Hey, what you think - would it make interesting battle situations trying to snatch that comm wreck with gunship transporters? If it would be faster than direct reclaim, might give nice new dimension to game... Flame me down if you must but just give your opinion, thanx!
+5 / -0
|
Reclaim (and generally constructor logistics) is supposed to be hard and dangerous. Reclaim is a semi-persistent objective to fight for, this would get ruined if you could snatch wrecks to safety just like that.
+2 / -0
|
I liked that idea once, But since comms are rebuildable it lost its main point.
+1 / -0
|
I think it's rather a good idea. You could use one aerial unit, with the risk of losing it could lead to a substantial loss of metal.
+1 / -0
|
|
|
quote:
Reclaim (and generally constructor logistics) is supposed to be hard and dangerous. Reclaim is a semi-persistent objective to fight for, this would get ruined if you could snatch wrecks to safety just like that.
|
It will be still hard and dangerous... player just has additional pressure factor to secure the field. Any enemy anti-air will make it not cost effective to airlift in a blink.
+0 / -0
|
Wrecks are already transportable. First you send a con to them. Then order it to reclaim. Wreck is now transported to your metal bar. Profit
+2 / -0
|
Trasnport constuctors, I should learn to keep that in mind
+1 / -0
|
At best, you can pull out some wrecks without losing too much HP. At worst, you lose the transport and lose wreck as well. I like Sprung's idea. You should fight for reclaim fields, and use them efficiently rather than just drag all the wrecks back. Also, this is limited to GS only, which is pretty stupid since they have an air constructor which flies just as fast as the transports when they are carrying wrecks.
+2 / -0
|
|
|
I like it. It works. GS and planes don't have persistent map presence. They can't secure reclaim fields like every other factory. Their constructors are too fragile to be anywhere that isn't already secured. And it's not as if this wouldn't be without risk... the transports themselves are vulnerable. It would make for a way for these factories to make use of static BP, while providing another facet to the game. This all said, I don't think it would be that powerful or game changing. And if it's not making a big change to the game, one must ask whether such a change takes any priority considering the steam push is on the horizon. It would be cool and cheeky, but it'd also be a bit of a gimmick.
+4 / -0
|
Fun idea: make wrecks droppable from air and deal damage on fall.
+3 / -1
|
|
|
I'm slightly opposed transportable wrecks from a design point of view. Wreck fields act as transient points of interest on maps and many battles have been fought over wrecks in otherwise unimportant areas of maps. They create dynamic objectives. Transportable wrecks dilutes this aspect somewhat because you no longer have to move and protect constructors as they reclaim the wrecks. I'm only slightly opposed because transports have their own weaknesses so they would not be OP compared to ordinary reclaim. Also, transportable wrecks are an additional feature so they incur a complexity penalty as well as the wreck control dilution. I'm highly skeptical that anyone will implement transportable wrecks in a satisfactory way. The current basic transport UI is all implemented in Spring so that would all need to be rewritten for wrecks. Area commands would require a way to specify whether you wish to transport wrecks or units.
+5 / -0
|
I think transportable caretakers would probably be a better neonstorm-ish idea, it would not make reclaiming a less dynamic objective while adding more variety into it, it would allow more scattered factory building, and caretaker does not look like it is rooted in the ground like other structures anyway.
+1 / -0
|
I actually drafted a gadget that allows for transporting wrecks. Here how wrecks transportation looks in the game:   A bit of technical information regarding wreck transportation. It's not possible to attach features (wrecks/debris) to a unit using standard spring engine call-outs. Therefore I implemented this by gluing a hidden dummy unit to a feature using Lua. The result is not ideal, but I think it can be fine tuned. As far as UI, currently transports cannot distinguish between units and pseudo-units. If Ctrl or Alt is unoccupied for LOAD, maybe one of these can be used to distinguish between transporting wrecks and units. Having that said, I haven't taken even slight look on how UI is done now.
+7 / -0
|
I'm with all fives for it. It could be great addition. And wreck dropping make dmg is only logical. However not economical.
+1 / -0
|
1. Transportable wrecks & transports capable of carrying multiple units/wrecks 2. No metal extractors 3. Reclaim limited to caretakers 4. Map seeded with low-density wrecks and transportable features 5. ?? 6. Red alert
+2 / -0
|
Too slow, nice AA target For large corpses, then you need a 500 metal transporter to bring it somewhere safe, AND you still need to reclaim it. I am not all for this project, because it is either to useless, or too gamebreaking. Useless: Slow transport Expensive Killed by AA in seconds. Gamebreak: Too fast Can pick up multiple corpses Reduces significance or fighting for reclaim
+2 / -0
|
So, nothing really breaks with transportable wrecks nor game balance is greatly affected from the players comments. Greatest problem seems the implementation of transportable unit selection between wrecks and units? Anyone for trying few team games with the Ivand wreck transport mod? Ivand, can you give access to it?
+1 / -0
|
