Introversion

I was always under the impression that anthills were never destroyed by fire because they are impervious to lasers. Only projectiles (Gun turret bullets, in other words) and explosives could harm them. Similarly, I assumed armors were also (mostly) immune to laser fire but were harmed by projectiles and explosives. Of course, the only time you'll actually face enough laser blasts to destroy an armor is when you're motionless the middle of a cloud of enemy MWs, with every weapon aimed at you.

Here's a test to see if this works: Imagine playing King of the Hill with one point. You run up to the top of the hill and plop down and fill two of these on the high ground. How long would it take before the hill could be overrun, and how many times will the hill be changing hands?

Turrets are less vulnerable to the front, but the reason they can be interfered with from the flanks is to give a terrible disadvantage to a tremendous advantage. The long range and rapid fire ability of the guns means the trade-off of being easily flanked is equal. With the bunkers, where's the drawback? You have the benefit of essentially Multiwinians with a permanent shield powerup as long as they are stationary, soaking up laser fire and occasionally taking damage from grenades. You cannot flank them, you cannot order you MWs to grenade them, and without power ups how are you going to destroy that bunker? The only answer I can see is to surround it completely and keep firing into it... assuming your MWs will agree to moving close to the laser-spewing bunker to actually do so. And what if two bunkers are next to each other? What if they are uphill? What if both of them are guarding a passageway in assault? How would the combination of bunkers and turrets behave in all of these instances?

Chances are the guys at Introversion have already tested the idea of a static defense base and decided to reject it because it was unworkable. Shields and turrets work just fine.

the thing is, you don't even have to go after the building, you can just go around, but they could make a "Capture the bunker" game mode.

pandm is right. I want bunkers!

pandm101 wrote:the thing is, you don't even have to go after the building, you can just go around, but they could make a "Capture the bunker" game mode.

So basically you are saying that bunkers (as described thus far) would be pretty much useless in Multiwinia as it is now, but because you like the idea of bunkers so very much, IV should add them into the game, and create an entirely new game mode in order to make them useful?

xander

I'm saying in a basic match that doesn't involve them, they are useless.

I propose a capture the bunker mode, I starts out evenly matched, but the more bunkers you have the faster reinforcements spawn. The user with the most KotH style points by holding the bunkers wins.

pandm101 wrote: but the more bunkers you have the faster reinforcements spawn.

So the closer you are to winning, the easier it is to win? How is this a good game style?

maybe the bunkers can boost up the spawn rate x2?

assuming your MWs will agree to moving close to the laser-spewing bunker to actually do so

The same goes for turrets, MW's will flee when they get close to any enemy. Of course, the only way to force your MW's towards the bunker w/o them fleeing would be to put them into formation. I guess what could happen is the bunker would need to turn just like a turret, but would still have the same firing angle of a formation, probably 170 degrees or so, and it would have to turn slower, like a radar dish, but not quite that slow. It would still be able to protect from enemy fire, maybe with the possible exception of the front, since that's where the openings would be, but only for laser fire, and a lucky grenade (it would be kinda hard, but not impossible, to throw a grenade through a window that's only barely wide enough to fit grenades and lasers through), and would still add all the same offensive capabilities to the MWs' weapons that I named in my previous post. And obviously, if an enemy managed to actually get a grenade inside the bunker, it would kill some, but not all of the MW's, and would do quite a bit of damage to the bunker, but not necessarily destroying it, unless it's already on the verge of destruction.

Basically, it could be more turret-like, but w/o actually being a full-fledged turret. And making it have to turn I think would help balance it so it can be flanked, but still strong enough to withstand a good amount of damage and defend itself in the instance that happens (like I said, it would turn slower than a turret, but faster than a radar dish, slow enough to allow flanking to be an effective, but not completely unstoppable counter-strategy). Plus, if the user is smart, he/she will have plenty of other MW's surrounding it just as if it was a turret.

Of course, the only time you'll actually face enough laser blasts to destroy an armor is when you're motionless the middle of a cloud of enemy MWs, with every weapon aimed at you.

Which, is exactly what the bunker will be doing...not moving in the middle of a mass of MW's with every enemy weapon aimed at it, except that the bunker can shoot back, the armor can't but it can move and the bunker can't.

So essentially your bunker idea is just another turret variation?

It sounds like it's a slower-turning, shield-equipping, larger-capacity turret that (like turrets now) fires depending on the amount of occupants in it. Essentially, a tougher turret, doing something that turrets do now, only better.

The way I imagined bunkers, they would be something like passively defensive structures that allowed Multiwinians to fire out of, but had no weaponry of their own and there would be no control over where they fired. Their range would be as long as normal, but kill more occupants per grenade impact suffered, catch fire, and can be contested like a control point when enough MWs swarm it. The benefit to this would that they could fire a little faster than MWs normally and make them resistant to laser fire. Fundamentally different from Turrets while providing a different function with a stated purpose: giving MWs extra defenses while entrenched. Essentially, like a shield powerup with rage on a squadron. Since powerups do this normally, I see no reason for a Bunker other than you get all this under one static powerup.

IV may have already experimented with something like this and concluded it wasn't worth it.

Kuth wrote:So essentially your bunker idea is just another turret variation?

It sounds like it's a slower-turning, shield-equipping, larger-capacity turret that (like turrets now) fires depending on the amount of occupants in it. Essentially, a tougher turret, doing something that turrets do now, only better.

The way I imagined bunkers, they would be something like passively defensive structures that allowed Multiwinians to fire out of, but had no weaponry of their own and there would be no control over where they fired. Their range would be as long as normal, but kill more occupants per grenade impact suffered, catch fire, and can be contested like a control point when enough MWs swarm it. The benefit to this would that they could fire a little faster than MWs normally and make them resistant to laser fire. Fundamentally different from Turrets while providing a different function with a stated purpose: giving MWs extra defenses while entrenched. Essentially, like a shield powerup with rage on a squadron. Since powerups do this normally, I see no reason for a Bunker other than you get all this under one static powerup.

IV may have already experimented with something like this and concluded it wasn't worth it.

All of this is exactly what I was getting at originally, and you said it wouldn't work, so I change my idea around, and now you're going back to exactly what I was originally getting at. I'm just a little confused...

Your original proposal seemed to suggest such a structure was immune to grenades and lasers, making the MWs inside vulnerable only to 'a lucky shot' from a laser, and so the only way to destroy them was wishing for that lucky shot (and making crowding the bunker the only way to defeat it as a result).

In my proposal, Grenades are the enemy to bunkers, as well as dropping napalm on them to burn out the MWs inside. Basically, the only defense it gives is protection from laser weapons. This means that MWs are protected from general mass fire at the expense of mobility, but grenades means that the MWs are certain to die as a result (moreso than if they were standing still). Enough grenades and the bunker burns down like a tree, becoming useless to the other team. Putting the bunker uphill might still be a problem though... so much so that playtesting might reveal it's too robust to be included in the game. Even Uphill Turrets are still vulnerable, despite their longer range and rapid fire. A determined player can overtake an uphill turret... they might not with a bunker, even in my proposal.

I still don't think it's a necessary addition. And in the end all of it is immaterial since IV doesn't appear to be interested in updating MWinia.

Well, first of all I wasn't trying to say anything about any "lucky shot", but rather that the MW's inside could be hit with such a "lucky shot", but this was not the only way of taking a bunker. Also, I never said it was invulnerable to laser fire or limited to only being damaged by grenades, I meant that was how one would destroy it, or with a power-up, just like a turret. And, if I'm not mistaken, I believe you said that grenades aren't thrown often enough to have that be the only way to damage it, and now you say "...Grenades are the enemy to bunkers...". Preferably, the MW's inside should be able to shoot in any direction without having to turn the bunker like a turret. The only way a bunker can put out any fire-power is from MW's inside, as it doesn't have any weapon of it's own like a turret, but since the MW's weapons, although boosted by the bunker, still wouldn't match the fire-power of a turret, the MW's inside are better protected from damage as a way to balance this issue out.

Now, with napalm, it should only damage the bunker, and sometimes one or two MW's inside. In other words, it shouldn't protect from just laser fire, but their own weapons won't make it as difficult for the enemy to get near, like a turret, so even if you do have to crowd it, (which would not be a good idea, as grenades will be thrown as well as rockets) it would not be as costly as attempting to crowd a turret. Basically, the whole point of the bunker is to be a defensive structure like a turret that is fully capable of defending a given point on the map, but should probably not be relied on as heavily as a turret, since it doesn't have as heavy fire-power as a turret, but still enough to be useful. But since it doesn't have as much fire-power, it's a tougher target to eliminate.

For example, let's say you are trying to hold a hill and you open a crate and get a turret, (doesn't matter which one) and you place the turret near your own troops, first of all, it's weapons are useless at point blank, and in this scenario you would stand a good chance of the enemy taking the turret and your forces start to diminish. By the time you get more spawns, it's going to be a lot tougher to re-take that hill now that the enemy has your turret. Now, lets rewind and say you get a bunker instead. First, you place it and up to 10 of your MW's can get inside and have longer range, slightly more damage, maybe shoot a little faster, and possibly have a small penetration effect. Even if your forces somehow start to diminish, at least re-taking the hill will be easier because you already have at least 10 slightly powered-up troops barricaded inside a protective bunker and they still throw grenades normally. Now if you wait too long to bring in re-enforcements, the bunker will eventually be destroyed and only a few of the MW's inside will survive. Now, as for an uphill bunker, it shouldn't be difficult to get near, since it doesn't have heavy fire-power like a turret.

Basically, both the turret and bunker are defensive structures, but are good for different types of defensive scenarios. It just depends on if you want a defensive structure with a lot of fire-power, but is vulnerable at point blank, or a defensive structure that provides decent fire-power, but will be able to hold out much longer, and can still defend itself at point blank.


Note: Oh, and in the event that the enemy does kill all the MW's inside, obviously they can now occupy it themselves. But, like you were saying with the "lucky shot", this wouldn't happen too often, but it wouldn't be impossible. Napalm would probably be the easiest way to kill some of the MW's inside, but not all. As for grenades, it would be possible (but highly unlikely) for one to be thrown inside and kill most if not all MW's inside.

I believe you said that grenades aren't thrown often enough to have that be the only way to damage it, and now you say "...Grenades are the enemy to bunkers...".

Well to elaborate, I didn't mean bunkers were grenade magnets. What I meant was that grenades do more damage to the Multiwinians there than they would have otherwise. I've noticed that Grenades do the most damage to the MWs at the end of the blast radius, and the closer the MWs are to the grenades, the more likely they are to survive. If an explosive were to go off near or on top of the bunker, only something like two out of a dozen would survive inside.

Basically, the whole point of the bunker is to be a defensive structure like a turret that is fully capable of defending a given point on the map, but should probably not be relied on as heavily as a turret, since it doesn't have as heavy fire-power as a turret, but still enough to be useful. But since it doesn't have as much fire-power, it's a tougher target to eliminate.

Please understand that my concern for a bunker is that, when placed, it is invincible to all attacks. If you have a group of MWs, march them in front of three enemy spawn points, then place the bunker and occupy it, you will be able to capture all three places no matter how many spawn. Similarly, placing one in a control point or near an objective means that player will always win the game. This is why I suggested severe 'nerfs' for the Bunkers, so that a player CAN overcome the bunkers as they can the turrets. I'm just not sure if any of these bunker proposals (even mine) will fly and still be beatable without playtesting to see how they work out.

Saying 'it Can be damaged, but rarely' doesn't make me feel any better about it.

For example, let's say you are trying to hold a hill and you open a crate and get a turret, (doesn't matter which one) and you place the turret near your own troops, first of all, it's weapons are useless at point blank, and in this scenario you would stand a good chance of the enemy taking the turret and your forces start to diminish. By the time you get more spawns, it's going to be a lot tougher to re-take that hill now that the enemy has your turret. Now, lets rewind and say you get a bunker instead. First, you place it and up to 10 of your MW's can get inside and have longer range, slightly more damage, maybe shoot a little faster, and possibly have a small penetration effect. Even if your forces somehow start to diminish, at least re-taking the hill will be easier because you already have at least 10 slightly powered-up troops barricaded inside a protective bunker and they still throw grenades normally. Now if you wait too long to bring in re-enforcements, the bunker will eventually be destroyed and only a few of the MW's inside will survive. Now, as for an uphill bunker, it shouldn't be difficult to get near, since it doesn't have heavy fire-power like a turret.

My first question is 'why are you placing the turret in a place where it cannot destroy the enemy at long range?' Part of the reason turrets are so successful is that they can gun down the enemy before they have a chance to get in shooting range. Generally the ones that do fire back are the survivors from a massive rush. For short range, attendant MWs that surround it (important turrets should not be left alone... indeed... it should invite attack to the player who doesn't do this) handle the close-in defenses.

My second question is 'would it make a point un-captureable if you place the bunker, or bunkers, by a spawn point?' Would such a structure mean the spawn point is unconquerable without a powerup, as it has constant reinforcements and can defend the point with fervor? How could such a setup be defeated with simple Multiwinians?

My third question is 'How easy is it to lurker-rush with such a powerup?' Like the scenario I outlined above: you rush in a crowd of Multiwinians, plant this thing in front of them, then occupy it to gun down all the operators of the spawn points. If this is your first power up, chances are the defender has nothing to counter you. They cry 'Imba', and they might be justified. Perhaps this can be rectified by saying bunkers must be placed outside of the radius of a spawn point?

I still think it's useless to theorize without playtesting. We can toss in ideas that we think are great, but the tie-breaker on debates like this is to program something and see how the Multiwinians react and how the game changes with these things. Bunkers might not be so dismissible as other proposals, but playtesting might reveal that Bunkers don't do much more than turrets do, in terms of MW intelligence, behavior, and game dynamics. Testing is how they came to the decision to remove the tank after all, and that was an in-house idea that they thought was cool.

Well to elaborate, I didn't mean bunkers were grenade magnets. What I meant was that grenades do more damage to the Multiwinians there than they would have otherwise. I've noticed that Grenades do the most damage to the MWs at the end of the blast radius, and the closer the MWs are to the grenades, the more likely they are to survive. If an explosive were to go off near or on top of the bunker, only something like two out of a dozen would survive inside.

The point of a bunker is to shield from damage. How would a grenade near a bunker do any lethal amount of damage to occupying MW's?

Please understand that my concern for a bunker is that, when placed, it is invincible to all attacks. If you have a group of MWs, march them in front of three enemy spawn points, then place the bunker and occupy it, you will be able to capture all three places no matter how many spawn. Similarly, placing one in a control point or near an objective means that player will always win the game. This is why I suggested severe 'nerfs' for the Bunkers, so that a player CAN overcome the bunkers as they can the turrets. I'm just not sure if any of these bunker proposals (even mine) will fly and still be beatable without playtesting to see how they work out.

Saying 'it Can be damaged, but rarely' doesn't make me feel any better about it.

And this is what you don't seem to understand, THE BUNKER IS NOT INVINCIBLE TO ANY ATTACKS, IT IS JUST AS CAPABLE OF BEING DESTROYED AS A TURRET OR ANT HILL. The thing about it though, is that it can take more damage than a turret, but less than an ant hill. But it would serve the same purpose as a bunker would in any other strategy game: to shield a small number of barricaded infantry from most damage while providing some kind of small weapon bonus. Also, bunkers would not be allowed to be within a certain radius of a spawn point, the same already goes for turrets, and its for that exact reason, so that it doesn't make a spawn point un-capturable. And even if a bunker could be that close, it wouldn't have enough fire-power to kill every MW that spawns. No, placing it near an objective, such as a hill (when I said "Hill" before, i was talking about King of the Hill) will not necessarily mean that player will always win, it just makes it easier to defend, same with turrets. I'm all for giving it 'nerfs', just a different set of nerfs than a turret (lesser fire-power than a turret). Quite frankly, it surprises me that the ant nest or even the turrets are as powerful as they are, but they still made it into the game. Bunkers would not even come close to the weapon capabilities that a turret has, but it shields the MW's inside from, on average, probably 85-90% of all damage, whereas turrets do not shield them from any damage, but majorly increase their fire-power.

When I said it can be damaged, but rarely, I was NOT talking about the bunker, I was talking about the MW's inside.

My first question is 'why are you placing the turret in a place where it cannot destroy the enemy at long range?' Part of the reason turrets are so successful is that they can gun down the enemy before they have a chance to get in shooting range. Generally the ones that do fire back are the survivors from a massive rush. For short range, attendant MWs that surround it (important turrets should not be left alone... indeed... it should invite attack to the player who doesn't do this) handle the close-in defenses.

My second question is 'would it make a point un-captureable if you place the bunker, or bunkers, by a spawn point?' Would such a structure mean the spawn point is unconquerable without a powerup, as it has constant reinforcements and can defend the point with fervor? How could such a setup be defeated with simple Multiwinians?

My third question is 'How easy is it to lurker-rush with such a powerup?' Like the scenario I outlined above: you rush in a crowd of Multiwinians, plant this thing in front of them, then occupy it to gun down all the operators of the spawn points. If this is your first power up, chances are the defender has nothing to counter you. They cry 'Imba', and they might be justified. Perhaps this can be rectified by saying bunkers must be placed outside of the radius of a spawn point?

I still think it's useless to theorize without playtesting. We can toss in ideas that we think are great, but the tie-breaker on debates like this is to program something and see how the Multiwinians react and how the game changes with these things. Bunkers might not be so dismissible as other proposals, but playtesting might reveal that Bunkers don't do much more than turrets do, in terms of MW intelligence, behavior, and game dynamics. Testing is how they came to the decision to remove the tank after all, and that was an in-house idea that they thought was cool.

Well, to answer your first question, I believe I said before that even though the bunker doesn't offer as much fire-power as a turret, it still boosts the controlling MWs' weapons, and I did say that one of the benefits was an increased weapon range with penetration and increased damage, so even if they only focus on the close enemy MW's, their lasers will still continue to travel and hit any enemy MW's in the back lines, just like gun turrets.

Your second question is completely irrelevant, as the same thing could happen with a turret, except for two things: 1. As I said, there is a minimum radius around every spawn point that turrets cannot enter and bunkers would be the same, and this is to prevent that kind of un-conquerable scenario in the first place and 2. Turrets would actually be tougher to conquer than a bunker.

Question number three is also irrelevant, as the bunker would, as I have said multiple times, not be allowed to be within a certain radius of any spawn point, just like a turret. And gunning down the spawn point operators can be done with that crowd of MW's without a bunker, so to use it for that would almost be pointless.

So what if the bunker doesn't do much more than a turret? The difference is that it goes about it in a very different way, and as such, is better suited to different defensive tasks than a turret. And the only tank-related aspect that was removed was the Tank Battle game mode, but the maps for it and the tanks themselves are still in the game. I found this out when I was making a custom map with Darwinia, then put it into Multiwinia, and I was controlling a tank during the test matches, and the Tank Battle maps are still in the game folder. The reason tanks aren't used in the regular maps is because 1. it is controlled just like an armor, left-click to move, but the problem was that left-click was also the shoot button, so this made it difficult to move without shooting itself, which I don't understand why IV couldn't have just re-coded the controls to fix this issue, and 2. tanks were only going to be used in Tank Battle mode...which was removed, sadly.

elexis wrote:

pandm101 wrote: but the more bunkers you have the faster reinforcements spawn.

So the closer you are to winning, the easier it is to win? How is this a good game style?

Actually, Team Fortress 2 does this. When you've captured all the points but one, your respawn time is shortened, and your opponent's time lengthened. This is because otherwise the defenders could, apparently, just hold off the attackers indefinitely, and the game wouldn't reach a satisfying conclusion.