Seismics only do token damage against any non-buildings, while scout grenades and frags harm infantry. Why not differentiate seismics from those? edit: The second word is, well, secondary. It's unimportant compared to the 'seismic' part.
Holey moley do you still not get the point. If the second word is unimportant or secondary then why the fuck change it to something as randomly unlogical as resonance. It's like someone on the dev team didnt do much this patch and wanted to write something down anyway tos how people they did something.
As presented over numerous posts before, it's a logical change. The second word is indeed relatively unimportant. Nobody argues that. Why defend it so staunchly instead of worrying about more impactful changes?
I would like to point out at this point that seismics actually shake the screen of infantry, it's made it hard for me to defend a rax on numerous occasions. It's an effect that I would actually like concs to have instead of blindness, because it's disorienting but not to the point where you are completely shut down for 5 or so seconds. To make a point about defending seemingly pointless things, when people keep defending them it kinda sets this view that that any change, good/bad/dumb/pointless, can be defended and kept. That's the key point that everyone I think is badly saying, if the many points we make against such little and easy changes go unheard will our voices matter at all for even more significant changes?
he really wants his stupid name change so bad people like this should not be in charge of stuff, not sorry "errm its actually quite logical. and you're weird for caring about the name change i so desperately want. im totally not weird for defending a dumb change for 7 pages"
Well, the unfortunate problem is that it would have to be Physics to be thematically relevant, but I don't know if that's the best place for it game play wise. If this is going to mirror the seismic grenade, we're talking building destroying capabilities better than most current vehicle weaponry. So! Where would you put it with that in mind? Because, in all honestly besides having an armor, an engine, and maybe some kind of vehicle weapons... the research trees are differentiated mainly by the unique research you can get Physics -> Nukes, .50 Cal, Electrical -> Turrets Biology -> .... ??? Bio MG? Chemistry -> ..... HE MG? Seems to me that it may be worth it to put it in Chemistry just because... Tanks that are purely Chem are shit against Grenadiers, and if you're already rolling a building destroying strategy that gives the enemy team a means to counter. The issue is how the fuck are you going to justify putting something called a resonator in the Chemistry tree?
I personally don't think this is a big issue at all, but it's a change I'm responsible for and feel positive about. Therefore, I will defend it for 7 pages, and more if the need arises. Now, do remember that there is a large difference between ignoring feedback and acknowledging but not acting upon it. Your voices don't go unheard. This whole discussion is taking place because your voices are being heard, and responded to. I simply remain unconvinced by arguments for reverting the change. edit @PwnedYoAss: Chemistry already has UGL and HE Cannon for anti-building (and anti-infantry) purposes. The trees that are lacking these are biology and electrical - we are omitting mechanical and physics has nukes. If we also consider strong single-target weapons as anti-building ones, then electrical has obvious strong ones (all of them really), but biology is still lacking. Resonator weapons won't fit there, but it's quite easy to write a lore bit that would fit...
How's regenerative against grenadier weapons? Because, that'd be an interesting tech tree because you'd be making a conscious decision to research for a blitzkrieg strategy because you can get an armor and engine super fast then just research building destroying weaponry and then proceed to blow bases up.
Regenerative trumps unupgraded RPGs on maps where you can reliably rotate a tank (basically anything more open than slaughtered's S-bend). It works fine against upgraded ones too, but it's prone to burst damage, which includes coordinated grenadiers. It works like a charm if you remain mobile, but bio diesel doesn't help with that one bit.
HMM, sounds like then if you added building destroying capabilities to the tree you could end up turning biology into the tree that people research to crush a newbie team.
You would boost biology's early game potency, potentially reducing the mean game time for a period of time until the meta adjusts. I don't know how exactly that would go down, there's a lot of variables to consider. I feel like it would be nice to have an early game research strat that requires more commitment than superlights but is stronger to compensate.
Feel like we need to quantify the level of commitment... specifically research time in comparison to superlights and say good ol' standard chem or physics. May inform us on how it would end up working out. .... wish we had a research reference
if i was dev one of the first things i would do is revert the smg's name back to 1, 2, and 3 respectively. if there was 7 pages of bitching from multiple people about the revert i would've just changed it back a couple pages ago
Superlights take 4,5 minutes of researching and don't require NF to stray from a strong research path. Any armor + engine combo takes 4,5 minutes of researching. The most common (wrong) follow-up is to get a 2-slot weapon, a cannon or missile launcher, which take 2,5 or 3,5 minutes, depending on whether you need to open another research tree. Rail guns would be a notable exception (they're in advanced magnet research, so just 90 seconds after 3phase) but they're a weak first weapon. After that, most people research mediums, which take 3,5 minutes (add an extra one if you didn't start mechanical). At this point, actual differentiating happens, with people getting at least one extra weapon (2.5-3.5 minutes each) before going for heavies (7.33 minutes). RPG upgrades (45 seconds each) or more vehicle customization options come in if resources are low instead. I imagine the sweet spot with "early game" research would be for it to hit 2-3 minutes after the engine.
@D.D.D. Destroyer so what you are basicly telling everyone else is you think the second word is so unimportant that we shouldnt discuss it. But you changed something so unimportant because you felt it was important to change lol. That just sounds like you are too stubborn. Why are you a dev again? Like what is even your job description as a dev in this empires team? Name changer of unimportant names? Im going to back out of this useless debate. This is some vicki level politic arguments lol.
You both failed to respond to the argument and went after my person instead. This is indeed getting political, and for the wrong reasons too.
So it sounds like there's enough there to implement a theoretical building demolitions focused research tree. Albeit, Empires is flawed in that you cannot effectively scout the enemy's research unless it's pretty overt (some fucker hits you with Bio MG). So, that means this tree would have to be pretty well tuned. The only real counter to fast moving, building destroying vehicles would be a hitscan weapon. So, vehicle MGs will be the go to. HM, could work... needs serious balancing though. Ehhh, yeah I mean the new names pigeonhole the SMGs, that is the SMG 1 is "Long-Range" while the SMG 2 is "Close-Range," and sure that's not that great because the SMG 1 is pretty great at close range, and the SMG 2 is reasonable at medium range. Sure they're better at their respective roles, but it doesn't mean they can't be used outside of it. That being said! Reverting the names back to undescriptive numbers is not a path forward man. How about we give them, like actual names with words. Also, in this case I think the name of the Seismic grenade should be reverted, but I don't think in general the feedback that comes out of the Empires community is worth immediately appeasing. Most of it is just destructive, unhelpful, misdirected rage towards an apparently all powerful development team.
I told you why your argument is wrong, I told you everything I needed to tell. Your entire basis of debate is just so fucked up theres no point. You litterally admitted you'll defend this to the end of the earth even though you understand how unimportant it actually is. Makes absolutely no sense.
And I answered each point except the insults with my reasoning, remaining unconvinced of your point of view. Not true. This: Is nowhere near as permanent a statement as you make it out to be.
