| 1 |
[q]
|
1 |
[q]
|
| 2 |
* You're describing how ZK already works, so you seem to be solving solving problem, or
|
2 |
* You're describing how ZK already works, so you seem to be solving solving problem, or
|
| 3 |
* There are good reasons why ZK shouldn't or can't try to work how you describe, and I don't se the solution working.
|
3 |
* There are good reasons why ZK shouldn't or can't try to work how you describe, and I don't se the solution working.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Sometimes I consider the problems solved on the design level, but the balance isn't quite there. I still don't see the need for design level solutions.
|
5 |
Sometimes I consider the problems solved on the design level, but the balance isn't quite there. I still don't see the need for design level solutions.
|
| 6 |
[/q]
|
6 |
[/q]
|
| 7 |
Well there is the existing Air model, and the air model that would happen if land factory philosophy was applied to air (minimum dependency on AA tag, cyclic counters, etc). I think it is possible to have a game that maintains both land factory like tactical concepts and strategic level mobility/impact, though it would be a huge undertaking. I do want to see what is possible, even just as conceptual design that never makes into the game for practical reasons. If the concept once fleshed out is attractive, only than it would make sense to invest serious effort into it.
|
7 |
Well there is the existing Air model, and the air model that would happen if land factory philosophy was applied to air (minimum dependency on AA tag, cyclic counters, etc). I think it is possible to have a game that maintains both land factory like tactical concepts and strategic level mobility/impact, though it would be a huge undertaking. I do want to see what is possible, even just as conceptual design that never makes into the game for practical reasons. If the concept once fleshed out is attractive, only than it would make sense to invest serious effort into it.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
-----
|
9 |
-----
|
| 10 |
My experience of two model team games is that mixed strategic/tactical level game with very different concepts, mechanics and scale attracts different sort of players and induce conflict and rage between them, granted the experience is in wargaming vehicle combat games. When the strategic level have significant game impact, the tactical level player rages due to having no initiative and can only play passive reaction and will demand the strategic level get nerfed. The strategic level normally have lower player counts and thus weak forum presence but there can be raging over difficulty in herding cats due to being more of a force multiplier than direct force.
|
10 |
My experience of two model team games is that mixed strategic/tactical level game with very different concepts, mechanics and scale attracts different sort of players and induce conflict and rage between them, granted the experience is in wargaming vehicle combat games. When the strategic level have significant game impact, the tactical level player rages due to having no initiative and can only play passive reaction and will demand the strategic level get nerfed. The strategic level normally have lower player counts and thus weak forum presence but there can be raging over difficulty in herding cats due to being more of a force multiplier than direct force.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
So is diversity really a pro, or is tight focus on a gameplay niche better? (than again, there is no universal answer: different games for a reason)
|
12 |
So is diversity really a pro, or is tight focus on a gameplay niche better? (than again, there is no universal answer: different games for a reason)
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
[q]Maneuvering is already important for ground units against air units. If you can control your Glaives such that one dies per Likho shot, then you're dealing massive efficiency damage to the Likho.
|
14 |
[q]Maneuvering is already important for ground units against air units. If you can control your Glaives such that one dies per Likho shot, then you're dealing massive efficiency damage to the Likho.
|
| 15 |
What do you mean by fire control? Hold fire, targeting? As I said above, I don't see requiring players to click on enemy air units as leading anywhere good - at their current speeds.
|
15 |
What do you mean by fire control? Hold fire, targeting? As I said above, I don't see requiring players to click on enemy air units as leading anywhere good - at their current speeds.
|
| 16 |
To bring about firing at air units universally you would need to make half the air units much lower and slower. The other half are already plenty vulnerable to shots from the ground.
|
16 |
To bring about firing at air units universally you would need to make half the air units much lower and slower. The other half are already plenty vulnerable to shots from the ground.
|
| 17 |
The hard counter units seem justified at the current unit speeds and are part of a wider web of interesting unit interactions, so what we've got at the moment seems ok to me.
|
17 |
The hard counter units seem justified at the current unit speeds and are part of a wider web of interesting unit interactions, so what we've got at the moment seems ok to me.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
For air vs. ground, I'm not sure what you mean beyond what is covered by Point 1. Are you saying gunships should have a skirmisher, raider and riot that fit in the standard land factory counter structure? I don't see how this can apply to planes.
|
19 |
For air vs. ground, I'm not sure what you mean beyond what is covered by Point 1. Are you saying gunships should have a skirmisher, raider and riot that fit in the standard land factory counter structure? I don't see how this can apply to planes.
|
| 20 |
[/q]
|
20 |
[/q]
|
| 21 |
There has been few RTS game that seriously try to do fasting moving, non-stop capable fighter like vehicles. The best of the bunch that I've played is homeworld 1, and in that game much of the control is in AI behavior and formation control hotkeys for the fastest units. Wasn't in the MP scene back than, however there appears to have evolved into a optimal formation change frequency modulation (to get fighters to circle strafe, get onto rear of opponent, etc) problem which is probably gamey in the most broken sense.
|
21 |
There has been few RTS game that seriously try to do fasting moving, non-stop capable fighter like vehicles. The best of the bunch that I've played is homeworld 1, and in that game much of the control is in AI behavior and formation control hotkeys for the fastest units. Wasn't in the MP scene back than, however there appears to have evolved into a optimal formation change frequency modulation (to get fighters to circle strafe, get onto rear of opponent, etc) problem which is probably gamey in the most broken sense.
|
| 22 |
\n
|
22 |
\n
|
| 23 |
I guess there is also seeing people playing eveonline as an RTS by multiboxing. Voicecomm RTS aside, it is menu/hotkey based controls (menu lists observable enemy units). It has tackle (fastest, slow attack), kiters (skirm) and brawler (slower, strongest) core arch-types, where tackle slows down kiters to be brawled down, while kiters try to position to let them kill tackle before getting chased down by brawler, so there is much distance control, most of which can be managed with menu + hotkey "approach/move away/circle/shoot this" instead of mouse input.
|
23 |
I guess there is also seeing people playing eveonline as an RTS by multiboxing. Voicecomm RTS aside, it is menu/hotkey based controls (menu lists observable enemy units). It has tackle (fastest, slow attack), kiters (skirm) and brawler (slower, strongest) core arch-types, where tackle slows down kiters to be brawled down, while kiters try to position to let them kill tackle before getting chased down by brawler, so there is much distance control, most of which can be managed with menu + hotkey "approach/move away/circle/shoot this" instead of mouse input.
|
| 24 |
\n
|
24 |
\n
|
| 25 |
One can have more assigned map zones (like existing retreat zones) and units they is keyboard hotkey controlled to be in relation to map zones (attack zone 1, move to zone 2, stay out of zone 3: with orders assigned by keyboard and only area definition by mouse, to enable faster control)
|
25 |
One can have more assigned map zones (like existing retreat zones) and units they is keyboard hotkey controlled to be in relation to map zones (attack zone 1, move to zone 2, stay out of zone 3: with orders assigned by keyboard and only area definition by mouse, to enable faster control)
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
With controls sorted out, the counter structure can still be range but also other things like air to air splash, air stack levels, which make engagement geometry and relative force density, friendly fire avoidance important. There also things like firing angles and turning radius use, but one would need really specialized controls for that and probably a dedicated air combat game.
|
27 |
With controls sorted out, the counter structure can still be range but also other things like air to air splash, air stack levels, which make engagement geometry and relative force density, friendly fire avoidance important. There also things like firing angles and turning radius use, but one would need really specialized controls for that and probably a dedicated air combat game.
|
| 28 |
\n
|
28 |
\n
|
| 29 |
A
simple
non-kiting
model
would
be
light
fighter
>
heavy
fighter
>
splash
fighter
>
light
fighter(
stacking)
(
raid/assault/riot)
Not
sure
what
combination
of
speed/range/other
characteristics
and
controls
would
enable
fun
micro.
200
speed
seems
fairly
controllable,
390
with
boost
eh.
.
.
.
|
29 |
A
simple
non-kiting
model
would
be
light
fighter
>
heavy
fighter
>
splash
fighter
>
light
fighter(
stacking)
(
raid/assault/riot)
Not
sure
what
combination
of
speed/range/other
characteristics
and
controls
would
enable
fun
micro.
200
speed
seems
fairly
controllable,
390
with
boost
eh.
.
.
.
Very
minimum
you'd
have
micro
of
stack
to
focus
fire
and
spread
to
avoid
splash.
|
| 30 |
\n
|
30 |
\n
|
| 31 |
From a ground to air perspective, AA fire zones might be interesting, where an slow turning AA preaim an area. If air approach from another arc it would get engaged late or not at all if it gets close enough to out speed the turret rotation speed altogether.
|
31 |
From a ground to air perspective, AA fire zones might be interesting, where an slow turning AA preaim an area. If air approach from another arc it would get engaged late or not at all if it gets close enough to out speed the turret rotation speed altogether.
|
| 32 |
\n
|
32 |
\n
|
| 33 |
[q]Is this "Reduce Likho AoE"? I think Likho is pretty counterable by spreading a bit, and otherwise bombers seem to mostly be used as anti-artillery. I'm not sure what the required change here is. [/q]
|
33 |
[q]Is this "Reduce Likho AoE"? I think Likho is pretty counterable by spreading a bit, and otherwise bombers seem to mostly be used as anti-artillery. I'm not sure what the required change here is. [/q]
|
| 34 |
Likho is pretty much general anti-army, most armies can not withstand it. This is much too powerful if there is no powerful AA to counter it.
|
34 |
Likho is pretty much general anti-army, most armies can not withstand it. This is much too powerful if there is no powerful AA to counter it.
|
| 35 |
\n
|
35 |
\n
|
| 36 |
When I say, anti-artillery I mean much reduced offensive power so it is only efficient against very low hp/cost units in a low dedicated AA world.
|
36 |
When I say, anti-artillery I mean much reduced offensive power so it is only efficient against very low hp/cost units in a low dedicated AA world.
|
| 37 |
The current model is simplified as:
|
37 |
The current model is simplified as:
|
| 38 |
Likho/Nimbus/Rev > Ground Fighting Army > Anti-Air > Likho/Nimbus/Rev
|
38 |
Likho/Nimbus/Rev > Ground Fighting Army > Anti-Air > Likho/Nimbus/Rev
|
| 39 |
\n
|
39 |
\n
|
| 40 |
The weak dedicated AA model would be:
|
40 |
The weak dedicated AA model would be:
|
| 41 |
Air >> Artillery
|
41 |
Air >> Artillery
|
| 42 |
Air (aka raider) >= Ground Skirm > Ground Riot >> Air
|
42 |
Air (aka raider) >= Ground Skirm > Ground Riot >> Air
|
| 43 |
\n
|
43 |
\n
|
| 44 |
Air as a sole factory model would be
|
44 |
Air as a sole factory model would be
|
| 45 |
Air > Artillery
|
45 |
Air > Artillery
|
| 46 |
Tower (push) + reactionary air holds main enemy army
|
46 |
Tower (push) + reactionary air holds main enemy army
|
| 47 |
Air matches enemy raiding
|
47 |
Air matches enemy raiding
|
Air v. AA v. Ground balance