Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Ideas and suggestions for how to improve the Warzone 2100 base game only. Ideas for mods go in Mapping/Modding instead. Read sticky posts first!
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by NoQ »

I suggest adding
  • minipod towers
  • mortar pits
  • hardened sensor towers
  • gates
to the list of pre-researched items in "advanced bases" mode.

When i make maps, i try not to place things that aren't researched at T1 advanced bases mode, and it seems sensible not to have things that aren't researched yet. But having the structures mentioned above will allow defining more beautiful and functional advanced bases.
Last edited by NoQ on 18 Mar 2012, 23:23, edited 1 time in total.
Per
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 3780
Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 19:39

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by Per »

I agree on gates (they are not called gateways...), not sure about the others.
Reg312
Regular
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by Reg312 »

"balance subforum" >>>
(agreed)
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by NoQ »

they are not called gateways...
fixed :oops:
not sure about the others.
But those minipod towers are so beautiful! They're white and red, and they look really nice behind the usual hardpoint wall. Right now we only have MG towers, that are a bit too much outdated by that time, and we have no rocket defenses at all to pick from.

Hardened sensor towers are available almost instantly as well, so i don't like putting wooden sensor towers that will be outdated iff they are useful.

Mortar pits ... well, it's also rather about looks. Scavengers have them, why don't we? (:
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by Iluvalar »

everything that you can get before X minutes

T2 and T3 should work the same...
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by NoQ »

Iluvalar wrote:everything that you can get before X minutes

T2 and T3 should work the same...
This might be promoting branches with wider research trees over branches with narrow research trees. For example, scourge takes nearly as much as needle gun to research, and flashlight comes two minutes later.

I think manual choice is fine, because advanced bases are rather made for fun than for competitive play (unless we want to change that ... i don't).
Per
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 3780
Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 19:39

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by Per »

Ok, agree on minipod towers as well. They are pretty. And having a rocket tech available seems right from a symmetry standpoint.
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by Iluvalar »

NoQ wrote:For example, scourge takes nearly as much as needle gun to research, and flashlight comes two minutes later.
What is that supposed to prove ?
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by NoQ »

That giving all technologies that can be researched in X minutes (separately) is not balanced, favoring wide branches over narrow branches.

In X minutes you can research any of the rocket upgrades up to some point, and you will be given all of them. But you usually can only research damage upgrades if you use cannons, so you will only have the same amount of damage upgrades, and the cumulative effect will be much less. But when actually researching, you will only get some of the rocket upgrade variants (eg., only damage, or only accuracy, or only ROF) by that time, and this will be balanced with having only one cannon upgrade variant.

The way you are proposing is suitable for 4x4 team games where you can actually research anything you want as fast as possible, but it will be highly unbalanced for 1x1 matches.
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by Iluvalar »

That would imply that 4x4 games are unbalanced.

Even if, in theory, I understand your comment. In practice, with the research tree we have, the ROF1 cost 1/2 of the DMG5 and give the same benefit. One try to focus mainly on a branch to unlock the stuff, but at the same time, he have no choice but to drag the other upgrades.

If there was research lines that were clearly "wider" in the tech tree, all teams would focus mainly on that each game, and 2x2 games would be broken. But they are not... So the tech tree is balanced that way.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by NoQ »

If we cut T3 at ~20 minutes, scourges will be available almost instantly, seraphs will take extra 5 minutes to invent, while it will take extra 10 minutes to invent pulse lasers and extra 15 minutes to invent the rail gun. How is this balanced?
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by Iluvalar »

I don't know. But if the game is overall balanced, it mean that the pulse laser and the rail gun are stronger than the scourge.

Now you might argue that it's not exactly the case right now ? It could be interesting, but I believe that if they are not balanced, we should balance them at the core, not trying to hide that behind asymmetrical research start at T3.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by NoQ »

Iluvalar wrote:Now you might argue that it's not exactly the case right now ?
Yeah, i'd rather believe that the balance of 1x1 games is different from the balance of 4x4 games :hmm:
P.S. Reg312 was right after all (:
User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC »

This thread reminds me of when I suggested the addition of a tier 1.5 a long time ago, where players would start off with all of the early T1 stuff, including Heavy Machineguns, Light Cannons, Mini-Rocket Pods, Flamers, all modules, Cyborg Factories, Repair Facilities, etc., but not stuff like Synaptic Link Data Analysis, Hover Propulsion, or possibly even Mortars.
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100
User avatar
effigy
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1217
Joined: 22 Jan 2010, 03:21

Re: Allow more defensive structures in advanced bases

Post by effigy »

Shadow Wolf TJC wrote:This thread reminds me of when I suggested the addition of a tier 1.5 a long time ago, where players would start off with all of the early T1 stuff, including Heavy Machineguns, Light Cannons, Mini-Rocket Pods, Flamers, all modules, Cyborg Factories, Repair Facilities, etc., but not stuff like Synaptic Link Data Analysis, Hover Propulsion, or possibly even Mortars.
That's what we get in T1 with bases on isn't it? Though, I'd consider HMG to be early T2... kind of a grey area. Depends on how many damage/ROF upgrades you have, I suppose.
This is why some features aren't implemented: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7490&view=unread#p87241