Subject:
Feedback
Thread
Messages / 101 to 125 of 125
101)Posted by Tim_the_Surveyor
parandiac wrote on :
fixed.
also- making random mines with more resources than normal would be easier than coding in all this stuff. just saying.
also- making random mines with more resources than normal would be easier than coding in all this stuff. just saying.
The problem with using land bases as a relay hub makes it too easy to counteract the cost.
Maybe captured capitals would be a good way to expand the "net" of collection. Reducing the distance effect without removing it.
I posted on another thread, the further from your capital your land is, the more it costs to relay the resources home, thus lowering your net income.
Again, this also would apply to the troops. The further from your capital, the more shipping of supplies costs.
(Just trying to come up with some complex code issues)
Maybe captured capitals would be a good way to expand the "net" of collection. Reducing the distance effect without removing it.
I posted on another thread, the further from your capital your land is, the more it costs to relay the resources home, thus lowering your net income.
Again, this also would apply to the troops. The further from your capital, the more shipping of supplies costs.
(Just trying to come up with some complex code issues)
102)Posted by Tim_the_Surveyor
Just to go off topic, I thought that if there is a movement factor applied to troops based on terrain in the future...
Normal attack = 1.0
Hills = 0.5
Swamps = 0.75
Desert = 0.75
Mountains = 0.01
Cliffs = 0.01
Your own open land = 1.5
This could be instituted before a "new" map and the only factor would be the increased speed across your own land. This does jive with real life. You can move faster across land that you are not capturing. Once there is varying terrain, then we will have other things to fight over. It would be nice to butt against a mountain range and not have to defend it. Or have bluffs along a coast that you can't land on... There could be deserts that have little to no resources that the only reason to cross is to attack someone else.
Some land, such as deserts and tundra, might even have a penalty of higher cost or be damaging to troops.
Normal attack = 1.0
Hills = 0.5
Swamps = 0.75
Desert = 0.75
Mountains = 0.01
Cliffs = 0.01
Your own open land = 1.5
This could be instituted before a "new" map and the only factor would be the increased speed across your own land. This does jive with real life. You can move faster across land that you are not capturing. Once there is varying terrain, then we will have other things to fight over. It would be nice to butt against a mountain range and not have to defend it. Or have bluffs along a coast that you can't land on... There could be deserts that have little to no resources that the only reason to cross is to attack someone else.
Some land, such as deserts and tundra, might even have a penalty of higher cost or be damaging to troops.
103)Posted by Boogra
Tim_the_Surveyor wrote on :
Just to go off topic, I thought that if there is a movement factor applied to troops based on terrain in the future...
Normal attack = 1.0
Hills = 0.5
Swamps = 0.75
Desert = 0.75
Mountains = 0.01
Cliffs = 0.01
Your own open land = 1.5
This could be instituted before a "new" map and the only factor would be the increased speed across your own land. This does jive with real life. You can move faster across land that you are not capturing. Once there is varying terrain, then we will have other things to fight over. It would be nice to butt against a mountain range and not have to defend it. Or have bluffs along a coast that you can't land on... There could be deserts that have little to no resources that the only reason to cross is to attack someone else.
Some land, such as deserts and tundra, might even have a penalty of higher cost or be damaging to troops.
Normal attack = 1.0
Hills = 0.5
Swamps = 0.75
Desert = 0.75
Mountains = 0.01
Cliffs = 0.01
Your own open land = 1.5
This could be instituted before a "new" map and the only factor would be the increased speed across your own land. This does jive with real life. You can move faster across land that you are not capturing. Once there is varying terrain, then we will have other things to fight over. It would be nice to butt against a mountain range and not have to defend it. Or have bluffs along a coast that you can't land on... There could be deserts that have little to no resources that the only reason to cross is to attack someone else.
Some land, such as deserts and tundra, might even have a penalty of higher cost or be damaging to troops.
Yes, please.
104)Posted by parandiac
probably something that would come in a lot further down on the to-do list, honestly.
105)Posted by parandiac
Tim_the_Surveyor wrote on :
The problem with using land bases as a relay hub makes it too easy to counteract the cost.
except each land base costs 2500. if i plop down land bases every 10 squares just to get more out of the ground, it'll still be wasteful.
I need some fairly urgent feedback.
I've added a search function to the "World" view, but it has one potential drawback in its current form. A person could potentially spend time searching for sea unit IDs to see where ships happen to be in the ocean.
So, my question is this. Should I leave it as is, or should I restrict the search to only allow base, turret, and unit searches of your own entities?
I've added a search function to the "World" view, but it has one potential drawback in its current form. A person could potentially spend time searching for sea unit IDs to see where ships happen to be in the ocean.
So, my question is this. Should I leave it as is, or should I restrict the search to only allow base, turret, and unit searches of your own entities?
107)Posted by Tim_the_Surveyor
Johnny wrote on :
So, my question is this. Should I leave it as is, or should I restrict the search to only allow base, turret, and unit searches of your own entities?
I think that searching by a specific number is a good thing for finding where someone attacked from. I can foresee people just looking through numbers, but this is no different than scrolling through the map.
edited 1x / 2m
108)Posted by Elno_Wildclaw
Yeah, its just slightly more convenient than scrolling through the map. sneak attacks may be harder, but it will also be easier overall to manage your empire. I love the change as is.
109)Posted by Boogra
Johnny wrote on :
I need some fairly urgent feedback.
I've added a search function to the "World" view, but it has one potential drawback in its current form. A person could potentially spend time searching for sea unit IDs to see where ships happen to be in the ocean.
So, my question is this. Should I leave it as is, or should I restrict the search to only allow base, turret, and unit searches of your own entities?
I've added a search function to the "World" view, but it has one potential drawback in its current form. A person could potentially spend time searching for sea unit IDs to see where ships happen to be in the ocean.
So, my question is this. Should I leave it as is, or should I restrict the search to only allow base, turret, and unit searches of your own entities?
Please take the Sea Unit IDs out. Ugh.
110)Posted by Tim_the_Surveyor
I love the updates... Now if airbases with resources at them would show up as something different. (or show be able to display aircraft)
Oh, and now that I can find all my troops, I would love to be able to sell a lot of them...
Oh, and now that I can find all my troops, I would love to be able to sell a lot of them...
111)Posted by Tim_the_Surveyor
Boogra wrote on :
Please take the Sea Unit IDs out. Ugh.
I actually like the ability to search sea units as well so to be able to "watch" certain units without having to leave an escort.
112)Posted by Tim_the_Surveyor
Tim_the_Surveyor wrote on :
I love the updates... Now if airbases with resources at them would show up as something different. (or show be able to display aircraft)
Oh, and now that I can find all my troops, I would love to be able to sell a lot of them...
Oh, and now that I can find all my troops, I would love to be able to sell a lot of them...
Duh... I need to read other posts before commenting... I see in updates that I can sell em...
edited 1x / 22m
113)Posted by Boogra
Tim_the_Surveyor wrote on :
I actually like the ability to search sea units as well so to be able to "watch" certain units without having to leave an escort.
Yeah but its absurd for someone to be able to sit at his desk, eat bon bons and just look up random ID's for sea units and find other people's warships and transports. You can say goodbye to ever getting another sneak attack in that way.
114)Posted by Boogra
I LOVE THE UPDATES THAT ALLOW ME TO FIND MY UNITS!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you so much, Johnny. I think I had literally about 250 lost units. Let the migration begin.
Thank you so much, Johnny. I think I had literally about 250 lost units. Let the migration begin.
edited 1x / 3m
115)Posted by Elno_Wildclaw
Boogra wrote on :
Yeah but its absurd for someone to be able to sit at his desk, eat bon bons and just look up random ID's for sea units and find other people's warships and transports. You can say goodbye to ever getting another sneak attack in that way.
Well, theoretically, sneak attacks were NEVER possible, as it is impossible to hide your sea units. You have to rely on people being too lazy to scroll around all the oceans surrounding their base. And lets face it, we all eat bon bons while we're playing this game. or ramen noodles.
Boogra wrote on :
Please take the Sea Unit IDs out.
I actually changed the search after I posted last night to only perform a sea unit search a user's own units (unless/until I decide otherwise). I'm still not sure which route to go, so I leaned towards being overprotective.
117)Posted by QiKe
Is there an Option to sell bridges? that would be nice if it hasnt been implemented already.
I tried selling one of my bridges i made accidentally, but coudlnt figure it out. either im doing something wrong, or its not possible... yet
Feedback: awesome work. keep up the good updates!
I tried selling one of my bridges i made accidentally, but coudlnt figure it out. either im doing something wrong, or its not possible... yet
Feedback: awesome work. keep up the good updates!
edited 1x / 1m
118)Posted by Boogra
Elno_Wildclaw wrote on :
Well, theoretically, sneak attacks were NEVER possible, as it is impossible to hide your sea units. You have to rely on people being too lazy to scroll around all the oceans surrounding their base. And lets face it, we all eat bon bons while we're playing this game. or ramen noodles.
Ramen Noodles own face. I'm 41 (as of Friday) and still love the hell out of them.
QiKe wrote on :
Is there an Option to sell bridges?
No, but that wouldn't work because bridges aren't owned. Once you build one, it's there for anyone to use.
If anyone could sell a piece, then an enemy could (theoretically, though not practically) just sit a truck at the end of your bridge and sell off your last square as you build it. haha
If anyone could sell a piece, then an enemy could (theoretically, though not practically) just sit a truck at the end of your bridge and sell off your last square as you build it. haha
120)Posted by Tim_the_Surveyor
I think that you could add more options to construction trucks. Remove Bridges, lay both land and sea mines ( which would be invisible except to the person laying them as they would have a map of them). Sea mines would be laid from transport ships carrying a construction truck.
Because mine sweeping is so slow, and we aren't dealing with "people" it would just make sense to use infantry/empty transports as mine sweepers...
This would add some interesting elements to the game and make people think twice about attacking someone's land...
There is the thought of mines attacking similar to missiles that they would cause the most damage at their sector and collateral damage into the adjoining sectors.
Because mine sweeping is so slow, and we aren't dealing with "people" it would just make sense to use infantry/empty transports as mine sweepers...
This would add some interesting elements to the game and make people think twice about attacking someone's land...
There is the thought of mines attacking similar to missiles that they would cause the most damage at their sector and collateral damage into the adjoining sectors.
edited 1x / 3m
121)Posted by Boogra
Tim_the_Surveyor wrote on :
I think that you could add more options to construction trucks. Remove Bridges, lay both land and sea mines ( which would be invisible except to the person laying them as they would have a map of them). Sea mines would be laid from transport ships carrying a construction truck.
Because mine sweeping is so slow, and we aren't dealing with "people" it would just make sense to use infantry/empty transports as mine sweepers...
This would add some interesting elements to the game and make people think twice about attacking someone's land...
There is the thought of mines attacking similar to missiles that they would cause the most damage at their sector and collateral damage into the adjoining sectors.
Because mine sweeping is so slow, and we aren't dealing with "people" it would just make sense to use infantry/empty transports as mine sweepers...
This would add some interesting elements to the game and make people think twice about attacking someone's land...
There is the thought of mines attacking similar to missiles that they would cause the most damage at their sector and collateral damage into the adjoining sectors.
I like mines.
122)Posted by Boogra
Johnny wrote on :
No, but that wouldn't work because bridges aren't owned. Once you build one, it's there for anyone to use.
If anyone could sell a piece, then an enemy could (theoretically, though not practically) just sit a truck at the end of your bridge and sell off your last square as you build it. haha
If anyone could sell a piece, then an enemy could (theoretically, though not practically) just sit a truck at the end of your bridge and sell off your last square as you build it. haha
And if a player was stupid enough to allow a construction truck to sit there and scrap his newly built beautiful bridge, he'd deserve just that.
123)Posted by mikemcgraw3
Boogra wrote on :
Ramen Noodles own face. I'm 41 (as of Friday) and still love the hell out of them.
Gummie bears!
124)Posted by parandiac
Boogra wrote on :
And if a player was stupid enough to allow a construction truck to sit there and scrap his newly built beautiful bridge, he'd deserve just that.
building a bridge is instantaneous though. if i was bridging to your island, and laid the last piece in place, and you had a construction truck right there, you could get on after me and just simply remove it, and then it truly would be a Bridge to Nowhere.
I've tried to note/implement many of the requests people have made that I thought were good suggestions. If there's one you made that I liked or said I'd consider, can you please send me a note to remind me? I want to make sure I have them all recorded.
Start a New Thread
Global Triumph