price army is not unrealistic.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Air crash damage:

Since aircraft are so lightly constructed, even the 'heavy' aircraft shouldn't be doing a lot of damage upon their destruction anyway, and certainly not with such a massive area of effect. It's just wreckage falling from the sky, the planes don't explode upon impact. There's no reason that a T3 transport's crash should have the same blast radius as T4 artillery.

This seems like a very trivial change, like making walls not count against the unit limit. Waste of time.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
T3 wall:

Walls that stop experimentals? They would have to be mighty large to do that, considering how huge most experimentals are. Unreasonably large, even.

My problem with this idea is that I don't think players should be able to build walls capable of hindering an experimental's movement - they're just too big. So, since non-experimental units already have their movement blocked by regular walls, the primary purpose of a T3 wall would be to limit the ability of T1/T2/T3 direct fire units to shoot inside a base. This is a purpose already accomplished by shields. So T3 walls seem largely redundant, hardly worth adding a whole new unit.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Template:

As pointed out, this already exists. I don't think it should be added to regular engineers though, they're just drones, and it's one of the benefits of building an SCU in the first place.

I would like to know if there's an easier way to use it though - having to shift+click on every building you want replaced becomes very tedious very quickly.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Carier / air shild:

No no no no no. The way to fix carriers, as I've said many times, is to allow them to build as they move. (Or even better, although unlikely, to allow them to perform air staging functions as they move.)

Planes do not have shields. If you had to answer the question of why they would suddenly have shields when they're by a carrier the only answer you could give is "because I wanted to make carriers better." This is a terrible answer. There is only one unit in the game that provides invisible bonuses to units around it, and that is the restoration field - an appropriately unique upgrade. SupCom is about each unit having its own abilities and the player using them in conjunction to maximize the abilities of each. It is not about one unit providing indirect buffs to another by way of its simple proximity. Start down this path and before you know it players will simply have to have carriers all around for any naval/air combat - a 'solution' as undesirable as the situation you're trying to change.

Also, the system as you seem to have envisioned it seems quite tedious. You have to manually assign planes to each carrier in order to receive this shield? Ugh. But if you have them automatically be assigned that will play havoc with your economy as planes fly in and out of the radius.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
[b][u]T2 air staging:

Again, no. Why not have naval or land units units be deployed automatically too? Because part of the game of SupCom is commanding the units you construct. Aside from how this would obviously make T1 air factories obsolete, I find your point about how it would remove the need for planes to "fly in defensive positions above the city" exemplary of how this idea is bad. So it removes the ability of your opponent to see where your air fleet is and avoid it or shoot it down before a bombing run? It removes any need for players to put some thought into where they are going to position their aircraft for optimal defense? No thanks.

Because some people do not have the hardware to play a game is almost never a reason to change its core mechanics. A better solution to that problem would be to have the contrail effect removed when the quality settings are on low.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 29 Apr 2013, 18:22

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-04-28T10:28:32+02:00

AwarE: thx for suport, yes i know that they dont like defense becase its not to funny, and not so popular to see on that on replays. I dont wana make from this turtle game but know maybe this suggestion are on that way, but its somthing that i think is quite unlogical and unfair what deform game system for higher "fun". Problem of this suggestion i thing is that i write it all in one status, it is about 4xA4 full text no so many peaple would read it:)

vongratz: its not about turtling, its about logick, mass veterancy vs tech lvl veterancy tahat mass is better for agresive player. more you destroy more you has rise your exp/T3 units. thats nothing in T1/t2 tanks. And this veterancy make rise faster, but in 80% game dont change nothing becase T1 is the primary wepon and it is on same valuable. T2 increas 35%, T3 increas 250%. but when today its unbalance that it is corect make it more responsibile tomorow.

veterancy about dont rise hp after veterancy system, thats absurd like its today when you can has 500T1bots = 26000mass and this mounth of mass vs land exp is that 26000mass die and exp would has more hp on end like in start. But i think that is would be fair and logick when that 26K mass take some normal dmg no kill them becase they need teching but take that 50-70% of dmg and not take him +30-50% hp like bonus (130-150%hp)

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 28 Apr 2013, 10:28

Re: Ithilis Quo`s uber mega huge pack of suggestions

2013-04-27T17:32:28+02:00

About the more tight defenses I dont agreed. The game movement is a must.
Otherwise, the very good idea of air pads building planes, could be developed into AIRBASES, Not with 2/4/8 pads, but as stationary carriers, with the same capabilities , except of couse, movement.They only will built interceptors and light defense pplanes for self-defense.

Statistics: Posted by vongratz — 27 Apr 2013, 17:32