CorranSec Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Vostok- I'm sure (or at least I'm hoping) that there will be plenty of different cloaked units in GB2, with their cloaks deriving from many different sources (eg. Jedi mind tricks, being underwater, personal cloaking device). I'm not making it 'not feasible to use in large groups.' I'm just not letting people use them in large groups. 10 snipers is the max you can produce. If some die, you can replace them, so you still have 10. But no more. Hmm... not sure about the 'revealed while moving.' It'll make fleeing and moving to the target much more difficult and more micro-intensive. You'll be moving your sniper over a large area of grasslands, and see a mech... Oh! Stop still! The mech passes, you keep going.... Ah! A fighter! Stop still! Meanwhile, you should have been orchestrating a small battle going on at your base, but you had to focus on your sniper. People will probably end up using some kind of air transport to carry the snipers around, which defeats the sniper's whole specialty of silent and unseen travel. Sith- I've said it a dozen times, and I'll say it again. Snipers will only wreck your economy if you're stupid enough to leave it completely uprotected (other than troopers). And I doubt anyone would leave their main base unprotected (which is where a lot of economy goes on). Sure, they pick on workers gathering resources away from any base or units, but isn't that what they're supposed to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Good frickin grief!!!!!!!!!!! In the first post where i listed what the sniper's attributes would be, i suggested that the sniper would be cloaked only while not moving, and now it's being suggested as a new idea! Anyway, Corran if you ever played RA2, you would know there is a unit like that, it's called the Mirage Tank. While moving it looks like a normal tank, but when stopped it looks like a tree (yes, odd but still...) This made the Mirage Tank perfect for infantry ambush's (it fired anti-infantry rounds) and worked much like i think you want your sniper. However due to it being very poor against armoured vehicles, and the fact that you couldnt give it AA defence without alerting your opponent, it was vulnerable and certainly not the mythical single weapon you could defeat your opponent with and hence there was no need for unit limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 It's not that bad with the cloaked-while-not-moving thing. they can wreck your econ but you can force them out in the open and kill it more easily then if it was always stealth. And come to think of it, a sniper without cloaking may not be overpowered but with everything that's been proposed to balance it out does not even achieve its goal. It will be a useless unit. i think we should lower its range a little bit and make them cloaked while not-moving. For once I agree with Windu... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Argh.... Why does everyone have this crazy idea that snipers are going to wreck economies? Once again.... Snipers will only wreck your economy if you're stupid enough to leave it completely uprotected (other than troopers). And I doubt anyone would leave their main base unprotected (which is where a lot of economy goes on). Sure, they pick on workers gathering resources away from any base or units, but isn't that what they're supposed to do? Luke's dad: You shouldn't be able to kill them easily. The sniper you've suggested sounds quite underpowered and far more useless than mine. Mine isn't useless, isn't underpowered, isn't overpowered and does its job well! How many times must I say it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Yeah, huge range is very important. Corran, I will NOT like to see personal cloaking devices. You cannot make cloaking devices small enough for them to be "personal". Captain Needa: "No ship that small has a cloaking device." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Vostok- well, maybe in EU you can... Okay then, perhaps the snipers are just quite stealthy in their movements. Does that sound fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Yeah, I get that snipers are stealthy. But you mentioned "personal cloaking devices" a few posts back and I was just saying "No". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Oh. Well, I thought it was a good idea. After all, if we're going to have cloaked things that aren't machines, Jedi or snipers, how's it going to work? It just seemed to be the most sensible thing to do at the time. And it would be possible. After all, what can be big can be small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Well what else would you want to be cloaked? The only things I can see that fit with Star Wars is this: Jedi with mind tricks Infantry with camouflage like snipers. Sure you could have your entire army cloaked but it won't be much good in terms of gameplay or realism. These two things, and not much else, work well in gameplay and realism with respect to being cloaked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 I'd want whatever I thought would be good cloaked to be cloaked. Can't we think of new things, rather than just going over what we've got right now? And you've forgotten about one thing that is in GB1 and would work well in GB2- the Gungan submersible Bongo. I plan to have quite a lot of them submersible naval units. And how about things like spy fighters? Infiltration war machines? And we haven't even begun to think about the Officer special skills yet.... Okay, so none of these require a personal cloaking device. But it's there, ready to be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 NO MORE CLOAKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dont know about anyone else, but one thing i dont want to see in GB2 is more cloaked units. It takes away realism and gameplay at the same time and would be rather stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 No 'more' cloaking? You couldn't have much less than is in GB1. What, may I ask, is so terrible about cloaking? It adds a whole new element of strategy into the game and is a lot of fun to use and deal with. It may slightly take away from realism, but gameplay>realism, and it greatly adds to gameplay. Why would it be 'rather stupid'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Okay, I forgot about submersibles. I actually think every civ should have a submersible. Apart from that and the other stuff I said, I also would not want any more cloaking. There are plenty of other games out their that have cloaking units. If gameplay is more important than realism, go play one of those games! But there aren't actually that many cloaking units in the movies, or for that matter in the EU as far as I know. You must remember this is a Star Wars game we are talking about, and some things won't go, even if they would be fun to play. Spy fighters? Infiltration war machines? On what Star Wars concept are you basing these? They are fine in other games, and I'm sure they exist in other games, but not a Star Wars game. Pummels and Cannons were understandable as they were left over from AoK, but adding these units with no grounding in Star Wars lore is just non-sensical. I say again: go play a game that has these things and don't try to get them into SWGB2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 But cloaking is fun and strategic, you must admit, and I like fun and strategic games. Don't you? Spy fighters: well, a while ago I composed a list of air units, and this was one of the fighters. But I think I called it the scout fighter. Basis in SW- In EU, plenty of different organisations have used fighters to sneak around enemies (or even allies) undetected. Infiltration war machines: Just an idea I had sometime when I was thinking about the Trojan Horse. They'd be cloaked and could carry 5 person-sized units. Useful to sneak around, then unload the troopers when vulnerable enemies are near. Basis in SW- Well, people have used some kind of 'war machine' to sneak up on enemies, and then jumped out of the war machine and attacked. But it's mostly just for gameplay reasons. Listen. There's going to be heaps of units just made up by the development team that don't have a basis in the movies or EU, but are good for gameplay and are used to fill up civs. Half the units in GB1 don't have a basis in SW, but they're still good to play the game with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Well I hope there isn't heaps of units made up by the development team. I want a real Star Wars experience, like I'm actually in the movies. I don't just want the same old thrills I can get from any RTS, I want a Star Wars RTS to be Star Wars, and only Star Wars. What made Force Commander such a bad game? I don't know as I never played it, but I will tell you the reason I didn't buy it. There was too much made up stuff. It didn't feel like the movies (or at least look like it from the back of the box), and that was what I wanted. So I didn't buy it. And to be perfectly honest, if SWGB2 has too much made up stuff, no matter how good the gameplay is I don't think I will buy it. I want a real Star Wars gaming experience, not just another RTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 You seem to be part of the minority who feels that way. Any of my friends would buy a good game and a good game before and overall it must be. The Star Wars feel although it must be there is not the main concern of any development team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 But this isn't just any old game, it's a Star Wars game, and to be true to the Star Wars genre there are restraints that I'm sure the developers understand. Sure, they take some liberties in areas, but they do understand these restraints and usually make every effort to stick to them. If you feel confined by these restraints then play another, less restrained game. Up until now I wasn't aware of a call for an Infiltration War Machine to make SWGB a better game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 I agree with Vostok here, what is the good in making a Star Wars game that is only loosly based on Star Wars? It then ceases to be a Star Wars game and just a generic RTS. If you want a game with lots of cloaked units and whatever, go play another game. This is Star Wars and hence the developer's should do whatever it takes to get a strong Starwarsyness feeling in the game. Corran - i dont have to agree with that, i actually disagree with that. Too much cloaking makes the game tedious, micro intensive and boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 oy I want a star wars feeling when i'm playing a star wars game. but those restraints shouldn't make the game suck and boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Vostok: Those "same old thrills" may just be what got WC3 game of the year and great reviews, so I'd be careful what you start throwing around. A 'real SW experience' will be striven for, but gameplay is always more important. A Star Wars RTS will be as Star Wars as it can get, with extras to fill out the gameplay. As Luke's dad said, you are the minority. The devs will spare no time for those such as you, seeing as most people will buy a good game, not matter how much made-up stuff there is. I'm sure that every other game company would take offense at that. I'm sure that Ensemble thinks "This isn't any old game, it's an Age game." I'm sure that Westwood thinks "This isn't any old game, it's Red Alert." They take liberties in the areas that make the game good, and it stays a SW game. An Infiltration War Machine won't suddenly make it not a Star Wars game. I'm sure that anyone who sees a lightsaber, a blaster and a jetpack will immediately think 'Star Wars game,' and they'll all be in GB2. There is a call for more good gameplay to make GB2 a better game, and the IWM will add to gameplay. So it'll make GB2 a better game. Windu: Wow! People really do overreact a lot. GB2 is not just loosely based on Star Wars. Okay, so I've suggested some units that have no basis in SW whatsoever. "Real Star Wars" units will be the grand majority. How can a simple IWM take away from the StarWarsyNess so much... If everything apart from GB1 is a "Generic RTS," I'm sure that the devs are wishing they made GB1 more like a Generic RTS, seeing as lots of "Generic RTS" games are simply better RTS games than GB1. We want a good Star Wars game and a good RTS. I'm sure they'll be able to co-exist. The developers should do whatever they want to make the gameplay entertaining, as long as it doesn't completely strip the game of being Star Wars. Am I removing the Star Wars title? No. Am I removing Jedi? No. Am I removing the Rebellion? No. I'm adding a single cloaked unit. What is so bad about a little bit of micro? As I said to Vostok, it means you actually have to think a little, and can be a lot of fun. And I can't see how it could get boring and tedious. Anyway, nobody's suggesting heaps of cloaked units. So far, I've put forward a cloaked sniper, an infiltration war machine, and submersible sea units. Not very much, I must say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Corran, what I'm saying is that it's possible to make both a great Star Wars game and a great RTS without resorting to having more completely made-up units along the lines of the pummel and cannon. Your example is fine. I'm sure while making Age of Kings Ensemble didn't say "Let's put in some stealth units" because they wouldn't fit in that sort of game. They might have made gameplay a bit more interesting, but that doesn't mean they are needed to make the game fun. I'm saying the same thing for Star Wars. Also, I don't see a gaping void in gameplay that needs to be filled by an Infiltration War Machine. And if GB2 was made with just a few of these "not Star Wars, but interesting all the same" units, it WOULD be loosely based on Star Wars. And stop suggesting I hate micro. I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Corran, for the record, Ensemble would rather have a good game than a game that uses things from the series. They just are able to have their cake and eat it too (see my sig) Sith- I've said it a dozen times, and I'll say it again. Snipers will only wreck your economy if you're stupid enough to leave it completely uprotected (other than troopers). And I doubt anyone would leave their main base unprotected (which is where a lot of economy goes on). Sure, they pick on workers gathering resources away from any base or units, but isn't that what they're supposed to do? You must not play MP. Units with the ability to deal devastation to workers from afar without being seen is the absolute bane to economies. I'm still wondering even if the current status (without cloak) is overpowered sheerly by being accurate over a long range. Other cloaking stuff-Windu is 100% correct. Cloaking detracts way too much from the fun of the game. It was cool with the jedi because the ability was expensive and it gave them some orgininality and individuality. It was cool with the gungan friagtes becuase all frigates have detection. It was questionable with the Starfighter, but it made up for its low combat abilities and gave the starfighter the role it was designed for-spying. It is suicidal, from a balance standpoint and from a Gameplay over Realism standpoint concerning snipers. And it is beyond suicidal for anything else. See the trend? Good. Too much cloak=bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Vostok: Well, it seemed to me like you were considering all games but Star Wars as not worrying about what they include. I must have misunderstood. Sorry. It's not a gaping void in gameplay. It's just something that I think would improve gameplay. No, the couple of units would be loosely based on Star Wars. The game would be a Star Wars game. Is the current game loosely based on Star Wars? I was suggesting that Windu hates micro. Which he does. Sith: I'm not sure whether that Ensemble comment was supporting me or not. Anyway.... I play MP. But you're making the assumption that all economies consist solely of workers far, far away from the main base, with absolutely no protection (other than troopers). They don't. Other cloaking stuff- Although you agreeing with Windu is a historical moment, I'm going to have to rebut you all the same. You're basing your argument on the balance and gameplay of the current game. GB2 is going to be a lot different. You have absolutely no idea how the cloaks you mentioned will work in GB2, and you haven't experienced any other cloaking units, so you can't really pass judgement. I'm being optimistic and trying to create balance. You're taking away from a balance that doesn't even exist yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Well I don't think the inclusion of such a unit would improve gameplay. I personally believe a better strategist is someone who makes do with what he's got. If you have a huge variety of units with an impressive array af special abilities, you don't really need to be a master strategist to win. That's one of the things I like about SWGB, is the lack of special abilities. Sure, special abilities are fun to play with, but real battles are won not with special abilities but with good old fighting. This is certainly the case in Star Wars (at least in the movies). Note that by special abilities I mean cloaking, spells in WarCraft, and so forth. We only really have Jedi with special abilities, which makes them all the more characterful, apart from a few unique units or technologies. If only a few units have special abilities, they stand out as being special. If lots have special abilities, they tend to not be as interesting when you get a special ability. And if only a few have special abilities, we would probably want them to be from the movies, or at the very least EU, since these special units will stand out. I've rambled again, but there is a few points above opposing such non-Star Wars units as you are suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Jedi Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 That is a good idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.