Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-07-06T04:05:19+02:00

That should be normal though without change..

Statistics: Posted by =M.V.K.= — 06 Jul 2015, 04:05

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-07-06T03:33:15+02:00

JaggedAppliance wrote:
I think nerfing the speed an engie reclaims at is a nice idea.

Isn't engineer reclaim speed based upon build speed?

So if we lowered the reclaim speed, it might be more worth sending t2 or t3 engineers to the front lines, since they will both reclaim faster and have more hitpoints to mitigate incidental damage. This could be good or bad, but it might mean less lag due to t1 engie reclaim spam

Statistics: Posted by ZenTractor — 06 Jul 2015, 03:33

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-07-05T19:30:04+02:00

I don't see where slowing engineers down makes a difference without just putting cost into the situations...for balance is should say equal out without cost given place of balance not trade..if not mistaken still anyways..

Thx..

Statistics: Posted by =M.V.K.= — 05 Jul 2015, 19:30

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-07-05T19:26:21+02:00

Nyx wrote:
JaggedAppliance wrote:A lower reclaim percentage could lead to more dynamic games. A failed attack has a very high penalty right now.

That is a good thing and part of the game, makes people be careful and increases immersion.

I disagree, I would like more attacking play and immersion is a meaningless buzzword.

Statistics: Posted by JaggedAppliance — 05 Jul 2015, 19:26

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-07-05T19:00:09+02:00

JaggedAppliance wrote:
A lower reclaim percentage could lead to more dynamic games. A failed attack has a very high penalty right now.

That is a good thing and part of the game, makes people be careful and increases immersion.

Statistics: Posted by Nyx — 05 Jul 2015, 19:00

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-07-04T20:02:37+02:00

another aspect, especially for newer players: the mass income from reclaim gets more stable, making it easier to balance your economy with it, and gives more time to react before you waste mass.

Statistics: Posted by Zock — 04 Jul 2015, 20:02

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-07-04T16:37:51+02:00

JaggedAppliance wrote:
I think nerfing the speed an engie reclaims at is a nice idea.

Yes, this is a good idea to start with before we lower reclaim values (which I agree as well, but not as low as a 20% level).
- Will give losing side more time to fight back to get some reclaim.
- Allow for higher tech engineers to be closer at front lines, maybe see more of Sparky.
- More positioning strategy to make sure you have an advantage in acquiring mass.
- Strategies involving reclaim denial, such as destroying reclaim, may come about, bringing more units with AOE into the battle.

Some negatives I foresee:
- T1 eng spam will grow, causing pathing issues and other possible game slow downs
- Possible stagnant play where you keep your forces for longer periods of time in reclaim fields to protect engineers instead of attacking.
- Slower game play because it is taking longer to convert reclaim mass into units.

Statistics: Posted by The Mak — 04 Jul 2015, 16:37

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-07-03T21:15:03+02:00

I think nerfing the speed an engie reclaims at is a nice idea.

Statistics: Posted by JaggedAppliance — 03 Jul 2015, 21:15

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-06-29T04:11:52+02:00

Well, I don't think I'm going to reword this, given I thought It was a good post, but(As if I didn't mention already, as in the words with quotes being on a "but" status at a time...)..

In regards to say differences of , Debris Fields and/or Wreck Fields, Dust Fields, and Trial/Trialing(s) Fields might have some ideas to interest..or not..hey..

That and how reclaim can be of or basis as..

Statistics: Posted by =M.V.K.= — 29 Jun 2015, 04:11

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent : "Random Value

2015-06-27T12:41:06+02:00

=M.V.K.= wrote:
"Wrecks/debris taking", "Wreck/debris taken" "damage" is good "idea(s)", but "seems" already there. I don't know much about "hitboxes" but doesn't seem like it should make much a "difference". If it still has "direct" hit worth, what should "still" "start" to be left?? "Dust Fields" is what I keep getting for what "starts" to be "left" anyways. When "running over", think what comes into "play" seems to kinda "solve" some of that "out", for "Dust Fields" to be "in" still anyways, but who knows.....
Maybe "Trialing Fields" can gather "elsewhere" rather on a high "efficiency" (for amounts from "debris/wrecks" that still been possible "damaged" "upon") or not still i "guess". "Area Coverage" also "seems" to "hamper" "interest" of "efficiency" "highly" . After "awhile" though might not be as "bad" though still "highly" "of". Which does now though seem to bring "Trialing Fields" into "question" on "regards" of "damage" "interests" though. "Dust Fields" should be first though on "say" what to "regard", if not "mistaken" though. (Speculative worth on speculating is probably just well of/off for speculation, in regards to just speculate still of course..but hey...)

Random "values" of "debris/wreckage" does "seem" better "put" though when it's "reclaimed"; still based off of "value" changes prior to by "random". "How" or a "say" of "Why" to be, I don't know. What say "said" before, might "help", but probably still isn't "it" ( At a time, "At times" anyways).

If say a "rewording" might be "found" of "interest" to say , I should be able to, sometime from "mentioned" or say "better" as of "inquiry/inquire/enquire" in "interest" to do "so", if still not say "mistaken" anyways but probably for "as" though( ...if still not "as" "mistaken") ..sorry..

Thx..

I'm sorry, this grammar is beyond me. I can't meaningfully reply.

Statistics: Posted by Sheeo — 27 Jun 2015, 12:41

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent : "Random Value

2015-06-27T07:54:24+02:00

3 quotes limit... sorry..

Aulex wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:
Deering wrote:Before faf there was no reclaim in water, so no reclaim for ships. Any reclaim in water (mostly ships) is 50% of the normal reclaim amount (81%). ASFS are also 50% of the normal amount because it was just another reason to stack asf and never have an airfight. Neither person wants to drop 50k mass near an opponent. This stacks with the water amount so ASF in water are 20%

Everything else is at the quite high 81%. I can understand wanting to make it smaller. If two armies collide the reclaim field can build 3/4 of the combined armies. That is a lot.

Wreckage can take damage too and have reduced reclaim value.

Only be weapons with aoe

Sheeo wrote:
Actually, there's a bug with the hitboxes of wrecks: Most of them are offset vertically about -50%. Since most weapons don't collide with wrecks it's not really a problem though, but there are a few projectiles that do--nukes for one.

"Wrecks/debris taking", "Wreck/debris taken" "damage" is good "idea(s)", but "seems" already there. I don't know much about "hitboxes" but doesn't seem like it should make much a "difference". If it still has "direct" hit worth, what should "still" "start" to be left?? "Dust Fields" is what I keep getting for what "starts" to be "left" anyways. When "running over", think what comes into "play" seems to kinda "solve" some of that "out", for "Dust Fields" to be "in" still anyways, but who knows.....
Maybe "Trialing Fields" can gather "elsewhere" rather on a high "efficiency" (for amounts from "debris/wrecks" that still been possible "damaged" "upon") or not still i "guess". "Area Coverage" also "seems" to "hamper" "interest" of "efficiency" "highly" . After "awhile" though might not be as "bad" though still "highly" "of". Which does now though seem to bring "Trialing Fields" into "question" on "regards" of "damage" "interests" though. "Dust Fields" should be first though on "say" what to "regard", if not "mistaken" though. (Speculative worth on speculating is probably just well of/off for speculation, in regards to just speculate still of course..but hey...)

Random "values" of "debris/wreckage" does "seem" better "put" though when it's "reclaimed"; still based off of "value" changes prior to by "random". "How" or a "say" of "Why" to be, I don't know. What say "said" before, might "help", but probably still isn't "it" ( At a time, "At times" anyways).

If say a "rewording" might be "found" of "interest" to say , I should be able to, sometime from "mentioned" or say "better" as of "inquiry/inquire/enquire" in "interest" to do "so", if still not say "mistaken" anyways but probably for "as" though( ...if still not "as" "mistaken") ..sorry..

Thx..

Statistics: Posted by =M.V.K.= — 27 Jun 2015, 07:54

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-05-22T16:46:30+02:00

da_monstr wrote:
Col_Walter_Kurtz wrote:Pretty radical, but I must admit, the idea of lowering the reclaim value sounds appealing. Everyone just scrambles for every piece of debris like a bunch of scavengers now. It's almost funny if it wouldn't promote turtling so much.

That might be true, but then we would lose one of the distinctive concepts of Supcom: when attacking, you better do enough damage or it's gonna bite you in the a**. If you were to reduce reclaim to 20%, that would mean dumbly rushing a ML to enemy base and only destroying, for example, 1 T3 power gen would be worth it.
There are enough options to wrecking turtlers as it is.

Euh, no

Means you spend 19K, giving them 3.8k while costing them only 2592

Nett; your cost; 19000. Their gain; 1208

Statistics: Posted by E8400-CV — 22 May 2015, 16:46

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-05-19T15:28:14+02:00

Afaik reclaim rate is 50 mass per sec for t1 engy, and yes that is huge speed, lowering it will nerf reclaim steal tactics for initial reclaim on map like stones and civ buildings (imho it is kinda bad) but also nerf tactic of stealing mass after a fight so you have to controll territory longer to get reclaim

I like this idea, i was suggesting it long time ago but in a sence of "what if we do..."
I am not sure if change actually needed, but since any change is good i would like to see it introduced( but i also feel pain inside when think about nefing reclaim, cause i really love it)

Statistics: Posted by ZLO_RD — 19 May 2015, 15:28

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-05-19T14:54:52+02:00

On my opinion is reclaim value fine. But have hypothetical suggestion. maybe we are looking on bad dirrection. Will not fill this situation better when time for reclaim would be longer, so additional reclaim from wreck will show on game later, and enemy would have chance interrupt reclaim party after lose fight, Then reclaim field can create interesting place of interest because dont disperser to enemy storage immediate.

Time that units need to reclaim is now quite fast, actually wreck can be reclaimed about 55x faster as is time for build. T1 engineer (5 br) reclaim Percival (6000build time) for 22second, but T1 enginer would build percival for 1200second.
what would happens when this time would be about 20x faster as time for build, = t1 engineer reclaim Percival after 60s, T3 engineer reclaim Percival after 10/7,5 second.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 19 May 2015, 14:54

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

2015-05-18T19:52:21+02:00

ZLO_RD wrote:
Also reclaim is unique feature of supcom

WRONG!
Total Annihilation did it first.

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 18 May 2015, 19:52