Cruiser Command

Fine then, your probably right O.o it wouldnt work as well with sc2 as the marine hitboxes are small and the projectiles would have to be quite fast, and high skill level players would just absolutely REK newbs in an unfair way.

However eh...its not alright when you say we shouldn't improvements because its such a niche role that isnt used often (though you did add the consumables comment at the end, but it heavily implied you were against change earlier >.O )
The reason why we should make significant changes to this area is because there is a lot of room for 'expansion', any sort of gameplay mechanic that uses marine combat, example of expansion is that new area of space that can be used for interior space like new sections for battlecruisers, derelict deserted ships, or stations like the afore mentioned "Mining Station" O.o or new ways to board the enemy battlecruisers, like wraiths getting in late game, or a warp console (please make it happen Siretu)
Basically we should improve a section of gameplay because of the potential (and improving anything is always better O.o)

Having those 1 time consumable items is cool, everyone likes C-4 charges, k add more, EMPS that knock out consoles or grenades. Though more pilot items should come into order, for example: Actual armor that reduces incoming damage (right now we have the firesuit, so technically it reduces incoming fire damage and photo disguise), more items like personal shields, speed increases, and...weapons...yes, WEAPONS! Such as a shotgun... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7i6vaf6EfM the closer you are, the more damage you can deal out, great for having gunplay tactics and positioning without using the wc3 system >.O or using cruiser command's more unique gameplay aspects like having a flamethrower that will spawn fire (better bring that firesuit)

Dreadnought wrote:However eh...its not alright when you say we shouldn't improvements because its such a niche role that isnt used often (though you did add the consumables comment at the end, but it heavily implied you were against change earlier >.O )

WhyteDragon wrote:Alright, let me say this fast. If this was a mechanic utilized for one off items like grenades, I could see it. However, from what I understand you're pushing for this as the main method of performing a basic case of 'shooting your weapon.'

Reading is a powerful tool to those who use it Dreadnought.

Dreadnought wrote:However eh...its not alright when you say we shouldn't improvements because its such a niche role that isn't used often

I resent that, as that is twisting my overall intent. A mechanic should be as complex as the amount of time spent utilizing it. By example, we could, by your definition, improve deck movement by taking away right click movement and making it such that you have to move forward and backward with W/S, and rotate with A/D. In theory, by your definition, that should be 'better' since it's more complex.

It is not.

Dreadnought wrote:The reason why we should make significant changes to this area is because there is a lot of room for 'expansion',

We could also, by this logic, add in another 50 small ships, 100 upgrades via sub menus, 20 consoles, additional UIs for sending quick chat messages, longer corridors, extra turrets, more asteroids on the map, and so on because 'there is space for it.'

I do not consider that a good reason.

Dreanaught wrote:Having those 1 time consumable items is cool, everyone likes C-4 charges, k add more, EMPS that knock out consoles or grenades.

I don't fully disagree, however, I would prefer to see the existing concepts of creating marine combat (infiltration) actually viable for use first. Otherwise, this is really no different than just adding more abilities onto the subjugator -- you're just throwing stuff at it and randomly hoping it will stick, and though some of it may stick there's almost definitely going to be 50% of it or more that will not because you're not really addressing the issue of the subjugator, which is people don't like it for what it currently is.

ok.

also

WhyteDragon wrote:Dreadnought wrote:
The reason why we should make significant changes to this area is because there is a lot of room for 'expansion',
We could also, by this logic, add in another 50 small ships, 100 upgrades via sub menus, 20 consoles, additional UIs for sending quick chat messages, longer corridors, extra turrets, more asteroids on the map, and so on because 'there is space for it.'

I do not consider that a good reason.

Same as the 9001 kermiculite, your overdoing my suggestions again =P

WhyteDragon wrote:Having those 1 time consumable items is cool, everyone likes C-4 charges, k add more, EMPS that knock out consoles or grenades.
I don't fully disagree, however, I would prefer to see the existing concepts of creating marine combat (infiltration) actually viable for use first. Otherwise, this is really no different than just adding more abilities onto the subjugator -- you're just throwing stuff at it and randomly hoping it will stick, and though some of it may stick there's almost definitely going to be 50% of it or more that will not because you're not really addressing the issue of the subjugator, which is people don't like it for what it currently is.

You and I address problems very differently (Like your destroyer secondary weapons and my 'enhanced' bombardments, I still think my idea is fine and that yours could use tweeks, but we went through that already =P ) and the amount of suggestions you have made, about 50% of it has stuck as well (in fact only Degra has managed to get way more then 50% of his suggestions through)
I do not "randomly" throw ideas (these days)...I actually think it through and feel out advantages and disadvantages of it (even though I will obviously miss a few disadvantages, i still understand it)


Oh and i forgot to add that we really need a system to repair/reconstruct turrets O.o

Dreadnought wrote:Same as the 9001 kermiculite, your overdoing my suggestions again =P

I'm using it because, by the reasoning you gave, it should be a perfectly valid reason to go about it.

But, fine then.

We could use extra room to make a 'hell' space, such that whenever you die you have to go through a series of trials in order to return back to the battlecruiser.
Alternatively you could make a prisoner room that holds a hostile player captive upon your deck whenever you kill them, and you have to infiltrate in order to free them.
You could even make a kitchen and give the battlecruiser plumbing such that you have to periodically consume sustenance and occasionally dispose of your own waste, the failure of doing which results in death.

Certainly, none of these are 'overblown.' Truthfully, they exist in certain WC3 and SC2 games already and, in some of them, even work. However, they still are not good ideas for us to implement. Do you need further examples to understand the point I intend to communicate?

Dreadnought wrote:You and I address problems very differently (Like your destroyer secondary weapons and my 'enhanced' bombardments, I still think my idea is fine and that yours could use tweeks, but we went through that already =P ) and the amount of suggestions you have made, about 50% of it has stuck as well (in fact only Degra has managed to get way more then 50% of his suggestions through)
I do not "randomly" throw ideas (these days)...I actually think it through and feel out advantages and disadvantages of it (even though I will obviously miss a few disadvantages, i still understand it)

... your solution to making the destroyer more interesting was having it do exactly what it already did, except after doing it for a certain amount of time and given luck, it did more by clicking a different button and pointing as it usually would.
... well, alright, if you say so. Though I'd be very much interested in seeing where your statistics come from.

Dreadnought wrote:Oh and i forgot to add that we really need a system to repair/reconstruct turrets O.o

If that was done, then turrets should be far easier to kill. Given the difficulty of one man being able to destroy a series of turrets while not being killed in turn is too hard.

WhyteDragon wrote:We could use extra room to make a 'hell' space, such that whenever you die you have to go through a series of trials in order to return back to the battlecruiser.
Alternatively you could make a prisoner room that holds a hostile player captive upon your deck whenever you kill them, and you have to infiltrate in order to free them.
You could even make a kitchen and give the battlecruiser plumbing such that you have to periodically consume sustenance and occasionally dispose of your own waste, the failure of doing which results in death.

And it would cost 9002 Kermiculite

...
...
...
Seriously you two argue with the smartest and dumbest reasons that I have ever seen.

Oh and reconstructing turrets would be fine, nerf the health a little, get rid of 2 of the turrets blocking power, and it would be fine. Loosing Turrets can be a problem with low skilled players that react properly or small games, like 3v3 or less. Though we should always focus on balancing 6v6, in this case I dont think it will significantly affect 6v6 if we add rebuildable turrets (500 to rebuild each turret right?)

DinoChicken wrote:And it would cost 9002 Kermiculite

I have to admit, that got a laugh out of me. To be honest, most of it just comes from the fact that somehow we've been basically arguing over the same basic principles for nearly a year now but neither side changes that drastically through the various discussions.

Anyhoo...

The counter argument always exists for that in a 3v3 game, sending a person off to infiltrate the enemy ship means 33% of your manpower is now gone as opposed to 16% in a 6v6. Even though in theory, infiltration is harder to deal with in smaller games, by technicality infiltration takes up a 'larger amount of your available manpower' while still suffering from all of the same issues.

It's sort of like saying that piloting a chomper in a 3v3 match is watch more powerful than in a 6v6 match simply because there's fewer people who can pick you off effectively -- the opposing argument also exists that since the chomper is so slow, using it creates a greater opportunity for the opposing team to pick your battlecruiser off. Same basic theory with, say, a destroyer.

In reply to the Original Post:
I must say I was disappointed to see the mining station thing again in the OP of a thread titled "Increased marine combat idea". I just don't like the mining station because it's clunky and we already have enough options for mining. I think all the things you mentioned like "opportunities for a marine battle" and "provide a team that is behind in the game a way to come back that isn't determined by ship upgrades" could be achieved by infiltration, if Siretu gives it some more love. Infiltration would be far better than a mining station because it's already in the game, not clunky, and it's intuitive to new players.

Yeah, this really is a pretty dumb idea on my part... Thanks for all the replys though everyone. The only thing I really wanted to accomplish when I thought up this idea was to make the game a bit more interesting and get newer players off the BC. The problem with CC and with most other games like this is that a certain way of playing is determined to be the best, so that is how everyone plays the game. More than anything I think CC need more variation in gamemodes, maps ect. My idea wasn't centered around having a mining station and another source of income, but more of creating variation in the way the game plays to make CC a more popular game.

Emster wrote:Yeah, this really is a pretty dumb idea on my part... Thanks for all the replys though everyone. The only thing I really wanted to accomplish when I thought up this idea was to make the game a bit more interesting and get newer players off the BC. The problem with CC and with most other games like this is that a certain way of playing is determined to be the best, so that is how everyone plays the game. More than anything I think CC need more variation in gamemodes, maps ect. My idea wasn't centered around having a mining station and another source of income, but more of creating variation in the way the game plays to make CC a more popular game.

That's fair, and I appreciate that thought as the intent is to create a solution to a problem. However, if that really is the case I would basically say what I said to Dread regarding the Subjugator issue; just adding more stuff isn't going to fix what is already wrong.

Can you perhaps tell us what you see as this 'certain way' of playing? A solution may become a little more apparent that way.

WhyteDragon wrote: Can you perhaps tell us what you see as this 'certain way' of playing? A solution may become a little more apparent that way.

I meant it as a strategy for how to play. Like in CC there is a certain general order of upgrades you get, the battles are usually not to different from one another in terms of weapons and strategies at play, etc. (with a bit of variation). This is just the problem with games of this nature. If one upgrade is determined to be better, then that one is purchased first or in replacement of the other one. That is all.