One aspect of the game that is going to render the game far less fun to play is that there is no way to 'downgrade' an opponent's city via battle.
Seige units should be available to target hideouts, resource generators, and housing. Laying seige on a building would only take it down 1 level per attack. But gives consequence to attacks. You should only be able to lay seige on one building per attack.
There should be requirements on seige as well so that higher rank players aren't just destroying newbies. You cannot lay seige on a city that is not at least level 7 or if the account has been inactive for more than 2 weeks. -- or something of that nature.
Last edited by Kelu; 04-25-2012 at 05:27 PM.
Not a fan of this idea. Combine the siege units with bikes and you can take out an opponent's city. 34hrs for a level 9 hideout gone in one unopposed hit. Take out someones troops then take out their hideouts and all their resources are yours, and there is nothing they can do about it. So hideouts become expensive and time consuming to build and do nothing while attacking becomes a little bit more faffy. Or just because you are mean take out a lvl 10 city Hall, 5 and a half days build time goes down the spout along with a blueprint. It doesn't as an idea make the game more interesting or enjoyable, it just breaks existing mechanics.
Cannon -- the seige units just take longer to get there. It's something that works just fine in RTS games, nothing new.
You are just applying assumptions to what I have said. I have given a base idea, that just needs to be designed out appropriately.
it's all about balance in any strategy game.
Right now, no one is able to lose anything if they have sufficient hideouts. If hideouts cannot be affected, you've created an unbalanced strategy game. Which, by the way, this game is at the moment.
Kelu, I have around 20 barracks capable of making anything I want and frankly a surplus of troops. On the other hand I have 4 cities that can build one building at a time. Even if a siege unit was to take as long as a reclaimer to build I could build over 30 in the time it takes to upgrade a top level building in each of my cities. It also takes a blueprint to upgrade to level 10 buildings. There would simply be no point trying to use hideouts against me if I could force them to degrade.
Hideouts are there to protect players resources from the hordes of slobbering ND troops that descend on them in near perpetual waves. If we could kill hideouts or farms or barracks or shacks or command centers we could force people to quit the game. We don't want that, it doesn't make the game for us, we don't even want that as an option because we'd kill the server inside a week, either by using them ourselves or by being destroyed by them, and if we fell given our currently lofty position who wouldn't?
None of this says I like how hideouts currently work, simply that the option you've proposed has greater problems for me than leaving things entirely unchanged.
However, we've said our pieces and this is a forum afterall so perhaps we should wait and see if other people pipe up, rather than batting the conversation between each other.
Balance is the key to everything.
You are suggesting issues that are just a part of any normal design.
My suggestion kills two birds with one stone. Hideouts is only 'one' aspect of what I am talking about.
Why should someone be immune to their hideout being damaged ??
How are you ever going to stop new dawn ?? If you can't damage their hideouts ?
Your strategy of hideout deterioration is purely for your own benefit. You want a way to get a better farm and not earn it ? Sorry, I would be interested in features that add gameplay, not just serve you dinner. ok ?