Discussion in 'Feedback' started by VulcanStorm, Jun 13, 2016.
I support the idea of not having two useless classes
Well, again, a TD would be more useful than an artillery gun.
And if you mean 2 useless classes like SCOUT then no
I don't know how you can miss he's talking about grens being near useless against tanks now.
TD being more useful then arty remains to be seen. Just because you want things to work in a certain way doesn't mean it will. MK II lights are a good example, and those actually did fit in better with current empires.
... thats chassis youre thinking of, not classes.
Maybe they should deport you.
I can't help but feel like my post was just completely ignored. ;P
On a side note:
I still stand by the idea, that limiting turret rotation speed of tanks would already fix a lot of problems we have with tank combat. It would also lead to different tank chassis fulfilling different roles instead of being direct upgrades. (Maybe we would even have to change research a bit in that case, in order to make them accessible earlier, but that was not part of my original thought.)
what you guys forget is you plan this chassis around a single canon with a single use (kill heavies), yet you have 3 research trees containing 4 canons and 4 trees containing 7 missile launchers (without nukes its 3/6)
its just not how empires works, i really have no clue what game you have in mind, but we dont build preset tank types, we design our own depending on useage.
if it doesnt work following this concept, its not working. you guys want armor piercing/armor shredding/direct hull damage/whatever, introduce that as a general mechanic, but you cant just conncet it to a certain chassis, that doesnt fit empires ...
... at all.
but to be less counter-productive. if you want a new chassis type, it needs to either fit inbetwen lights and med, meds and heavies, or after heavies. but no matter where, currently a lot of games are already decided before or at least with heavies researched, a new chassis will also mean the last one in the chain will be seen the least (or maybe, if its worth it, the 2nd to last will be skipped completely, for reference look at mk2s)
I was envisioning that the TD fit next to heavies. Under the same research branch of advanced chassis, but take less research time than a heavy not the full 180 for a heavy, 90 secs maybe?. Since they are meant to be counters...
I actually agree with you, empires shouldn't have preset tank types... But there are some weapons that are "restricted" to chassis... Even though a weaker (barely used) weapon is available to lower chassis, or none at all...
Plasma cannon, rail cannon, nuke, salvo homing... All these weapons are only available to heavy tanks. A "nuke heavy" is a kind of preset tank type if you think about it... nuke + mg + armour of your choice...
I agree that any new weapon/damage types should be available to other vehicles... But i'm unsure how this could be done, as its pretty unique for the TD... If other vehicles had access to direct hull damage, we don't want TD to feel redundant. Then we have TD behaviour on any tank, thus no real reason for a new chassis.
As a summary of new proposed stuff so far:
3 new weapons, for TD only currently...
Normal cannon with bonus hull damage per plate of armour.
Shredding cannon to get rid of armour, but little hull damage.
Armour piercing cannon to hit opposite side of the tank too.
Armour that repairs hull as plates are lost. until no plates remain on that side, when hull then takes damage as normal.
Armour with just n% hull damage resist(33%-50%?), so takes longer to kill the hull.
Both of these armours are proposed as an alternative to a fixed chassis resist vs TD cannons. And can be equipped on any vehicle.
nothing really to do specifically with TD, but we don't currently have one...
A heatsink engine. An engine with very low heat dissipation, moderate speed, but 150 max heat, instead of 100. May permit dual nuke heavies, and better support BE dual plasma tanks.
Sorry if i missed any other suggestions, please post them
There's no reason to add an engine? Bio diesel has 125 max heat capacity and not very good cooling.
Does it? I swear all the engines have 100 max... Due to gui bar restrictions. If it went over 100, then it wouldnt fit in the bar correctly and would over extend. Its not done on a percentage is it?...
edit: If it is done on a percentage... then why haven't we got a heatsink engine already?
The gui heat bar is a percentage, not an actual value of 1-100. Diesel had 125 heat max since last may or june, whenever candles was doing scripts. The reason why he didn't simply bump up heat max to 150 was specifically because he didn't want dual nukes. 600 damage is quite a lot, you should be able to kill a most tanks with that much damage. You would definitely kill tanks with rifle vehicle damage upgrade, ouch.
TD itself + TD's own cannons + chassis-specific armor/hull resist.
We aren't gonna introduce 250 things at once and fuck up everything.
You'd have an easier time with chassis specific damage resists by simply giving TD weapons it's own resist, or even use one of the resists not in use, and just apply that to each chassis type's armor. I mean this is easy to do with just scripts. Maybe it's harder to do in code?
I don't think chassis specific resistances are the right way to go here... I think the resistances should be built into armour.
Chassis specific resistances still seem like a hack around a poor design choice.... "Oh shit it's unbalanced, quick, let's just make some vehicles flat out resistant to all TD damage to counter"
Also, it would seem very "off" in empires to see a cannon take 1 plate off a heavy, but not an LT... "Why is my TD not working against LTs?", " Well it's because that tank type has resistances to your tank, get a different tank mate!"
That's what I think of when you say chassis specific resistances... Please explain how you envisioned it to work @Sgt.Security
Because it works.
It's like every single game out there, nobody cares about the mechanism. If it works, it's good.
The point is we want it harder for a heavy to kill a TD, even though they may seemingly have equal number of armor plates.
Also don't get me wrong, I kinda addressed that I don't really care about "make LTs useful in late game".
I'll probably just reduce the heavy->TD damage.
Yeah but we'll need armors for each chassis.
I think this would be easier if I can put the resist value inside "chassis info" and have it work on both armor/hull automatically, otherwise that's a lot of shit to add into vehicle_armor.txt.
you dont need armors for each chassis, thats just a remnant of an old way of dealing with armors
Either way I have to deal with hull resist.
Instead of reducing Heavy -> TD damage, why not just change the armour of the TD...
So how about this... from 6,3,3,2 -> 8,3,3,2
I have tried to emphasise a high front armour on the model, and this would make it something never seen before, I've never seen 8 plates of armour...
For a maximum of 16 plates, This would put its overall armour on par with mediums.
In comparison with other vehicles:
JEEP - 0
LT - 8
AFV/APC/ARTY - 12
TD - 16
BE MED - 16
NF MED - 20
HEAVY - 24
I Agree the TD should be heavily armored in the front, it should be weak on the sides and rear to allow for organic balancing by just maneuverability of other tanks. On top of its (Whatever weapon is decided upon) with its, what I suppose will be high cycle time for the weapon, it will balance it all out.
So where in the research tree should this TD go then?
Since its a higher tier tank I figured it should be under advanced chassis, this puts it next to heavy tanks in the research tree. Perhaps only at a 60 sec research time. So that you can get it as a "panic research" when the enemy suddenly rush heavies...
Separate names with a comma.