65 replies to this topic

[Ace4225]

HellRik, on November 30 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

In other words , YOU are bad. ty bye

Hellrik, we can be more respectful of other players, dude. AJK wasn't criticizing you, he was criticizing your idea, which does have a lot of flaws in it:

HellRik, on November 30 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

-Get rid of Battleships. and get rid of the AA. Put 1 tree in the middle and power the base weaponery system to fire at the other base. Only way to collect EU is to kill Mech and get their energy drops, or control AA with one part of the team while others carry them to base.

This is exactly how missile assault already plays, except you have 3 silos instead of 1 [none of which are at your base so they can be contested over] and there's no EU involved. Having the battleship is what makes Siege awesome, cinematic, and unique.

However, having some sort of minor defense besides the AA would be nice to have to pour EU into while the attackers have their BS out; it would force both teams to fight between the AA and EU towers.

draco7891, on November 30 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

The Seesaw

• Trees contain 300 EU at a time.
  
• Only one tree active at a time.
  
• Draining one tree "powers up" the other tree, but cannot draw from the second tree until the first is drained.

I like this idea; wouldn't be that simple, but might offer a way to keep the EU-gathering contested.

draco7891, on November 30 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

EU Powered AA

• Energy trees remain active during AA phase, but control of AA is based on the amount of EU deposited into it by team.
  
• AA fire/control consumes deposited EU, requiring constant resupply.
  
• Ships do not move unless team is in control of AA.

This, however, seems detrimental to the gameplay, the third bullet in particular. The fact that the ships move constantly is what's supposed to make you want to take the AA when you don't have it; the AA kills the BS very fast. You're also now talking about giving the defending team the initial AA advantage right away [since the EU tower closest to the attackers is likely powered down, based on the last quote] and on top of that, now your ship doesn't even move as long as the defenders have the AA_ Too complicated; too lopsided.

Edited by Ace4225, December 01 2012 - 10:35 PM.

[Karaipantsu]

Beemann, on December 01 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

But if both teams camp EC`s both teams have the same bonus
Plus we`re unnecessarily nerfing A (and to a lesser extent mechs at that point

Not necessarily.  A full C mech would carry 2 times the penalty of a full A mech.  Say you took 5% extra damage for each 100 energy you have.  A class would max out at 7.5%, while a full C mech would be taking 15% extra damage.  You'd actually be discouraging the use of C class carriers, if anything, because 15% bonus damage is huuuuuge.

And I think we're talking about this in regards to my original suggestion of modified placement and mechanics for the Energy Trees.

Edited by Karaipantsu, December 01 2012 - 11:55 PM.

[Beemann]

Karaipantsu, on December 01 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Beemann, on December 01 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

But if both teams camp EC`s both teams have the same bonus
Plus we`re unnecessarily nerfing A (and to a lesser extent mechs at that point

Not necessarily.  A full C mech would carry 2 times the penalty of a full A mech.  Say you took 5% extra damage for each 100 energy you have.  A class would max out at 7.5%, while a full C mech would be taking 15% extra damage.  You'd actually be discouraging the use of C class carriers, if anything, because 15% bonus damage is huuuuuge.

And I think we're talking about this in regards to my original suggestion of modified placement and mechanics for the Energy Trees.

Oh I thought you meant the other way, where the +dmg was damage dished out
In that case, you're unnecessarily nerfing C mechs. Unnecessary nerfs either way
Especially since you're demolishing their only combat advantage (health)
In fact... that's actually worse than the idea I misread it as. C mechs would be ridiculous as they can't escort as well and would take even more damage as carriers.

[Karaipantsu]

Well, in that scenario, it reverts to the risk vs. reward system.  How much possible extra damage are you willing to risk to get that must more energy back to base.

[Beemann]

Except it does so by gimping C classes in their primary advantage
That's like having EU replace Fuel or something
What's more, your risk is still just as high as the attackers. You won't wipe unless you send a roughly equivalent force in (because 6 mechs shooting > your health), so either the optimal strat would stay the same, or the plan would be to just wait until the other team gathers EU and then wipe them, which then encourages next to no EU gathering if that catches on and both teams are aware of it

[Karaipantsu]

Beemann, on December 02 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

That's like having EU replace Fuel or something

Also an interesting idea, but that would again completely muderbag C class and favor A class.