1120 replies to this topic

[dojob]

Why not? If you gave it some long range and about as much aoe and damage as normal catas, then it would be great for sniping enemy siege engines or attacking the enemy base from long range if u build them close enough.

[{IP} Aridor]

But you'd have to build the tower first then pay extra to upgrade it. When putting the initial tower would be useless.

[dojob]

Initial tower would be useful if u either can't afford to get a cata tower, if u need to garrison archers, or if the enemy is going melee-heavy in which case an ax tower could be better since it doesn't have the minimum range. The point of upgrades is to take something that's alright at something, and either make it better or give it an additional purpose. I don't see how upgrading towers to have more range and firepower is any different from upgrading Guardians with hammers to do more damage vs buildings or giving any normal units heavy armor or forged blades to make them more efficient at what they do.

As a turtling faction, I think it would be completely reasonable if the Dwarves had the ability to make their towers better than everyone elses.

Edited by dojob, 14 November 2008 - 01:35 AM.

[Dalf32]

well changing them from axes to catas is not the same as giving guardians war hammers because it completely changes the way that you would use them. stationary catas in a defensive role are not very good at pinpointing units and taking them out one-by-one; this jsut so happens to be the exact purpose of axe/arrow towers. you are not giving them extra functionality, you are changing them entirely. it would be much much better imo to just be able to build the stationary catapults taht we had been talking about without any tower of any sort. i jsut dont see the usefulness in eliminating the short range abilities of a tower to give it longer-range abilities when you had built it specifically to make use of those short-range abilities.

just makes no sense to me.

[dojob]

Changing guardians to warhammer guardians makes them more anti-building, as opposed to forged-blades guardians which are more anti-unit.

Aside from that detail, I wouldn't mind either an upgrade for normal towers or a different structure all together for this as long as we agree that a cata tower is a good idea

[{IP} Aridor]

You see the key word is more, meaning the had had that use to an extent before but now you are specializing. Towers to Catas would be like changing you archer unit into a pike unit. It totally changes the role.

[Rafv Nin IV]

Whatever is decided, it needs to be able to be built all over the map. That's all I really care about, because it's absolutely worthless otherwise.

Edited by Ravnin IV, 14 November 2008 - 05:42 AM.

[dojob]

You see the key word is more, meaning the had had that use to an extent before but now you are specializing. Towers to Catas would be like changing you archer unit into a pike unit. It totally changes the role.

Meh, I guess I just like those kinds of changes too much

[Dalf32]

i would much rather see a standalone stationary catapult than one on a tower. it seems like it would make a whole lot more sense in the middle of the battlefield to not waste time with a tower. i get having them on towers at the fortress because that is adjoining with another structure, but it would just be wierd to have a random pillar with a catapult on top.

[Scryer]

i would much rather see a standalone stationary catapult than one on a tower. it seems like it would make a whole lot more sense in the middle of the battlefield to not waste time with a tower. i get having them on towers at the fortress because that is adjoining with another structure, but it would just be wierd to have a random pillar with a catapult on top.

I agree with this.

[Gr1m]

i would much rather see a standalone stationary catapult than one on a tower. it seems like it would make a whole lot more sense in the middle of the battlefield to not waste time with a tower. i get having them on towers at the fortress because that is adjoining with another structure, but it would just be wierd to have a random pillar with a catapult on top.

If we're going on that direction, why don't we make an unpackable catapult, like the trebuchets from AoE2, and replace the original dwarven cata? Just buff up the default cata's stats - you hardly need two types of long range siege weaponry for one faction.

[Dalf32]

well i would still like to keep the originial catapults as well as add on the immobile ones simply because you could use them in very different ways and it adds a bit more strategy into your selections for siege weapons.

[Scryer]

It would also help make the Dwarves more unique in my opinion. At the moment it's hard to spot the difference between how you play the Dwarves and Gondor.

I'm not sure as far as balance goes, but with the regular catapult and the Cata Emplacement unit; Would the team consider nerfing the regular catapults a little bit?

And this has been bouncing in my head throughout this entire discussion, that I want to bring forth: Should the cata emplacements have the option of using different kinds of ammunation (sp?) along with regular rocks? My thoughts on this would be that the Cata emplacement would sort of be like the Mordor Catapult being able to switch between using boulders and skulls but the Cata Emplacement would offer different kinds of ammunation. Then again, I'd understand if this idea OP'd them.

Edited by Scryer, 16 November 2008 - 03:32 AM.

[Devon]

Well, like what else?

[Scryer]

Well I'm not sure what other projectiles that I'd like to see on the cata emplacements. I don't think I can be specific but I'd like to see other projectiles like something that causes units to flee or a projectile that could slow units down. I really don't know, my creative juices are dying on me for this .

[Gr1m]

Well, like what else?

Could be interesting to see the emplaced catapults be able to switch between a single large stone and lots of smaller ones to give it some anti-infantry artillery capabilities. Imo, it'd give them more flexibility against mordor and the goblins, which are both more unit-based than turtlers.

[Scryer]

Gr1m, I like your idea.

The way I see it is that because the cata emplacement can't move from one location to another, it should have a little more versatility than a regular catapult.

I got my creative juices flowing a little bit, so here are some of my ideas for different projectiles:

- Single Rock/Fire Stones

- Rock Scatter/Several Rocks (Gr1m's idea): The difference between this and the single rock is that this would have a larger radius and it is considered more damaging to units (correct me if I'm wrong about this idea...) .

- A Large Oil Barrel: Kind of like the oil barrel that the catapults/wagon riders (forgot their name) launch. But instead it has a larger area of effect and it temporarily makes the ground extremely flammable.


And that's all I can think of for now.

Edited by Scryer, 16 November 2008 - 05:04 PM.

[Devon]

Hmmm...I like that. Might be a bit too strong though...

[dojob]

Mhm, I think the toggle between single rocks that do more damage to a smaller area (and would probably have slightly longer range too) and clusters of rocks that have a large aoe would be enough to make the towers good.

[Dalf32]

agreed that the toggle between single rocks and bunches of small rocks is enough for the immobile catapults. oil barrels are used in a couple of different places (the fortress and battlewagons) so it might detract from uniqueness a bit as well. but when did we agree on towers dojob?