I don't really know how this could be implimented, but in the commanders build tab, it has another building, for this example call it "X". Throughout the map are special points, which work like refinerys, where you can place "X". When you do some, the person who made the map has it specified what it will become when "X" is placed on that certain point. For example, in emp_slaughtered it will have a special point in the center of where the bridge would be. And so if the team wanted a bridge there, the commander would drop an "X", which the engineers would build. It will act like a normal building, but the commander will of coarse be able to reycle it when he choses (if the bridge is lost). The price it costs to place an "X" would be set by the mapper, and dependant on what will acutally be placed there. This feature would add more stratgic strain on the commander, as he has to decide when to build it, and when he feels the team needs to fall back and recycle the bridge. The cons would be that I think it would be hard to impliment, and it would just mean more hard work for the mappers. Will it benefit game-play in empires? yes, it will increase the stratgey in when a commander should place certain buildings Does it fit into the empires universe? yes, it already has rebuilt things in maps, im just wanting it that the commander has to place those How feasible is it to introduce to the game? difficult to moderate Is the usefulness of the suggestion relative to the effort that will go into making it. yes seeing as almost every map has something like this, and it adds a cool feature to the mod Is it a good idea? if it wasn't, why would i suggest it What will this idea encourage, for good or ill. It will enourage more stratgic thinking on the commanders side, but more building for the team, perhaps causing a burdin (but then again, even as it is, engineers are still forced to go around buildng the stuff) Is it helping teamwork or hindering it? doesn't affect/moderatly affects the relationship between engineers and commanders Is the game more tactical/fun for its inclusion? yes the commander can recycle bridges when eg, the enemy is crossing over them, and can plan when to build the bridge for sneaky attacks Are you adding this because you are bored by something (your inclusion may well negatively affect the first three points) nope, i just think it could add to the gameIs it something that you just find hard to use in game (If so, ask an experienced player, practice with it, or just focus on another aspect of the game. For example, I fail with the scout rifle, so I rarely use it.) lol no Does it help balance the game does/ does it unbalance it? doesn't affect Does it promote teamwork rather than individual skill? teamwork between engineers and commanders (that enough for you Dizzy? :p )
I'm not sure if I like the idea of recycling the slaughtered bridge. I'd like it better if you had to place a building on a specific location and that gave you controls to extend or retract the bridge. The control location could just to the side of and equidistant from both ends of the bridge, and would have a smaller, infantry only bridge leading to it from both sides. The advantage here is mainly that it removes the possibility of the bridge just disappearing when you're on it. You could have the extend/retract system have plenty of warning lights and a time delay. Basically you send the infantry across and capture the control room, the comm expends resources to activate it for your team, and then you can extend or retract the bridge from the control room. Perhaps you could also code these X objects to have buttons on them (when the comm selects the object) which will fire outputs from the entity. Like in hammer, you have keyvalues in the X object placement node which say how many buttons are active, what text they each display, and when you click one of them, it fires the relevant OnButton<number>Press output, which you can then connect to other things in the map by the I/O system. So the comm can select the control entity and retract or extend the bridge with buttons, removing the griefing potential and also allowing other effects to be wired into these X buildings, like a button that opens or closes a gate. You could also make it so that if a scout sabotages the entity, a certain output fires, in the case of the bridge it would extend the bridge until an engineer fixes the control entity and then the comm can regain control. I think it's a bit more versatile than just having the 'place to create effect' mechanic.
I disagree with this, I thought you were talking about structures that can only be placed in certain positions and give you an advantage [E.G. a smaller tougher barracks set into the mountain that can only be placed in one place for either team]
A graphical display isn't neccesary but empires wouldn't be as fun if it was text based. Things become neccesary once you implement them.
Well it has a potential for use, you put it in and it gets used, it turns out to be fun, it becomes neccesary. So yeah.
But why do we need to have recyclable bridges? Sounds pretty much like a cheap tactic, and so nobody will cross the damn bridge.
Bridges or towers like slaughtered or whatever else. I'm not sure if it would be the greatest thing to happen to empires since squad powers, but then again I'm not a creative mapper waiting to make use of this.
Creative mappers can already do this by placing a constructible brush, they just can't recycle it. *shrug*
Yeah... Mappers can already assign places like that... From the mountain barracks, to anything else; it is up to the mapper; ant this doesn't really add anything new
So in other words, they can't already do this. Map placeable brushes are quite limited, having greater control over them would be useful. Which, if you would pay attention, is why I modified the suggestion.
This is a very good idea, the entity just needs enough functionality and mappers can create all kinds of maps that focus on commanding.
thank you! someone with syle (not to mention Chris aswell) The mappers know its a good idea because they see the potential :p Chris is right, the control over it would be alot less fustrating, like "ohh crap we need to reycle this bridge, but i can't, i build it" @Solokiller, how hard is this to impliment?
I just came up with another example, the ramps at crossroads. No matter how many times you say, someone always builds them, well this elimantes the fustration and anger here aswell :p
PERFECT example here of why we need this. Often front-line commanders on crossroads get stuck in the middle because their team builds the ramps, even when the commander specifically said not to. Must be why we don't see frontline commanding on that map much.
Would be nice to see that. You can create whole new map ideas out of it. With alot to do for the commander...
It might be a bit confusing for newb commanders, but I think it is a good idea as well. Recycling is already hard to exploit since it take 30 seconds to finish the deconstruction. Another benefit of this is it specifically gives ownership of a map structure to a team. Engies can interact with them in a more natural fashion. With proper functionality spies could sabatoge map structures, etc. A cost could be assigned to constructing them possibly. I think there is alot of possibility thier that could be explored over time.