Introversion

how about buildings that can be captured, and while occupied the DGs inside have twice the range. and a higher defense.

I'm thinking you're right.

Thank you.

I was also thinking of defenses like the fences from darwinia that can be built, but also taken down by grenades, or lots of laser fire.

pandm101 wrote:how about buildings that can be captured, and while occupied the DGs inside have twice the range. and a higher defense.

Hum... you do realize that the improved offense/defense role is already taken by turrets, right?

The amount of work necessary to add such a feature, for a role that's already covered, is hard to justify.

The difference is that a few well placed grenades can take a turret, while you will need dozens of grenades to take a building.

If you don't see the issue with what you just said, I'm not sure it is worth to pay any more attention to this thread

well, whatever.

ignore xocrates , I see what you mean, and there is lot of differences between that and a turret. Keep the god ideas coming.

Thank you too, I think that an officer should be used like 1 squad member, Manual fire and grenades.

Jordy... wrote:ignore xocrates , I see what you mean, and there is lot of differences between that and a turret. Keep the god ideas coming.

i hope your kidding

Well, since there are already turrets, which don't add much of a defensive bonus to the MW's but a huge offensive bonus, some sort of bunker type building would be nice, as it would give only a small offensive bonus (enough to be effective), but a huge defensive bonus. It's the perfect balance mechanism for power-ups. This is a great idea!

Walls could prove useful as well, as long as it isn't a pain in the ass to build, and it's not overpowered (in defensive terms).

what do you mean greenie? I was not, you had something to say about that?!

already turrets, which don't add much of a defensive bonus to the MW's but a huge offensive bonus,

Stop and think about this.

Offensive means going there and taking.

Defensive means staying here and keeping.

Turrets are Defensive, since they do not move. They are definitive area-control weapons because they mow down Darwinians entering a given radius. Place two of these in an uphill choke point and you're invulnerable to anything outside of a powerup or being outflanked.

While Bunkers are an interesting idea, the fact that it would take a dozen grenades to destroy them renders the impractical, since they would be nearly invulnerable. Darwinians don't throw grenades often enough to make the concept workable. You'd have to hope and pray for a powerup to take them out, and the Crate-gods might not favor you.

Turrets as the only defense is the same reason why Introversion modified the anthills after several players (including me) complained about their invulnerability. You could only hope to destroy them with the right powerup, and there was nothing the player could consciously do to remove them. It's the same with Bunkers. Say you moved most of your force into one of the bridges on "Scorched Earth" and placed a bunker in front of the enemy bases that only your units can enter. With enemy DGs either dying, unable to enter your bunker, or throwing only one or two grenades, it's almost assured that you'll take out their spawn points and force them out of the game.

What can the enemy do to counter you? If bunkers deflect laser fire, they can't duck in and shoot the DGs out. There's powerups, but they aren't as favorable as you'd expect. The only counter-strategy is to waste groups of DGs by throwing them at the bunker and praying there's enough grenades thrown to destroy it. Just like the pre-patched anthills in the early releases, which were nerfed by Introversion to give the player a chance of dealing with the issue directly.

Kuth wrote:

already turrets, which don't add much of a defensive bonus to the MW's but a huge offensive bonus,

Stop and think about this.

Offensive means going there and taking.

Defensive means staying here and keeping.

Turrets are Defensive, since they do not move. They are definitive area-control weapons because they mow down Darwinians entering a given radius. Place two of these in an uphill choke point and you're invulnerable to anything outside of a powerup or being outflanked.

While Bunkers are an interesting idea, the fact that it would take a dozen grenades to destroy them renders the impractical, since they would be nearly invulnerable. Darwinians don't throw grenades often enough to make the concept workable. You'd have to hope and pray for a powerup to take them out, and the Crate-gods might not favor you.

Turrets as the only defense is the same reason why Introversion modified the anthills after several players (including me) complained about their invulnerability. You could only hope to destroy them with the right powerup, and there was nothing the player could consciously do to remove them. It's the same with Bunkers. Say you moved most of your force into one of the bridges on "Scorched Earth" and placed a bunker in front of the enemy bases that only your units can enter. With enemy DGs either dying, unable to enter your bunker, or throwing only one or two grenades, it's almost assured that you'll take out their spawn points and force them out of the game.

What can the enemy do to counter you? If bunkers deflect laser fire, they can't duck in and shoot the DGs out. There's powerups, but they aren't as favorable as you'd expect. The only counter-strategy is to waste groups of DGs by throwing them at the bunker and praying there's enough grenades thrown to destroy it. Just like the pre-patched anthills in the early releases, which were nerfed by Introversion to give the player a chance of dealing with the issue directly.

When I say offensive and defensive bonus, I'm not talking about what the building's function is, I'm talking about how well protected the MW's controlling it are. With a turret, MW's controlling it are given a big offensive bonus, or in other words, a more powerful weapon, but if enemy MW's could get close enough, the controlling MW's would have no protection from lasers or grenades. With a bunker, the controlling MW's would be well protected from laser fire and grenades, but would only gain a small offensive bonus (like increased firing range and a small damage increase, or maybe increased rate of fire). One other thing I thought of is if the lasers could gain a penetration bonus, but would only penetrate if it has any damage left over after killing the first enemy. Whether or not you've ever played Magic: The Gathering, it is very similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_rules#Trample And of course, this would only work if there is another enemy standing behind the first one.

Now, I never said that it would take a dozen grenades to destroy a bunker, or that it deflects laser fire. It would be like a stationary armor, but with windows on all sides for MW's to shoot through. Or, you could also view it as a small formation that can't move with armor around it, but can shoot in all directions. Laser fire would damage it, and obviously grenades would too, but in terms of how much damage it can take, it probably would only be a little weaker than an anthill, but probably somewhat stronger than a turret. Think about this: the reason an anthill seems like it takes a lot of concentrated fire to destroy, is because the MW's aren't always shooting at it because there's a crap load of ants coming out of it. A bunker wouldn't have anything like that, although it most likely would not be as strong as an anthill.

Anyway, bunkers would probably hold 10 or 15 MW's and would decrease the rate at which those MW's throw grenades, so they do throw them, but less often than normal, especially since they get a bonus to their lasers. But the bigger bonus would be defensive, meaning that the MW's inside are protected from laser fire and grenades until the bunker is destroyed which, again bunkers can take more damage than a turret, but less than an anthill. And the reason it would be stronger than a turret is because the weapons would not be as powerful. If tested and tweaked correctly, the bunker would prove to be a great alternative to a turret that is equally effective, but in a different way.