Commander Ancesteries

I sugest passive commander abilities in form of Ancesteries.

Well, the idea is you choose an Ancestery at the end of the comm vote(the moment you get in the CV)

For example Traders, Engineers, Inventors, Scientists, Industrialists and Generals.

Were each Ancestery gives your team a unique bonus,

Traders - Decrease vehicle cost. (10%)
Engineers - Increase structure HP and decrease Built Time. (20%)
Inventors - Research is cheaper. (15%)
Scientists - Research time is decreased. (12.5%)
Industrialists - Refs produce more res. (15%)
Generals - Infantry move faster(and tanks???). (15%)

(The above percentages are just examples)

This way it isn't overpowered(atleast it doesn't look like it), but you can still add a unique bonus to your team.

In my opinion people should be able to choose 2 of those powers/ancesteries, to create more diverse strategies.

For example,

Inventors & Scientists(All-Out Research Bonus)

or

Traders & Industrialists(All-Out Eco Bonus)


The first one may be able to research techs faster, for example Nuke Heavies.

while the other one will go for a cheap light vehicle zerg rush.

And voila, you have got an interesting variety in the team strategies. One team has to hold the line and defend against the cheap enemy vehicles till they have more advanced technology, while the other team will try to zerg rush them.

I think that by adding this this we could create even more interesting strategies.

Also, I would like the "buffs" to be large enough to make a diverence but small enough so they won't become instant-win buttons or create "rock/paper/scissor" strategies.

FAQ:

Q: "Why do you wan't to add this?"
A: "As I said - create more diverse strategies.'

Q: "I can't see this add much to the game"
A: "Well, as I explained earlier it creates more strategies, and ones that are more diverse(Eco Boomer versus Zerg Rush example)"

Q: "This is overpowered! You create instant-win buttons!"
A: I try to add more ways to win and more diverse strategies, in my opinion the amounts and powers are up to debate.

Q: "This is puts too much pressure on the comm, blah blah"
A: "If you can't handle pressing a button then I doubt you can handle the pressure of giving targets, hence - get out of the fricking comm vehicle."

Q: "What about, when a new comm get's in? Will the team still use the Ancesteries of the previous comm?"
A: "This in my opinion, is up to debate. The reason for this is that if you won't be able to choose your own Ancestery you might end up being screwed becaus ehte previous commander took the 'wrong' Ancestery. But if you are able to choose your own Ancestery at entering the Command vehicle you might end up with people changing their Ancestery all the time to meet their teams demands(for example, early game would need a Research boost while late game may need an Economy boost) and you would end up with teams switching their commanders all the time."


Also, can we for once not try to be so conservative and instead try to think about what this may add to the game and how this could be fun?

Also, if you are here to just screw up the thread and derail it - then get lost.

 

Good luck balancing it.[/thread]

 

Well, that is were I am worried about - when is something "balanced" adn when is it "overpowered".

Is overpowered having something that is an instant-win button? For example Rails and Nukes in early versions?

And when is something balanced? Balanced as in "rock/paper/scissor" or balanced as in "risk versus reward" as discussed in an other thread?

 

Traders - Decrease vehicle cost. (25%) But also a 25% Increase structure build time
Engineers - Increase structure HP and decrease Built Time. (30%) 25% increase in building cost
Inventors - Research is cheaper. (30%) Research however takes 25% longer
Scientists - Research time is decreased. (25%) Research is costlier.
Industrialists - Refs produce more res. (20%) Refs are 30% weaker
Generals - Infantry move faster(and tanks???). (15%) Spawn time for infantry increased and Vehicles are more expensive

My balance ideas highlighted in red.

 

Well, I must say I like that that aproach, yet having 2 Ancesteries would intefere with each other but this would make it somewhat balanced in my opinion.

But that makes me wonder - by not taking a certain Ancestery, aren't you actualy already nerfing your self?

Because this may cause allot of frustration(for example Infantry respawn times).

And should every ancestery have it's downside?

Maybe we should just try this in game, if we don't like it we can remove it, if we wan't to balance it we can decide to only allow 1 Ancestery with a down-side.

 

Ok, I edited the post, because assuming that you choose 2 Ancesteries then the percentages will be probrally lower(10-15% range) because if you add them up together they will be probrally more powerfull.

 

My balance idea also puts certain ancestries together in order to flattern out weaknesses such as Engineering and Industrialists.

 

Well, as I said - in my opinion we can only know if this is balanced if we actualy dare to try it out.

 

Let the team vote this, and the switching to fit actual demands gets done with (tho id be voting for eco boost all the time)

tho i wouldnt call it ancestry as those are given within the story, call it profession

 

Well the idea was that because of your ancestery you have more a better memory, more intelligence, charisma, ect.

We could also write a small story on each of the "Ancesteries"

 

Why should we be the ones trying to figure out what your idea will be adding to the gameplay?

The only way this would work is to have the commanders current class affect the team in the same way squad auras do. Stamina increase, damage increase, health regen, armor bonus.

replace health bonus with 10 bonus health and it would be fine, needs no fine tuning. no different than having a squad aura.

Having the commander have to choose this and have it affect major game mechanics is not the way to go with this sort of stuff.

 

How about calling it nano tech upgrades for BE, and bioengineering for NF.

Fit in the the background and all.

(The younger players in the forum think I'm joking.)

 

What this adds is more diverse gameplay? "diverse" you get it? Different strategies and tactics.

And seriously,

Eleborate please? Then what is the way to go with this "stuff"?

It's in ym opinion eqaul to the current skill system, you simply get a window and choose 2 "Ancesteries"(skills). That's my idea, I don't get how pressing a button is difficult...

EDIT: And foxy, as I said earlier in the thread the idea is that your background(ancestery) gives you certain abilities and improves them too(charisma, intelligence, ect.).

 

What he means is that the commander alone shouldnt enforce such a gamebreaking permanent diffrense upon all the players in the team.
it had nothing to do with how "hard" it is to click a button.

 

It's called Doctrine, chekc the sticky.

 

First things first:

- from the guidelines.

I'm not here to fuck up your thread, I'm here to point out the MAJOR flaws in this idea, and I expect you to address them. The fact that you don't understand what I mean by major game mechanics also leads me to believe that you really haven't thought this out, or you don't understand or accept that certain game mechanics need to be somewhat static in order for the rest of the game to work. (Static does not mean equal. It simply means that some things must remain constant to the point that strategy and gameplay is fluent, rather than a constant guess).


Second, None of the current squad auras greatly effect current game mechanics.

Research speed
Resources per second
Research time
Cost of anything, especially structures, to a lesser extent vehicles.


in other words, anything that requires absolutely no team effort or input to give an indefinite and indiscriminate that another team cannot compensate for with any amount of skill or teamwork.

You can't make up for research time by being skillful in choosing research. You can't make up for the health of a building by having a skillful building. You can't make up for a res node being worth more than an enemy's res node.

You can't say that "well, you just have to take more res nodes" and call it even. You also can't say that everyone has the advantage, so there is no disadvantage.

on the contrary, there is no advantage to this, only the 2 disadvantages to both teams being increasingly unequal in ways that can't be compensated for.


The only thing I would go along with in your post is the general. Running faster, at a very small amount, will help you get to an area first, but it doesn't make any guarantee's that you will be victorious in that situation. Vehicle speed has also always been a variable, but this will need to be limited as giving a vehicle TOO much speed actually makes them quite impossible to drive.

 

Why? We having magic now too? Or are the stupid commanders going to get smarter by having a certain background.

We already have a storyline about genetic engineering and nano tech. Might as well make it come from there.

 

I read that, but does that mean we can't discuss an idea?

Ok, if you think things are flawed then I am fine discussing that in this thread.

Well, I'm honest - indeed I don't know what you mean by "major game mechanics", for me that means things like gathering resources, research, vehicle combat, ect. But feel free to tell me what "major" game mechanics are...

Oh, and because I don't know what you think/believe that major game mechanics are, because of that I "really haven't thought this out,". Please wan't to elaborate?

 

Game mechanics, in my own words, are all the different aspects of the game. In my point of view, the common game mechanics, IE, FPS elements and the commander view mode and interface, are minor elements that are general to most FPS's or RTS's. Recoil is a game mechanic, ammunition limits (or lack thereof) is a game mechanic. Then there are things that are very specific to the fairness of the game. This involves each team getting a specific set of values that equate to others. Either 2 things need to be the same for both teams, or both teams have 2 options that are different, but have an equal strength to eachothers weakness that can be exploited. Things like the NF 50 cal or the BE carbine are different, but they have the same strengths as eachother, and, in equally capable hands, have the same effect. Arguements have gone either way for which of these 2 is more effective, though it's pretty much a consensus that the carbine is more noob friendly. Other major mechanics of empires include the research tree, it's set up for each team, and it's costs / times. Resource gathering is a basic of most every RTS game ever made, but because Res nodes turn into major contension points in the FPS element in more ways than in the RTS element, This I consider a major element of empires.

The game currently does not require any specific research path to win. Some teams do better with certain research paths, while others do better with others.

A team can win just as easily with dual rail heavies as they can with Phys APC's and DU. It is much more depended upon the individual user than the actual com research.

Squad aura's do not break these game mechanics because they are built in in such a way as to promote squad work and staying in groups. They also only work in a limited area. It does not cause either team any great advantage or disadvantage. The effects really aren't what attributes to a teams success, but the fact that there are 5~ people working together has more to do with it.

you could give infantry noclip and they would still probably lose to a player who is more skilled than they are. I've seen it happen when messing around on maps before.

You seem to be purposefully misunderstanding my words, and doing so quite spectacularly.

You have increased research speed. Increased research speed means a couple of things. First, you'll have to get a radar as soon as possible. This means not getting a VF. why is this necessary? because the advantage is only the advantage if you use it.

Alright, you get the Radar first. Now you have to fight without tanks, which will cause you to lose refineries because you are late getting a VF and too busy trying to keep your advantage with increasing research costs to build decent tanks to fight back.

That's one advantage coupled with multiple other disadvantages.

One team gets more resources for a node. they start falling behind in tech, and don't have decent tanks to fight with against 1 or 2 skilled players in a super light saved up specially from the team that has tech.

You lose your resource nodes, and you lose the advantage you had, and now you are behind in research.


Do you see what is happening?

This idea has more potential to cause a team to be at a disadvantage than an advantage, especially in the area of research and resources, 2 MAJOR game mechanics that aught not to be fucked with.

Similarly, you shouldn't fuck with ANY costs. It doesn't add anything but confusion to the game, and makes any balance fly out the window.





If you can't see any sort of reasonable argument against your idea there, then I can't help you. Please, tell me soon so i can add you to ignore and be happy.