| 1 |
The wiki page seems to be where the design goals and constraints are kept.
|
1 |
The wiki page seems to be where the design goals and constraints are kept.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
I find some of the goals to be somewhat in conflict. Not in a hardcore unresolvable conflict, but definitely in tension that can and should be addressed:
|
3 |
I find some of the goals to be somewhat in conflict. Not in a hardcore unresolvable conflict, but definitely in tension that can and should be addressed:
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Namely (numbered and cherry-picked for my own convenience)
|
5 |
Namely (numbered and cherry-picked for my own convenience)
|
| 6 |
{{{
|
6 |
{{{
|
| 7 |
1) The Commander should remain an important unit throughout the entire game.
|
7 |
1) The Commander should remain an important unit throughout the entire game.
|
| 8 |
2) The Commander's role should be active, rather than passive.
|
8 |
2) The Commander's role should be active, rather than passive.
|
| 9 |
3) Not using morphed comms should also be a viable strategy.
|
9 |
3) Not using morphed comms should also be a viable strategy.
|
| 10 |
4) The outcome of the game should not be decided solely by the death of the Commander.
|
10 |
4) The outcome of the game should not be decided solely by the death of the Commander.
|
| 11 |
}}}
|
11 |
}}}
|
| 12 |
First:
if
the
commander
dies,
the
game
either
goes
on
without
the
commander,
or
doesn't.
|
12 |
First:
if
the
commander
dies,
the
game
either
goes
on
without
the
commander,
or
it
doesn't.
|
| 13 |
First case breaks rule 1 because dead commander is not an important unit in this game anymore. Second case breaks rule 4.
|
13 |
First case breaks rule 1 because dead commander is not an important unit in this game anymore. Second case breaks rule 4.
|
|
|
14 |
The current state does not have this problem by not requiring commanders to stay relevant.
|
| 14 |
Could this be addressed by commander rez becoming a worthwhile or accessible thing?
|
15 |
Could this be addressed by commander rez becoming a worthwhile or accessible thing?
|
| 15 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 16 |
Second: Rules 1+2+3 give us a situation in which an unmorphed commander is expected to stay relevant as an actively used - that is, frontline - unit.
|
17 |
Second: Rules 1+2+3 give us a situation in which an unmorphed commander is expected to stay relevant as an actively used - that is, frontline - unit.
|
| 17 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 18 |
I guess this could be addressed by giving even baseline commanders some scalable abilities.
|
19 |
I guess this could be addressed by giving even baseline commanders some scalable abilities.
|
| 19 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 20 |
However, there's a current design rule that commanders should not have abilities not possessed by at least one other unit; this means that whatever scalable ability can be granted to level zero commanders to make them relevant even while unmorphed as the game progresses, it can be obtained for cheaper through building the unit with that ability.
|
21 |
However, there's a current design rule that commanders should not have abilities not possessed by at least one other unit; this means that whatever scalable ability can be granted to level zero commanders to make them relevant even while unmorphed as the game progresses, it can be obtained for cheaper through building the unit with that ability.
|
| 21 |
\n
|
22 |
\n
|
| 22 |
[quote]No idea, but I know Anarchid has some thoughts around this.[/quote]
|
23 |
[quote]No idea, but I know Anarchid has some thoughts around this.[/quote]
|
| 23 |
Replacing stacked modules with tiered modules is easier to visually represent. Especially if the number of tiers is limited to 3, and each module is designated a specific body part that represents it.
|
24 |
Replacing stacked modules with tiered modules is easier to visually represent. Especially if the number of tiers is limited to 3, and each module is designated a specific body part that represents it.
|
Proposal: New Commander Morph System