5129 replies to this topic

[Divine]

I like the idea, it's unique. So how many Harpoons it takes to flip the Paradox Engine? :V

The Paradox is a flying unit, a blimp type. As per my suggestion, those could be slowed down, even to a halt if enough Harpoons are present, but not damaged significantly. As for the exact amount, it's a question of balancing. I assume that playing around with various effectivenesses VS various types of armor is the only way to implement this.

[Tathmesh]

Which subfaction would this belong to?

[Divine]

Which subfaction would this belong to?

Because a harpoon gun is sort of a conventional weapon, and not some gimmicky technology that is the trademark of a subfaction, and because no Epsilon subfaction has a flying infantry yet, I'd say all of them. 

[PACER]

 

Which subfaction would this belong to?

Because a harpoon gun is sort of a conventional weapon, and not some gimmicky technology that is the trademark of a subfaction, and because no Epsilon subfaction has a flying infantry yet, I'd say all of them. 

 

 

I'd say Psicorps. Since the Moon Base belongs to them, they would have no trouble developing jumpjet technologies. Moreover Harpoon's slowdown effect and flipping abilities corresponds somehow to Psicorps' combat traits.

[Divine]

I disagree, the harpoon launcher itself is a rather mundane weapon, and PsiCorps seems to be obsessed with exotic technologies. Furthermore, the Harpoon's proposed slowing effect would overlap in its function with magnetic weaponry, and it would also result in a logical conflict: how could the Harpoons flip over a vehicle that is firmly held on the ground by magnetism? I still think that all subfactions should get it, but if not, I'd say either HQ or SC. If it's for HQ, then additional fluff about the infantry being genetically modified or something could be added. Although I think it would fit the SC the best. SC uses lots of salvaged and improvised, but still somewhat conventional weapons, and the harpoon launcher would fit in well, and in the campaign, they capture lots of American equipment, so it would make sense if the Harpoon infantry actually used jetpacks that were reverse engineered from Rocketeers. Following this logic, the Harpoon could also function as an Epsilon-steals-Allied stolen tech infantry.
 
For PsiCorps, I had another idea for a flying infantry.
 

I have this idea for an Epsilon infantry, because we can never have enough Epsilon infantry. 
 
Call it the Seraphim (plural: Seraphin). It would be a tier 2 or 3 flying infantry for the Epsilon. Or a new hero. While Rocketeers use jetpacks, and Gyrocopters use rotors, Seraphin would be kept in air by sheer awesomeness their masterful psychic control over heat, manifesting itself as six wings made of flame. I suggest them to be female, because that opens up the opportunity for a sick voiceover. Not quite as squeaky as Libra, but somewhat psychotic, and obviously pyromaniac nevertheless. Think of something like the Virus' voice but with a lot more enthusiasm and love for fire. Also, maybe some implications of that these lads do believe themselves to be actual Seraphin. Their weapon would be, you guessed it, pyromancy. For that, I have three ideas: they could throw fireballs, but I think that's boring. The second idea is that they could do strafing runs by swooping down on their target, leaving a blazing trail on the ground. The third idea is that they would do AoE by summoning a flaming whirlwind that starts out weak, but would get stronger over time, or if more Serpahin would attack the same thing. As for the whirlwind, a mechanic that traps things in its middle by applying a temporary speed debuff to them is an option.
 
In conclusion: the Seraphim would be a tier 2 or 3 flying unit, with falme as their weapon of choice. This would mean that they would be anti-infantry and anti-structure primarly. I think it would be optimal if they had the speed of Rocketeers, but firepower significantly greater than theirs, compensated by inability to engage airborne targets, and higher production cost, and perhaps less durability too. The high cost, speed, sufficient FIREpower, and relative fragility would make them ideal harrassers, but no good for prolonged confrontation with enemies that can shoot back at them.

Edited by Divine, 22 March 2018 - 09:55 AM.

[SPCell]

I have a suggest for allies. Their power system is unbearable since 50% of late game as them you just spam power plants in order to not to get low power after building Ore Purifier, SWs, Warpshop and Gap Generators. So here is an idea: price and power from regular PP remain the same, but it's upgrade's power produced and price are doubled.

Edited by SPCell, 24 March 2018 - 12:46 PM.

[BotRot]

When saving a game then quitting, it counts as unfinished, meaning that if loading then finishing a game, one will not earn a star in skirmish. This happened while doing Heavyobject challenge in Hard and was a bit disappointed that I did not get a gold star after a lengthy battle.

[Divine]

Do you know what'd be really nice? A skirmish/multiplayer game option disable rubble left by civilian buildings. Or to make it cease to be an obstancle in some other way, eg, by allowing us to build over it, or allow the complete destruction of the rubble itself, as Ares made it possible.

Edited by Divine, 25 March 2018 - 12:17 PM.

[PACER]

Do you know what'd be really nice? A skirmish/multiplayer game option disable rubble left by civilian buildings. Or to make it cease to be an obstancle in some other way, eg, by allowing us to build over it, or allow the complete destruction of the rubble itself, as Ares made it possible.

 

Rubbles are art.ini-level configuration and not seemingly able to be changed in rules.

 

..Or can Ares do that? There're over 500 objects to be modified.

[Divine]

 

Do you know what'd be really nice? A skirmish/multiplayer game option disable rubble left by civilian buildings. Or to make it cease to be an obstancle in some other way, eg, by allowing us to build over it, or allow the complete destruction of the rubble itself, as Ares made it possible.

 

Rubbles are art.ini-level configuration and not seemingly able to be changed in rules.

 

..Or can Ares do that? There're over 500 objects to be modified.

 

Whether or not a building leaves rubble is defined in RulesMO.ini. As such, it can be overridden by a gamerule. The second part of my suggestion was implying the usage of Ares' advanced rubble logics.

Edited by Divine, 25 March 2018 - 01:37 PM.

[SukaHati]

 

Do you know what'd be really nice? A skirmish/multiplayer game option disable rubble left by civilian buildings. Or to make it cease to be an obstancle in some other way, eg, by allowing us to build over it, or allow the complete destruction of the rubble itself, as Ares made it possible.

 

Rubbles are art.ini-level configuration and not seemingly able to be changed in rules.

 

..Or can Ares do that? There're over 500 objects to be modified.

 

 

You can use replace function within the text editor to replace all "LeaveRubble=yes" to "LeaveRubble=no" in RulesMO.ini

[Fortranm]

I suggest making it possible to train Desolators and Vultures in Money Source. It's too intense on Hard in 3.3.3

[mrvecz]

Can the AI be told to utilize player/other AI owned territory to construct their own buildings if they run out of place on their starting spot ?

 

[Speeder]

Nope.

[BotRot]

Are there even Tech Deposit Banks in the current maps within Oil Control? If not the opening message should remove the mention of said tech structure (unless there will be in future maps). Checked some maps (particularly those in urban setting) so far but none have appeared.

[PACER]

 

 

Do you know what'd be really nice? A skirmish/multiplayer game option disable rubble left by civilian buildings. Or to make it cease to be an obstancle in some other way, eg, by allowing us to build over it, or allow the complete destruction of the rubble itself, as Ares made it possible.

 

Rubbles are art.ini-level configuration and not seemingly able to be changed in rules.

 

..Or can Ares do that? There're over 500 objects to be modified.

 

 

You can use replace function within the text editor to replace all "LeaveRubble=yes" to "LeaveRubble=no" in RulesMO.ini

 

 

ModEnc says that LeaveRubble doesn't really work. Whether a structure leave rubble or not is defined by a special frame in art.ini

[SukaHati]

 

 

 

Do you know what'd be really nice? A skirmish/multiplayer game option disable rubble left by civilian buildings. Or to make it cease to be an obstancle in some other way, eg, by allowing us to build over it, or allow the complete destruction of the rubble itself, as Ares made it possible.

 

Rubbles are art.ini-level configuration and not seemingly able to be changed in rules.

 

..Or can Ares do that? There're over 500 objects to be modified.

 

 

You can use replace function within the text editor to replace all "LeaveRubble=yes" to "LeaveRubble=no" in RulesMO.ini

 

 

ModEnc says that LeaveRubble doesn't really work. Whether a structure leave rubble or not is defined by a special frame in art.ini

 

Maybe its refer to the rubble in the shp building? Meaning that if we want a building leave rubble behind, it need to have rubble graphic for the building in its shp file.

 

The below shows the building below destroyed no leaving rubble after I set "LeaveRubble=yes" to "LeaveRubble=no" or its equivalent.

 

Before a building is destroyed.

 

After the building is destroyed.

[PACER]

 

 

 

 

Do you know what'd be really nice? A skirmish/multiplayer game option disable rubble left by civilian buildings. Or to make it cease to be an obstancle in some other way, eg, by allowing us to build over it, or allow the complete destruction of the rubble itself, as Ares made it possible.

 

Rubbles are art.ini-level configuration and not seemingly able to be changed in rules.

 

..Or can Ares do that? There're over 500 objects to be modified.

 

 

You can use replace function within the text editor to replace all "LeaveRubble=yes" to "LeaveRubble=no" in RulesMO.ini

 

 

ModEnc says that LeaveRubble doesn't really work. Whether a structure leave rubble or not is defined by a special frame in art.ini

 

Maybe its refer to the rubble in the shp building? Meaning that if we want a building leave rubble behind, it need to have rubble graphic for the building in its shp file.

 

The below shows the building below destroyed no leaving rubble after I set "LeaveRubble=yes" to "LeaveRubble=no" or its equivalent.

 

Before a building is destroyed.

 

After the building is destroyed.

 

 

 

 

Can be set to 'yes' or 'no' and determines if this BuildingType leaves residual rubble on the map (which can be traversed by units). Adding this to any structure will not work - the logic for this relies on the third frame of the structure's SHP image being the image used for the rubble (that frame is also drawn in a different palette than the structure itself) so check the SHP first or edit the third frame.

 

Very well then. It seems that ModEnc's ambiguous description should have been interpreted as "You can't just force a structure to leave rubble if it doesn't have the needed frame in its SHP".

In this case it makes sense, setting LeaveRubble=no for every structure will do the job.

[Bernadiroe]

Oh please, remove the rubbles on destroyed buildings. It makes my map look so dirty and uncouth

 

[Divine]

Nah. Without rubble a destroyed city just doesn't look right. But there are some cases where the rubble takes away more from gameplay than what it adds. Maps with particularly small space to build, for instance. That's why I'm asking for an optional gamerule.

Edited by Divine, 30 March 2018 - 01:15 AM.