Offically Unoffical Base Asset Discussion

[NightHawk043]

With that said, if you're throwing flares out left and right, chances are an enemy's spotted you by now.

yeah that's true. I had almost forgotten we were talking about a very very bright object.

It could also be made to be extra effective at destroying base structures.

Or temporarily disable them. LO quickly throws one at a turret as a capper is incoming, and it becomes unable to shoot for 10 secs.
This would also put a hit on the turrets shields, and make it easier for it to be taken out.

 

[Karnage]

I like to think of turret placement becoming a bit of a skill unto itself. Legionnaires have high mobility, so a lone turret in the middle of an open field would be useless. The Legionnaire would effortlessly destroy it before it had a chance, avoid it, etc. However, turrets placed on specific choke points (say: a narrow corridor the Legionnaire has to travel through), well, now they're more effective.

As for making the flags more difficult to cap. Damn straight! There will be much more reliance on your LO and HO to properly launch an offensive and clear off that flag stand. Easier? No. More dynamic? Yes! Hohohoho!

I hate to bring up the ping thing (actually that's a lie) but this means the game will turn into one based a lot more on combat skills and less on skiing skills which gives a huge advantage to people with better ping. Please keep us high pingers in mind.

 

[NightHawk043]

In what way does it make it more difficult to high pingers carnage?
I'm curious, as I'll generally be at a high ping too.

But surely a low pinger would be equally as effected as a high pinger.
Also, I'm not sure if it's different for you, but the problem I get from ping is hitting Moving objects (i.e. other players), not so much hitting stationary objects.

 

[SeymourGore]

I hate to bring up the ping thing (actually that's a lie) but this means the game will turn into one based a lot more on combat skills and less on skiing skills which gives a huge advantage to people with better ping. Please keep us high pingers in mind.

Truthfully, it's been awhile since Seymour was a HPB (56k ftw, baby), so I'm not quite up to snuff on HPB issues. I remember Tribes and Tribes 2 being particularily fair to HPB players (projectile based combat, more reliance on careful aiming, etc), and alot of the same combat skills from that game (in regards to combat vs turrets, structures, etc) would be similar to the combat skills needed for Legions.

Anyhow, were you referring to latency caused by the extra base structures? If that's the case, I'm thinking the engine should be able to handle this stuff adequately.

 

[Vustom]

"Anti-Llama Turret"

I'm lovin' it.

 

[stefygraff]

We need huge maps to support these suggestions. But Legions is a fast game, if we implement turrets and the other things, it will make it more static. And above all, lets not turn legions into Tribes

 

[Karnage]

I was referring specifically to the idea that one would have to clear out the base with LO and HO before trying to take the flag. I understand and approve of the principle naturally, but I am concerned that this is going to make it more difficult for us HPs. Still, I am hoping that ping won't be as much of a problem anymore, what with it being standalone and the fact that there will hopefully be community-run servers. My reaction was kind of knee-jerk - based on all those years of bad ping. Sniff.

 

[Xeon_Wraith]

If theres gonna be new turret & such, isn't it an good idea to get "Classic" Servers/Games without the additions, for the hardcore-skiiers?

 

[futureemokid]

If theres gonna be new turret & such, isn't it an good idea to get "Classic" Servers/Games without the additions, for the hardcore-skiiers?

yes! making the old version somewhat of hardcore mode in cod?
im totally up for it!

 

[Alex]

We need huge maps to support these suggestions. But Legions is a fast game, if we implement turrets and the other things, it will make it more static. And above all, lets not turn legions into Tribes

yeah that's what i was thinking of...when IA said Tribes' spiritual succesor i don't think they meant that it's going to be exactly like tribes...

 

[SeymourGore]

I was referring specifically to the idea that one would have to clear out the base with LO and HO before trying to take the flag. I understand and approve of the principle naturally, but I am concerned that this is going to make it more difficult for us HPs. Still, I am hoping that ping won't be as much of a problem anymore, what with it being standalone and the fact that there will hopefully be community-run servers. My reaction was kind of knee-jerk - based on all those years of bad ping. Sniff.

No worries, I'm sure you'll still be able to cause poor Seymour as much stress and high blood pressure as you did during past scrimmages. Only this time you'll be destroying Seymour's base instead of just Seymour!

 

[Redvan]

I hate to bring up the ping thing (actually that's a lie) but this means the game will turn into one based a lot more on combat skills and less on skiing skills which gives a huge advantage to people with better ping. Please keep us high pingers in mind.

You can't really design a game around helping out the high pingers. It should be designed to be balanced when all players have good pings. Obviously it's unrealistic to expect all players to have good pings, but the majority will. On top of that, a high pinger will be a low pinger somewhere else.

And trust me, I know about high ping, so I'm not just spewin this out mah ass... (remember my year and a half ish of 200+ ping in any user hosted game, even though I'm EST. Sucked balls)


I agree with Stefy, keep L:O fast paced. I do feel that deployables can come into play to a certain extent, which is far lower than Tribes. A game that revolves around base assets rather than player skill kinda makes it meh. It should be pretty equal between the two, and if anything, weighted more towards player skill.

I would like to put this out there right now to clarify: I do not consider looking at a wall and pressing a key to deploy a turret a skill. Even proper placement of deployables is an elementary skill at best. As is coordinating an offensive strike to eliminate said deployables/assets. This is why I feel games should be more tailored towards player skill. Nearly anyone can coordinate a offense or defense, but only those backed up by good individual skill will succeed.

With that in mind:
If low speed maneuverability is increased, it can make deployables even more viable by increasing the skill required to play, while high speed skiing can be kept relatively the same (because I know some people actually wanted to add more momentum to it to prevent sudden directional changes in the air and increase planning for ski routes. Which I'm not saying I'm either for or against). I'm not sure how possible that is coding wise, but it sounds simple: If < X speed then maneuverability = Y, if > X speed, maneuverability = Z.

 

[DeadGuy]

I was referring specifically to the idea that one would have to clear out the base with LO and HO before trying to take the flag. I understand and approve of the principle naturally, but I am concerned that this is going to make it more difficult for us HPs. Still, I am hoping that ping won't be as much of a problem anymore, what with it being standalone and the fact that there will hopefully be community-run servers. My reaction was kind of knee-jerk - based on all those years of bad ping. Sniff.

Having turrets won't make it more difficult for high pingers, it will make it more difficult for lone cappers. As stated above, moving targets are what cause issues for HPBs.

 

[NYPD219]

So sick of players saying "Legions is a fast game, and these thing will slow it down"

NO THEY WILL NOT SLOW THE GAME DOWN!

You can STILL ski 2 Million K an hour, How does having deployables SLOW YOU down?

It doesn't. It only makes you have to THINK more tactically. That's right, THINK!

I agree with Stefy, keep L:O fast paced. I do feel that deployables can come into play to a certain extent, which is far lower than Tribes. A game that revolves around base assets rather than player skill kinda makes it meh. It should be pretty equal between the two, and if anything, weighted more towards player skill.

Having base asset deployables WILL NOT TAKE AWAY FROM PLAYER SKILL! Also, why should highly skilled players get all of the attention? There are always secondary roles that will be helpful.

 

[snob]

The depth and size of the bases in contrast to tribes are noticeably smaller and easier to navigate, if you were to implement base assets this would need to change. Turrets for example, in tribes they are placed at a relative distance away from the flag, either on top of the base scouting anyone coming in, or placed on a seperate platform near the base. In legions this distance would be absurdly close on bases of maps like nivosus and moonshine.

 

[Darklord]

The addition of base assets will most certainly slow down the game. This is, however, not necessarily a bad thing. Currently legions is something of a cluster-*dance*, where a good 70% of the time both flags are off the stands. This leads to a fun, fast paced game most of the time, but is somewhat lacking in depth, and makes certain positions (chase) extremely hard to play.

Adding base assets like turrets will aid the defense in keeping the flag home, and will split the offense by giving them another target they need to focus on, leaving fewer people to be capping/distracting the chasers and HoF.

When people talk about the speed of the game, they aren't talking solely about the speed of player movement, but of the actual pace of the game, the movement of the flags, and how frantic the action is. Tribes 2 base was significantly less frantic of a game then Tribes 2 classic, simply because the defense was much stronger in comparison to the offense, and a major contributor to that, besides the physics, was the much stronger base assets.

 

[Redvan]

So sick of players saying "Legions is a fast game, and these thing will slow it down"

NO THEY WILL NOT SLOW THE GAME DOWN!

You can STILL ski 2 Million K an hour, How does having deployables SLOW YOU down?

It doesn't. It only makes you have to THINK more tactically. That's right, THINK!



Having base asset deployables WILL NOT TAKE AWAY FROM PLAYER SKILL! Also, why should highly skilled players get all of the attention? There are always secondary roles that will be helpful.

I should have clarified. I do not think it will inherently slow the game down, and I never said it would take away from player skill. However, with the smaller map sizes and smaller bases, far fewer assets will be necessary, which is why I said "deployables can come into play to a certain extent, which is far lower than Tribes". Tribes had much larger maps, bases, and even player limits on servers (in general). They could handle more assets w/o it becoming a cluster *dance* of deployed items.

Obviously all added deployables would need to be looked at and balanced into L:O, which I have no doubt will happen if/when added.

Of course, new maps could be made that would create a greater need for deployables. I've always preferred gametypes such as CnH, or CTF with more objectives, rather than straight CTF as we knew it in FE:L. The more objectives given, the more spread out the deployables could be, or a team could cluster *dance* one objective with all deployables and come up with another way to defend the other objectives. If you only have one objective, you don't need many (if any) deployables to help defend it.

T2 had larger maps, this meant MPBs and turrets and remote invo stations came into play because you had a greater distance to cover from base to base.
It had larger bases. The enemy could sneak up from more angles, means you have more of a use for more deployables (mainly turrets and sensors).
Many maps had secondary bases to defend.
Generators needed defense...
etc...

L:O would need to add much more in terms of objectives before warranting more deployables.

And I would fully back adding more objectives and deployables to L:O, so long as they do not slow the game down. Which they have the potential of doing depending on the method they are created to be used. Game speed is not only how fast you can travel in a straight line. It entails how much time players spend respawning, reloading, healing, "setting up camp", etc...

Take the FE:L health system for example: All you had to do was stand still to recover health. This eliminated the need to be constantly be ctrl+k'ing to get more health when you need it. Less Ctrl+k = less travel time between bases. Less travel time = more action. Now, I'm not promoting the FE:L health system as the way to do things, it's just an example of how deployables, or lack thereof, can affect game speed.

Pretend FE:L had medkits rather than health regen/time: Now, when damaged, a player uses a medkit and keeps fighting (keeps game speed up). All medkits used up? Lets say we have item drops. Attacking player loses health, uses kit, gets kill, picks up another kit to use, keeps fighting. Keeps game speed up. Doesn't need to seek cover to heal necessarily, yet isn't going to be invincible just because he can keep getting kills and getting the drops (unless the player is really good, thus, player skill comes into play).

I'm not saying either of those ways are what should/should not be used in L:O, they are just examples of how adding different things can affect game speed.

 

[Karnage]

Agree with Van on most points and just want to add that although these things won't detract from the skill necessary to play well they do require a different kind of game plan and this is what is meant by 'slowing' the game down. In other words, it is a different kind of strategy.

 

[Volt Cruelerz]

I support tethers and other things that don't have the inherent charateristic of potentially slowing the game down. That said, I think we need some so-called Epic scale maps before pulling out the deployables, not to mention things like capturable bases.

 

[Redvan]

Map size has more to do with amount of deployables/capturable objectives. It doesn't mean you cant have them on small maps.