Defusal nerf: gives 1/8th chance of detonation

Vehicles just need to be heavier. Surely there's means to compensate with engine power. There, 9-mines won't grief comms, jeeps and LTs can't stupidly ram as easily, etc.

 

You could just reduce the force on mines. Meh.

 

You can't separate torque and speed as far as I know.

If you give engines more power you make them accelerate too fast and possibly break the max speed.

 

See "Or change the dynamics of the push from the explosion?"

but somebody doesn't want to break the laws of Empires physics!

@chris:
When there's more downward force, vehicles have more traction.

 

It's not that I don't want to, I just can't think of an efficient method of making subsequent explosions in the same area have less power.

In theory yes, but traction is primarily governed by the material system and has nothing to do with the amount of torque required to push a heavy mass uphill. Vehicles don't work like they do in real life.

 

I've played with very high gravity and vehicles have been easier to control on flattish terrain. Surely enough weight would help.

 

IT WOULD BREAK VEHICLES ON SLOPES.

I trust you do recall when tanks couldn't drive up the slightest incline?

 

There really is a red line you have to follow when balancing vehicles. Just doing the obvious of adding weight and increasing engine power has the most weird results. Ask Drag for more info, as I'm also rather ignorant of the specifics.

 

That sounds hilarious.

 

Let's not have another round of fiddling with tanks. The tanks were only just made usable again after the switch to the OB engine.

 

Chris:

traditional computer program RNGs score either extremely low or extremely high on the chi distribution table. This means that they are, in fact, not random at all. However, for our purposes, if we don't understand how a program utilizes a RNG, it's sufficiently random for our purposes.

Also, you said computer RNGs are designed to never generate the same outcome twice in a row; that's simply untrue.

Aside from that, the game punishes/rewards players for bad/good luck all the time. Ever heard of spray 'n' pray?

 

Whatever, and yes, spray and pray is luck based, notice how much people complained when it became too prevalent?

 

it wasn't luck based

that's because you COULD aim guns without having to go prone and then pray that your gun decides to shoot straight like we have now and on top of that if you fire more than one shot at a time all of the other bullets are wasted

 

maybe so, but more people would be complaining if there was never any spray at all.

 

Well yes, because then it would be impossible to balance weapons, the HMG would be the only thing worth using.

But zero spread does work in games, unreal tournament has zero spread on many of its weapons, they are counterbalanced by low damage, rate of fire, or projectile travel time. But the lack of spread does mean they are almost entirely skill based, because travel time can be compensated for, simple poor accuracy cannot.

I cannot think of a game where guns work as heavily on luck as the UT weapons work on skill, because luck simply doesn't make for good gameplay. The only games I do know that work on luck are RPGs, and they mostly work on the premise that doing the same thing over and over again to level up so you can do the same thing over and over again to harder enemies is fun.

 

BACK TO DEFUSAL:

give it to scouts, have it highligh all mines in scout's view, and highlight all mines withen x distance (say current distance of grens mine detector) of the scout to all players on his team and grant ability to defuse with a progress bar.

oh and btw, random chance = bad because it negates advantage gained by skill/experience.

 

Because it fits the role better? Teh grenadier got long range weaponary then he gots a freaking defusual which means that he has to crawl up to the front line and defuse mines, that does not makes sence.

 

Reasons to give it to the scout:

* It has a natural synergy with hide (ignore or silently disable turrets, sneak and crawl up to a key area where the enemy has placed a minefield), and if it highlights them through smoke it'll have a natural synergy with that as well. The grenadier, meanwhile, has no abilities that will help them get close to a minefield -- they can't disable turrets without alerting the enemy, they lack stealth and smoke, etc.

* If it's given a progress bar, its interface and functionality will fit well with sabotage; scouts disable defenses by going up to them and holding 'E'.

* Similarly, it fits thematically, and gives the scout the general role of looking for undefended weak points in enemy lines, where the enemy has left static defenses (like mines and turrets) that the scout can silently disable right before an attack. Since mines don't cost res, they're an even better place to apply this philosophy than turrets.

* If defusal is changed to highlight mines, it will fit in with enhanced senses and so forth, and will involve actual, well, scouting.

* If it's changed to not grant magic mine-immunity, but to instead be a skill you have to actively use to disable mines, it'll be a skill that works best with someone who moves ahead of a major attack to remove defenses. This describes the scout more than the grenadier.

* The grenadier generally has little reason to walk directly into a contested chokepoint or enemy base (where the mines are likely to be); grenadiers (at least once the RPG is fixed to do decent damage again) will benefit more from finding the high ground and ambushing / sniping enemy tanks unexpectedly. Yes, sure, you can drop mines or fire your RPG point-blank against tanks, but the only other anti-tank infantry class gets even closer. Against infantry the gren's weapons work best with at least a little range, and (most importantly) the grenadier has no reason to walk directly into an enemy base or defensive line, since their mortar is designed to take out turrets and structures from a distance.

LTs are hard to hit at the moment partially because their hitbox is broken around the wheels. That's a bug. But, overall, the grenadier's skillset and weapon-loadout gives them little reason to walk directly into a chokepoint (and, unlike a scout, they don't have any abilities that will help them approach that chokepoint anyway.)

Meanwhile, why do you think the grenadier should have defusal? It doesn't have anything to do with their role in the game at all, it doesn't have any synergy with any of their skills, and it requires that they do something totally unrelated to their usual role. The only reason you gave is:

Since you can't actually set off your own mines, I'm guessing you're talking realism here? I think that's a pretty big stretch (we can see that Empires mines are very easy to use toss-and-forget things, and very different between the two teams -- no reason you'd know how to disable the mines used by the other team); it's also logical that the class that knows how to disable enemy turrets and such would know how to disable mines.

But that aside, realism isn't important. Make a gameplay argument for why the Grenadier should have defusal.