This is a repost of something I posted in the tester forum, where a discussion about ninja raxes is currently going on. I didn't want it to go down unnoticed. Most people will agree that placement of ninja raxes or bases, and losing because of them, is kinda lame. So, what if buildings could only be built close to other buildings instead of close to players? Refs and turrets would be excluded from that. Then, if you wanted to build a forward rax, you would at least have to control a nearby ref This also makes it a lot harder to ninja rax, as you would have to take over an enemy ref first. The enemy would see their ref blinking for a while before it goes down, also you can't take down refs with a lone scout. Of course, this would focus (even) more on refs, and move more towards a control point kind of gameplay. But that's kinda what Empires is, territory control. Thoughts?
ehmm... I think this would course more problems than solve, not all "territories" have a ref near them sometimes you want to secure a position a long way away from a ref... that would be impossible now, not to mention in 99% of the cases you build the bar before the ref
Right what GummiBear thinks. This would make maps a lot more predictable and repetitive. Ref Points are fixed, meaning bases are fixed. A initial rush would mean nothing if the barracks is going up in the same play anyways. This would be hard for mappers who want uniqueness in their maps. It would break a lot of custom maps, not to mention making a center base in mvalley impossible. I don't find ninja raxes lame, just do a rifleman sweep from the back and seismic spam, or take their main while everyone is distracted with yours. Apcs filled with sticky grenades are faster and harder and more precise than forward barracks if you want to take down their comm
Yeah, I think the OP should poll before claiming 'most people....'. Ninjas in their multiple forms are part of the game play, and there are already multiple ways that the game tries to prevent them from upsetting the game before it starts.
Good idea, but it just wouldn't work out with the game mechanics involved. Also, unless vehicles made it possible to build a barracks forwards, you'd have to drive your CV to a forwards position to drop a forwards barracks. This would definitely make it harder to place forwards buildings. As an alt, Just make enemy buildings prevent the construction of friendly buildings near by, similar to what Enemy infantry do. That would mean building an armory in the middle of an open area in front of your base or to the side, or somewhere not often traveled upon, it would prevent ninja buidings from going up in that area.
not to mention they sometimes are the only way to win a game if you are heavily besieged, outnumbered and outteched
It's hard enough to place buildings on most maps as it is. I find the suggestion appealing, but I can't think of any map it could really help. Maybe Mvalley, or Money, but those maps aren't worth changing game mechanics to save.
One thing you could change it for is that instead of players use an apc or the commander to build beside(so that early on you can build forward by risking your commander and if you don't have any apcs you can use the command to build from) Just an idea -Jason
It'd cripple the comm's ability to make decisions, though. I have these nightmare visions of a comm desperately trying to convince someone in an APC to head to a vital point where the team needs to build a building, before finally giving up and risking the CV to build it themselves, and getting killed. Also: Risking the CV should not be encouraged. Not ever. Having the game suddenly end without warning because an enemy coincidentally came across the enemy CV while it was vulnerable is no fun for anyone involved.
Perhaps the comm can drop an outpost building. Similar to Red Alert 3 where you need special hubs to build outposts. This slows down the quick ninja buildings, but still gives flexibility.
Alternate: Increase the range at which a enemy presence will prevent the placing of a structure. This will ensure a area is secure before your allowed to place any buildings. Plus, the code already exists.
more predictable and repetative games? weak. tackle the problem and not the symptoms: engineers with repair upgrade being able to build so fast that it's almost impossible to take the barracks down, even if it's right in the enemies face. this can be done by limiting the free skill you get at level 1 to general skills only, so class specific ones (including rep upg) only appear later. if you want, also increase the build speed of refinaries so it doesn't take lone engineers as long to build up refinaries.
Refs would be excluded, so you don't have to drive your CV anywhere, just take over a nearby ref spot, which you normally do anyway. Bases are already centered around refs most of the time.
The problem with that is that you'll just end up with hidden walls, small sensors, and other silly things used to block construction. They're bad enough as it is.
Before 2.2, enemy buildings did prevent you from building in a large radius around them. But because of the annoyance factor of having a single hidden wall piece prevent structures from being placed, they reduced the radius drastically. However, if you simply made it so walls/turrets/cameras did not prevent structure dropping, I think that's a much better solution. So, in short, I agree with you, Starc.
Perhaps making a buildings "enemy no build" radius a function of its cost, that way a forward rax has a moderate no build area, a commander wall has a small one and engineer structures have none. The main base or forward base with VF and radar would exert a large nobuild area, preventing ninja raxes from coming too close to your base
It's all part of an evil and sinister scheme to force them to implement blimps. bwahahahaha!!! But seriously, it was just a suggestion that I ripped off from another game.
