Forged Alliance Forever

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T21:37:52+02:00

That's why there is ladder and custom games. It's not the point of GW

Statistics: Posted by Nombringer — 29 May 2013, 21:37

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T17:31:02+02:00

RoLa wrote:
I dont like the idea that an opponent as a decent advantage because he is better he has better weapons and because of that he is better and gets even better weapons. There should be some kind of advantage but it should not matter directly in the battle.

I can stop GW there then, because it's all about this : Getting advantages in the games.

Don't worry that much, it's not like you won't be able to buy anything quickly.
The real purpose is to make people cautious with their ACUs, and punish them if they lose it.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 29 May 2013, 17:31

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T17:14:32+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
I think you are over-estimating the importance of that change.

What i hated the most when i started playing bf3: being beaten all the time with weapons i got after ....... playing for months.
Knowing I am not as good as the others and they have better weapons. So frustrating!

I dont like the idea that an opponent as a decent advantage because he is better he has better weapons and because of that he is better and gets even better weapons. There should be some kind of advantage but it should not matter directly in the battle.

I have a name for "credit points" / "gold" / "money". That's prestige!

A commander has
- a rank (skill and games played) affects your possibilities in GW
- prestige / honor ( gained through important victories) generates some ip
- influence points (you pay with)

The prestige affects the morale of all the troops on the planet. So a commander with higher rank loosing a battle is affecting the ownership status on a planet more than a loosing lower rank commander.

For your prestige / honor it is more positive to spare the lifes of lower ranked commanders, just winning the battle. Killing is not negative but sparing the life of a chanceless opponent is positive. Many possibilites are there. Nukes could have a negative effect for example. among other things.

It like in magic games
there you have:
- a collection book/s of spells that can grow
- your skill / power how strong the spells are you cast
- mana points are consumed by spells and must be regenerated

Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 29 May 2013, 17:14

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T15:59:58+02:00

I think you are over-estimating the importance of that change.
Remember that you can buy stuff.

Also, you don't have to fight on 5v5, the galaxy will be diverse enough

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 29 May 2013, 15:59

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T15:58:32+02:00

how will you prevent a game against a high ranked guy? no one will attack because you can get raped hy a lvl 8 guy without chance!

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 29 May 2013, 15:58

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T13:31:45+02:00

Might add an option for the lower Rank Players to actually acts as SCU-Pilots helping high Level ACUs out?
Ofc, it cant be a "real" SCU but a limited ACU with the SCU model as you discribed.

Do you mean that some high ranked player can assign a mission for low ranked players to support them in their attack before the game starts?

Statistics: Posted by Hascins — 29 May 2013, 13:31

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T13:18:07+02:00

Might add an option for the lower Rank Players to actually acts as SCU-Pilots helping high Level ACUs out?
Ofc, it cant be a "real" SCU but a limited ACU with the SCU model as you discribed.

Although I like the idea itself, it'll need some carefully fine-tuning. If the way to a "normal" ACU is too long, it'll be frustrating, especially for lower skilled players. Also the ACU of a Factions Supreme Commander might not be too strong to just fight a way trough the enemy teritorry all alone.

One Problem might be not to create a snowball-effect. As better players are expectet to level up faster / more easy, they'll in addition get an advantage with better start conditions ingame. Ofcourse it should be harder to kill/stop them, but it still should be possible.

Statistics: Posted by Koecher — 29 May 2013, 13:18

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T12:19:41+02:00

McGeifer wrote:
This idea sound pretty good to me. Maybe its not possible to start a game or with a extra server message you need to accept when you start a game aigains a higher lvl ACU. This will also solve the problem with high and low level players a little bit I think.

And what is about the idea to restrict the max. Unit tech level?

Maybe

LV1 - T1
LV2 - T2
LV3 - T3 no Nukes/t3 stationary arty / no scu
Lv4 - T3 with nukes * arty / no scu
LV5 - T3 + experimentals / no scu
LV6 - T3 + experimentals and scu

somethink in this way.... ?

No this is too much. I prefer zeps idea.

Statistics: Posted by Nombringer — 29 May 2013, 12:19

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T12:03:33+02:00

This idea sound pretty good to me. Maybe its not possible to start a game or with a extra server message you need to accept when you start a game aigains a higher lvl ACU. This will also solve the problem with high and low level players a little bit I think.

And what is about the idea to restrict the max. Unit tech level?

Maybe

LV1 - T1
LV2 - T2
LV3 - T3 no Nukes/t3 stationary arty / no scu
Lv4 - T3 with nukes * arty / no scu
LV5 - T3 + experimentals / no scu
LV6 - T3 + experimentals and scu

somethink in this way.... ?

Statistics: Posted by McGeifer — 29 May 2013, 12:03

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T11:26:09+02:00

It just depends what most of the games will be.

It will be annoying as f*** at the moment, with every game being a 1v1

I think it will be a great change and a completely different story in team games.

EDIT: and large 1v1 maps. The ACU is simply to important of small ones, so the changes effect balance proportionally with map size.

Statistics: Posted by Nombringer — 29 May 2013, 11:26

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T11:15:48+02:00

Obviously it will need playtesting and balancing but sounds good to me.

Statistics: Posted by ZaphodX — 29 May 2013, 11:15

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T11:06:26+02:00

FunkOff wrote:
I don't think that you ideas are necessarily canon.

We do know that in the campaign, lower-ranked commanders get access to few build options. That's one option.
We also know that some get assigned to SCU duty: Rather than fight/attack themselves, they get an SCU and help another commander during a fight.

That's what I've described ?

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 29 May 2013, 11:06

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T11:00:38+02:00

I don't think that you ideas are necessarily canon.

We do know that in the campaign, lower-ranked commanders get access to few build options. That's one option.
We also know that some get assigned to SCU duty: Rather than fight/attack themselves, they get an SCU and help another commander during a fight.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 29 May 2013, 11:00

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T10:56:59+02:00

What ?

You are talking of a rank 1 ACU versus a rank 5 ACU. Silly.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 29 May 2013, 10:56

Re: ACU and ranking.

2013-05-29T10:52:32+02:00

ok Problem:
7500 hp Cybran commander vs 12000 HP UEF commander
great, one imbalanced gmae more

sorry but that would just be anoying

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 29 May 2013, 10:52