Newerth Forums

Savage XR => Re-balancing Suggestions => Topic started by: Daemon on September 09, 2014, 08:38:16 pm



Title: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on September 09, 2014, 08:38:16 pm
After more than 7 years of unchanged Savage gameplay on the brink of turning dull, XR 1.1 was the patch that added those changes (http://www.newerth.com/smf/index.php/topic,14982.0.html) that were suggested and debated by the community, reviewed, tweaked and ultimately accepted or rejected by a group of 5 Newerth admins.

Along with those changes, as expected by everybody with at least a vestige of intelligence left, comes the need to tweak, after mass testing. There's also the occasional 'it-wasn't-implemented-properly' situation, so yeah... :)

These are the changes that made it to Standard gameplay. List will be kept up to date.

* Healing tech research costs and duration decreased: buildings, units, abilities, items cost and build time down by 50%.
* Monastery/Sanctuary can be built first, they now do not require Arsenal/Nexus in order to be unlocked.
* Rupture improved: 50% increase in ammo, damage rounded to 90 (compared to tempest's 170), +10% larger splash damage area, 10% bonus damage to all enemies in the area it hits, for each enemy it touches and up to 3 enemies per shot (1=100%, 2=120%, 3=130%).
* Mana Crystal, while still slowly recharging mana when carried, became a consumable. It can be thrown like disruptors, it breaks on impact and produces 3 pickable mana crystal goodies (45 mana refill).
* Sensors are now stackable, max 2 in a single slot. Total team sensors changed from 15 to 16.
* Players carrying Ammo Pack now refill ammo over the 50% limit when picking up ammo boxes.
* Sprinting costs 20% less stamina, for all the foot units of both races.
* Sixth Sense now highlights low HP enemies close by, that are less than 1 melee hit away from death, in addition to revealing enemies just like before.
* Shamans have a 2nd melee combo hit, making them a little more combat worthy.
* Chaplains' potions now increase the mana regeneration rate for friendly units (other chaps).
* Two new buildings have been added (Outpost and Burrow) that act as one-way doors or field resupply stations.
* Chaplains and Shamans get the 5th slot open for the aquisition of normal items (not weapons).
* 2 new types of goodie drops from killed units: 10% HP for humans, and 20% Stamina for beasts.
* Sacrifice is removed upon entering a spawnpoint. Can't change unit and spawn with sac still on anymore.
* Behemoth hitting a democharge now causes it to explode instantly.
* Behemoth's ability to capture flags has been removed, aligning them with the other siege units.
* Level 7+ legionnaires can now block a behemoth and be left with ~20% HP.
* Blocking a behemoth and surviving has a downside: the lego's speed is reduced by 20% for 3 seconds.
* Nomad's invulnerability after ejecting from a siege unit is removed.
* Ejecting from a siege unit (cata/balli) drops gold for the other team (or the last attacker).
* The gold income siege units receive for hitting buildings has been doubled.
* Siege units killing foot soldiers does not produce goodiebag drops any longer.
* Ballista has been given Sprint, with 50% of the stamina of a non-siege unit.
* Workers' behavior has been changed so that they ignore attacks if they have a valid order active.

In the following post i will begin with the issues that i've noticed or have been reported or suggested to me since the release of XR 1.1. This is the correct thread everyone can continue reporting such issues or suggest further changes and tweaks.

But before posting anything, pause and think about these aspects:
1. REPLYING TO ANYTHING IS FORBIDDEN. This thread is strictly used as a suggestions collector. The coherent ones will be posted as independent topics where discussions can and will occur.
2. EVERYTHING MUST BE PUT INTO CONTEXT. We're trying to re-balance the re-balancing, so make sure your suggestions take into account the full picture, especially after the new changes.
3. THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOUR INDIVIDUAL STYLES. If i even smell you're posting something so that if implemented, will help you frag more, i will delete it and you can call "bloody murder!" for all i care.
4. NOT EVERY SUGGESTION WILL MAKE IT. This time there's no set template but make sure you explain your reasons and suggestion properly if you want it to become a topic.
5. BUFFING AN ITEM/UNIT MEANS BUFFING A TEAM. Changing anything for the sake of "making it more usable" will also impact how its team will perform overall. So use small steps, tiny increments, and COMPENSATIONS.

These are the conditions. Posting here implies you agreed with them.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here for second generation re-balancing issues
Post by: Daemon on September 09, 2014, 09:01:06 pm
Imperfect implementations:
-Mana stone uses the "manaAdd 1" state property which adds 1 Mana per regeneration tick. Since Shamans have high regen rate, that 1 Mana is added insanely often because of the change that allows them to equip items now.

Suggested tweaks:
-Extra Drops (stamina crystal and health potion) should have increased refill bonuses, making them worth the trouble of getting in the heat of the battle.
-Outpost and Burrow should be constructed in less time so that they become an acceptable alternative to kamikaze runs (ex: 4 nomads build an Outpost, then grab ballis and do a lair run).

Possible imbalances:
-Chaplains are supposedly still not a good match for Shamans. They're not battle worthy and do not offer a high level of field combat support.
-Although nerfed by removing ejecting nomads invulnerability and the gold drop at eject, sprinting for Ballista supposedly causes the siege unit to turn "too fast".

Suggested changes:

-Ammo pack becomes droppable. Initially suggested for Chaplains only, in order to boost their support value by carrying extra ammo to fighters.

Let's wait for a few more ideas before starting threads, since now things are surely going to be connected more than before. Thank you.


Title: Changelog
Post by: Nanaa on September 10, 2014, 04:18:04 pm
Suggested change:
-If you block a behemoth and survive, you'll get a debuff which lowers your speed by 20% but also prevents you from jumping for 3 seconds. The jump prevention should be removed. This change would keep beheflying as a semi-worthy transportation method instead of pretty much worthless. Jumping is needed so that you can continue bunnyhopping after you land and make the full use of your momentum.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: SavageLegacy on September 10, 2014, 07:34:05 pm
Suggested change:
-If you block a behemoth and survive, you'll get a debuff which lowers your speed by 20% but also prevents you from jumping for 3 seconds. The jump prevention should be removed. This change would keep beheflying as a semi-worthy transportation method instead of pretty much worthless. Jumping is needed so that you can continue bunnyhopping after you land and make the full use of your momentum.
Seconded.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on September 10, 2014, 08:24:09 pm
To be investigated:
-Rupture may have accidentally suffered a decrease in damage inflicted to siege units.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Nanaa on September 11, 2014, 04:26:51 pm
To be removed:
Remove the gold bags that drop from buildings. They are only worth like 1-10 gold pieces.

[Edit by Daemon] Or perhaps raise the value!


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: JmZ on September 11, 2014, 10:36:46 pm
Ballista's sprint should not work on turns due to it becoming incredibly difficult to avoid any lista as beast anymore.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Ophelia on September 12, 2014, 02:05:53 am

Worker Ideas
-Be able to buff workers? (1 Buff Per Worker if there are buffs in pool)
-Send Beast workers through gate?
 (compensates the 3rd buff humans have if the above comes to pass)

- Workers 'Level' up with Stronghold?
Currently it is -
 (workers = 325 hp // lvl 1 nomad = 250 hp // lvl 1 savage =400hp)
Perhaps adjust workers to something like this?
Level 1 Stronghold- 325 hit points // Level 2 Stronghold 350 hit points // Level 3 Stronghold - 375 hit points

- Workers slowly heal over time - or Officer/AO Regin heals workers as well?

- Give workers a 'passive / aggressive' mode.  (Running away or Attacking Back)



Outpost Ideas

- Building provides 'gold over time' that is only activated by commander. It's like a store right?
 (Think Sawmill without stone that can be turned on/off - cap at 50k like team?)
 (Or only active if TEAM gold is under 50% of team gold. 25k or below in most cases)

- Make workers be able to enter it as well / or be able to spawn workers for no price.
- Allow it to heal players and/or workers over time - (Not siege units)
- When repairing the outpost with workers - it costs 0% funds from teams resources.



-Due to the fact 'listas now have sprint (this also includes 360 spins) consider giving Summoner Melee again?
Even if minimal/low damage it was in beta (so I know it's possible)
 It's the ONLY beast unit that does not Melee....(not able to cap a flag though)

-When a pile of bodies build up - so do the drops  - is there a way to limit this in a closed area?
(Example: spawn points // Choke Points // Flags - only so many drops can hold up space in XXX area on map)

-On minimap - target is Blue  - target is Cyan when playing. Is this on purpose?

-When the audible  name 'bleep' sound comes up - is it possible to disable the chat sound FOR that line?
It is hard to hear WITH it. (Barley noticed it till someone pointed it out)




 Change the color of the names of the people 'buddy list' - on the team scores tab?   :mrgreen:
(Example, you see yourself as yellow - can your buddies be blue or whatever else...?)


(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b48/firzt_lady/ShamanShield.gif) That is all I got right now, and sorry if how I explain this wrong - or misunderstood. Just giving feedback on things I feel could be noted a bit more, thanks!!




Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Shagroth on September 12, 2014, 05:41:57 pm
Suggested tweak:
Concerning demo and the ability to make it invulnerable by dropping it and standing still in the same spot on it.
make it slightly tossable so it won't land in the same spot as you stand? or find cmd that allows you to hit it while someone is standing on it.

not exactly patch concerning fix as its pre-patch, but it needs a fix anyway.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Hakugei on September 22, 2014, 07:04:02 pm
The re-balancing suggestion:
Elec, mag, chem, fire and heal buff reworked.

1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
Aforementioned buffs changed from single-person use to team-based use.
Whoever gets (or uses) the buff, shall receive an attached state (much like officer state) that buffs everyone within a certain AoE range. However, the individual effect would be reduced accordingly to compensate having multiple targets buffed.
Electric - everyone in range gets x1.5 or x2.0 melee damage. (Down from x3.) 2 hit instead of 1 hit kills.
Magnetic - everyone in range gets 25%-33% damage reduction. (Down from 80%.)
Chemical - everyone in range gets x1.25 speed. (Down from x1.5.)
Strata - everyone in range gets health, stamina and mana regen equivalent of 50%-100% of their max respectively. (Down from 100% instantly.)
Fire - everyone in range gets a small fire buff that deals less damage than the original, but procs just as often and is unblockable.
Entropy - might as well remain the same, as it's already a team-based thing.

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
The amount of annoyance and grief these buffs cause to players.
More often than not, buffs are used to kill enemies for self-gratification.
Rarely are they used to help the team or win the game.
Too often are they also wasted by selfish players that just want to get a single kill in a situation they shouldn't even be fighting in.
Also, players who focus on stats too much and neglect that there's an actual goal to the game.

3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
Remove a portion of grief caused by individualists seeking self-gratification.
Shift the focus away from single-person use to actual team-based tactical use.
Giving coordinated teams a bit of a reward, while punishing selfish individual-based teams.

The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).

Attacking with coordinated and efficient team pushes will become easier.
Defending against coordinated and efficient team pushes will become harder.
Already strong individualists will have a harder time using buffs to pad their ego further.
Team coordination in general should become easier if these new buffs are officer-only - as it means people will group up more.
Solo-saccing shields will become harder.
Team-saccing will become easier (e.g. snipe-saccing key tech, or shielded towers).

5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
Since newbies don't really use buffs, I don't think this change will make it any harder for them.
On the other hand, just staying close to the officer/one-buffing means they'll get a little boost as well; thus perhaps making it a bit easier for them at times (but this should balance out by the enemies also getting these little boosts once in a while).

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.

Buff costs, buff duration, and general number-tweaking.
May even consider having these buffs on own state slots and thus not overwriting themselves; allowing you to combine them for a "super team push".

7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
None.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: SavageLegacy on September 23, 2014, 12:21:59 pm
I do think that buffs (particularly human ones) are a bit overpowered in terms of solo fights, I think that they are very necessary in the game currently. The buffs being centered around teamwork are a good idea, but there are just too many games I can think of in which teamwork is simply not an option, particularly in pubs when you have a team that just does not want to work together. Buffs currently play a huge role in ending games, and with these changes I'd imagine there would be many more stalemates, which I'm fairly certain is the opposite of what is wanted. As stringer and you pointed out, it also makes shield saccing nigh on impossible, which is also a huge aspect of the game. Another thing is that it would make it much harder to kill bases which have spires all over, as mag and elec have a much smaller effect, and often spires can only be reached by one person, even when traveling in a group. Perhaps you could implement a setting in which buffs are nerfed after a certain distance away from buildings? This would discourage player on player buffing, and while certainly not a wholesome fix, it could be a temporary solution. For huge aspects of the game like this, I think small changes should be made at a time, rather than one big change that could drastically change the game.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on September 23, 2014, 01:09:05 pm
1. REPLYING TO ANYTHING IS FORBIDDEN. This thread is strictly used as a suggestions collector. The coherent ones will be posted as independent topics where discussions can and will occur.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: jazzking on September 23, 2014, 06:09:44 pm
The re-balancing suggestion:
All self-buffs (not comm buffs) result in death 1 minute after.

1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
Applies to all buffs, all units. Perhaps it could be called "died by exhaustion".

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
See Haku's previous suggestion.

3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
Buffs used less for 1v1 situtations stat whoring.

The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Very long solo teamplay missions would be harder. Would need to use group to penetrate into base. Comms who use buffs more actively will help team more than comms who leave it up to team.

5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
Veterans will have a harder time stat whoring.

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
Potentially ensure that death takes place even when the player is in loadout (similar to outpost).

7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
None.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Hakugei on September 25, 2014, 02:51:10 pm
Suggested tweak:
Concerning demo and the ability to make it invulnerable by dropping it and standing still in the same spot on it.
make it slightly tossable so it won't land in the same spot as you stand? or find cmd that allows you to hit it while someone is standing on it.


Suggested tweak:
Make demolition charge a physical object with a proper bounding box, thus making units not clip through it anymore (which should be what's causing the trace problem).

EDIT: Testing shows that item objects don't seem to care for collision quite the same way.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: SavageBeard on October 19, 2014, 04:08:52 pm
Suggestion:

Give commanders the power to enable/disable spawning from garrisons/sublairs. This will give them a better chance to direct their forces.  :mrgreen:


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on October 19, 2014, 04:37:33 pm
Suggestion:

Give commanders the power to enable/disable spawning from garrisons/sublairs. This will give them a better chance to direct their forces.  :mrgreen:

We tried, it's not working.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: SavageBeard on October 19, 2014, 08:31:09 pm
You couldn't make it work, or it didn't work out?


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on October 19, 2014, 08:56:54 pm
Technically speaking, you cannot convince a single spawnpoint to stop being a spawnpoint without a huge amount of work. It's either all spawnpoints or none.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: APirateHat on October 19, 2014, 10:48:04 pm
1. REPLYING TO ANYTHING IS FORBIDDEN. This thread is strictly used as a suggestions collector. The coherent ones will be posted as independent topics where discussions can and will occur.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: blackdeath on November 27, 2014, 05:01:12 am
Hello Savages

This is my balance/fix suggestion

1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.

The reversion of demolition charge and Behemoth to pre XR 1.1, with one exception. The ability to (diffuse) Demolition Charge with weapons, using existing code.

(technical)
Code:
   objedit human_demo_pack
   objset meleeOnlyVulnerable 0

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)

point 1:
Demolition Charge killed the behemoth unit within a reasonable proximity before and still does if it is not (detonated) by the behemoth unit. The detonation via Behemoth does less damage than if the charge was to detonate when its time expired.
point 2:
If the balance patch was to address the (gameplay) problem of overuse of behemoths to defend (camp) and prevent "demo runners", I believe it failed and even perhaps made the issue worse. Its become very easy to hit demolition charges at a distance to thus decrease the damage, and also it almost always kills the human guarding it.
point 3:
The old issue of blocking access to the charge is still possible even without blocking and despite the random throw of the charge in any direction, as you simply have to watch where it falls and stand on it.
point 4:
The discrepancy in damage I think adds a lot of confusion around populated games with multiple Behemoths, where some walk up to a demo on its 10th second and get killed, while others hitting demos (new ability) take approximately 75% of their full health in damage. I think that the damage of an item such as demolition charge should be consistent.

3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).

The use of weapons to diffuse demos would give beast race some gameplay regarding defence, other than having to stand back while a human/possibly mag buffed/possibly block spamming/possibly waiting for a block to electrify you. The behemoth diffusing a charge in one hit at least made sense as all melee units could previously and to exclude one seems complicated (especially for new players).

The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).

As my request is a reversion of the patch, the last 7 years of savage would answer that, with the exception of the weapons diffusing charges. The (beast) weapons I feel are a little underused if not a little underpowered, so perhaps this would give them more purpose that's the usual behemoths camping around to diffuse demos.

5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.

I think firstly, It would make more sense to newbies, and secondly it would eliminate the massive team damage caused by very new players (who needs vets to rage anymore at newbies).

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.

Perhaps the 1 hit of Behemoth unit to diffuse a charge is still OP (Over Powered), as a counter then perhaps 2 melee hits with its uprooted tree would suffice -as 3 is too slow withing 10 seconds (the demolition charge timer).

7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).

As above (mind you, I've tested all beast weapons with a helpful human to stand on it, and some weapons are better than others, but all will do the job sufficiently.

sorry if this has already been suggested, and if so at least maybe i can offer a seconding.
Thanks for your time.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Storky on January 19, 2015, 09:10:01 am
Hello guys and girls, this is my suggestion about Landmines and Fire Wards wastage problem.

Right placing provides significant influence to the battle. But usually its wasted in random corners of the map and cannot be reused.

Suggestion: expiring time ~ 5 minutes for each mine.

Pros: abandoned landmines/fireWards will back to the store;
more players will get experience using it;
makes all mines work and be controlled

Cons: none.

What do you think about it?


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: -LioN- on March 13, 2015, 01:58:17 pm
NVM


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: jazzking on March 18, 2015, 12:43:40 pm
Give summs a breathing sound.

What:
Make summs produce a breathing sound when they stand still, which humans walking by can notice just like they notice with preds.

Why:
Games are slowed down by summ camping/hiding, which is actually quite effective and annoying but does nothing for the team. It furthermore reduces the fun factor and siege killing units in general is known to have caused a lot of players to get tired of the game. It will also have zero effect on the intended use of summoners: buildings.

How:
Probably easiest is to modulate an existing breathing sound a bit.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: SOMA on March 18, 2015, 05:30:41 pm
good idea jazz

i have a question just want to say it in this replay ...

what if we can spectate commander .. or same view


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Moxy on March 25, 2015, 04:23:48 pm
Would love to be able to spec commander and see what he is doing


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: jazzking on March 25, 2015, 07:09:17 pm
The commander's vision and mouse are not sent to the server. But at least a commander view mode similar to commander replays could be done. That way you could see building readyness, HP, resource counts, and vision easily.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Tjens on March 31, 2015, 08:15:29 am
Give summs a breathing sound.

What:
Make summs produce a breathing sound when they stand still, which humans walking by can notice just like they notice with preds.

Why:
Games are slowed down by summ camping/hiding, which is actually quite effective and annoying but does nothing for the team. It furthermore reduces the fun factor and siege killing units in general is known to have caused a lot of players to get tired of the game. It will also have zero effect on the intended use of summoners: buildings.

How:
Probably easiest is to modulate an existing breathing sound a bit.

Great idea! I like the a-symmetry of Bali's making noice when moving while summoners makes noice standing still! It's a nice little tweak that could be eazy to implent. I'll try and distort the regular breathing sound for beasts this week, but bare with me - I'm not a sound designer at all!!


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Vectile on April 08, 2015, 01:47:26 pm
Tjens told me to move topic here :)

Just a suggestion to stop the loss of games through early map control  :mine:
If a T2 worker is collecting Red-stone and a T1 player kills the worker carrying the Red-stone to the Lair or Sub then the Red-stone could be droppable for T1 to pick up like Gold or Health ?

Would make early invades more common and stop complete halts to the game when a commander didn't mean to use so much Red-stone and cant access a mine ?!   :knuppel: :mine:


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on September 22, 2015, 07:38:36 pm
The re-balancing suggestion: Introducing deathlimits (number of deaths the team can have in total) for all races. Can be bougth with gold trough beasts' Sanctuary building and human's Monastery building.  250 gold for each death.

1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
Every game starts with (lets say 150 deaths) possible for each team. If your team is out of deaths, you cant spawn. You team will be slaughtered as they become alive on the map, and eventually you will die. The comm can buy more "deaths" for his team in the sanctuary/monastery building for a, lets say 250 gold (needs to be tested/discussed) for each death. There should also be a maximum amount of deaths that can be bought, depending on what lvl your sh/stronghold is. That will mean for 100 deaths for his team, the comm have to buy deaths for 25000 gold from the team gold. The deathlimits that each team have should be possible to see when when pressing TAB, maybe besides teamscores would be good. It shall also be possible to see the deathlimites for your team in the spawn-window, where you select unit and weapons etc.  

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
Long games with one team gold-starving and other team pushing, but no breaktrough. Commanders who get passive after some time (all tech researched) and dont ever try to change the gold-economical part of the game. Ask any commander how often he change the tax-rate for his team? once, or maybe tvice troughout the game, just for building shields/towers/spires. This will encourage commanders to take more care of the gold-income every know and then for the team.

3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
This is a new way for a team to loose, in a way you can call it an economical way of loosing. It's also a way of avoiding draws, and avoiding long games. If a team manages to kill the other teams sanctuary/monastery building, it can be game-winning over time. It's in a way realistic, considering monastery and sanctuary can be considered "religious" buildings, and the commander using tax-money to make "sacrifices" (buy more deaths) in the buildings for getting the gods on their side, makes sense. If the gods dont like you because you dont make sacrifices (your team runs out of deaths), you loose!


The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Will be harder to be commander, but also more interesting late game. Monastery and sanctuary buildings will be built more in cover and safe areas of base. Will make monastery/sanctuary tech more likely to be researched, since these buildings will have to get built for a team to survive in the long run. Will make players more responsible in terms of wasting gold/dying often. Encourages smarter playing for both teams. Can increase reloccing among humans, but on the counter side- if they have a lot of deaths and beasts dont, they will maybe push more to kill sanctuary building. Will also give the religious buildings a real-time purpose troughtout the games besides providing healer tech.

5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
Will be harder to be commander. Can be more newbie friendly, considering players will be more encouraged to get gold for their team.

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
As beasts often die more often than humans since they dont have the reloc, their deathlimits can be different for each tier, slightly higher. Ie:
SH lvl 1: 150 deaths. Lair lvl 1: 170 deaths
SH lvl 2: 200 deaths. Lair lvl 2: 220 deaths
SH lvl 3: 250 deaths. Lair lvl 3: 270 deaths

As an alternative way of buying deaths for your team beasts can:
Death by sacrifice among beasts doesn't affect number of deaths on the deathlimit, or even better: Death gives +1 in deathlimit (its a sacrifice to the gods,you suicided for them, right?)

Gold dropped from dead enemies in general, should maybe be made higher in general, considering the increased gold-expenses for the team for buying deathlimits.

7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
Chaplins and shamans shall not be able to revive anyone if deathlimit is full (you team cant respawn before more deaths have been bought!). Will maybe encourage mapmapkers to make use of goldmines near the bases more often.

Note: This will definately demand changes for the coding of the game. The aim is not to make savage a deathmatch-mode, but giving the "pushing" or dominant team the chance to win other ways than killing a sometime, indestructible shield.

Edit: This could maybe be made as a server-mod, or used in ie. competetive battles, since it is more teamplay demanding. Posting here, but please move it to modding ideas if this idea is unfit for this place  :-)


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on September 22, 2015, 08:05:42 pm
1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
Alternative tax-rates for officers.
2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
Sometimes teams have skilled officers, with excellent k/d ratios, giving way more money to the team than other players. Sometimes teams also have newbies, dying often and beeing a huge economical expenses. It would be beneficial for a teams economy to take higher taxes from those who earn more, and less tax from those who earn less. Remember that the second you earn gold over 15k (on G & G's server) all the gold you earn automatically goes to the team account, so the chance only applies when your personal gold is below 15k, for each player.

3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
The purpose is to give the commander more tools to controll teams' economical gold earnings, trough different tax-rates by differentiating between what each player gives in tax to the team-gold.

The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Will makes gold-amount among players more equally divided, even though some players earn more gold to the team than others. Ofcourse the commander can choose to make it the opposite- officers pay no tax and normal players pay 80 % (!). Commanders will have better chance to get many bali's to spawn in a bali-rush if he raises tax's for officers some time before the garr is down (given that officers have higher taxes).


5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
if default setting is 70 % tax for both officers and normal players, newbies wont notice, nor officers. However, a skilled commander can make sure team economy is flowing more effectively and thereby makes gold more available to newbies trough team gold and make them consequently, enjoy their game more. Will make it h


The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
no changes needed. If the tax-rate is equal among the two group by default, gameplay will be normal.


7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).



Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on September 22, 2015, 08:57:35 pm
Taking money from people that can earn it, and giving it to the people that can waste it. That seems the opposite of helping.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on September 22, 2015, 09:42:23 pm
Taking money from people that can earn it, and giving it to the people that can waste it. That seems the opposite of helping.

Indeed, I see your point. Ofcourse a newbie that spawns cata all the time and dies all the time can be catastrophical to the team economy, and even without earning his own money. However, that's also why i've written that default tax-rate should be equal for all groups. So, the commander can change the tax-rates for different groups whenever he need it, ie. when he needs money for his officers to do chainsac or for for the normal people to be able to balispawn when a sneak garr goes up. It's merely a suggested, economical tool for a commander to use.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Stringer on September 22, 2015, 11:41:55 pm
Once that pro guy reach 15k gold, he will give everything he earns to the team anyway.
I see no reason to punish him with higher taxes before that point.

And in gold-starve situation, you'd want best players on your team to have more gold, not less.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Crashday on September 23, 2015, 01:41:51 pm
Can we do something about mag buff users standing on demos? Maybe increase demo hitbox?


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on September 23, 2015, 03:02:40 pm
And in gold-starve situation, you'd want best players on your team to have more gold, not less.

In a gold starve situation, there is really only a few players on the team who have gold. Only the best players will be able to maintain a stable gold-income, regardless if their bankaccount is under or over 15K.  In a gold-starve situation, often the team is under pressure or loosing the pressure on the enemy team, fewer people are in the field and more is monkit-whoring.

In a behetrain situation on kinixx, where humans are gold starving- do you want only your best players to be able to buy equipment? Dont you think even those normal players/newbies should be able to buy a pulse gun?

And besides, why figth this change when it isn't even direct? I'm talking about giving the commander the option to controll tax, it's not like every commander will be clever and smart enough to do it. Not to mention- the re-balancing done the past have mainly focused on the gameplay in the field. Very few changes and improvements have been made for the commander position in savage. yes, tech have been changed and reduced cost/building time, but there really havent' been any strategical changes for commanders on both sides in terms of the options in controlling the teams economy. Do you deny that more controll of the teams gold  economy from the commander position, can be crucial and even game-winning tactically for a team , with a skillfull commander  ?


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Stringer on September 23, 2015, 07:50:05 pm
Somehow you're under impression those 'skilled' players make gold out of thin air. It's not like that.
When humans on kinixx are goldstarved, no player, no matter how good will have abundance of gold.
And if all gold my whole team have can only buy me 5 pulse guns, I'd rather give them to those who will make the best use of them.

As for commander gold control, commanders already have that, in form of tax and gold limit manipulation.
More control could be good, but only if it easy to manage - no sane guy will bother separately regulating taxes for each of his players.

Problem is, using officer status will not work: high officers tax for a prolonged period of time will just make each officer type /demoteofficer and get rid of officer status.
I definitely will.
And generally, such strategy will make players to NOT want to be officers. Which is bad.

So by setting tax higher the commander will not only fail to achieve better gold control, but will also strip his own team off officer marks.
I agree though, that short-term increase of tax for better players to prepare for siege rush seems like a better way than closing off gold completely.

However, I think what will in fact happen is exact opposite.

Currently, when team is goldstarved and comm sees a good player as scav/nomad, he will often just give them gold, dipping into team gold reserve. I've been given gold many times like this, without asking for it.
So if you give a commander control about officer tax, he will just make sure officers get more gold. And will close gold for everyone else if needed. Simple as that.

To me, idea of setting higher tax for better players doesn't make much sense, because ultimately it makes your team weaker.

However, if I was to speculate, I'd rather propose dynamic tax - the more gold you already have, the higher the tax.
With commander being able to specify minimum tax.
That will not only make better players share more, that will also make them care more about picking up gold, because it will be harder to reach 15k.
The only downside would be that in case of whole team having no gold, no tax income will flow to commander to replace shields etc.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Gridfon on September 24, 2015, 03:55:22 am
Introducing deathlimits (number of deaths the team can have in total) for all races.
Neither deaths, nor kills should matter. The goal of the game is to kill the enemy base. Unfortunately, there are still way too many people whose only goal is to get considerably more kills than deaths; I would hate to see the number of such people increase.

Your proposal would also make commanding harder. We have always wanted the opposite - more people capable of commanding. It would also raise the degree of hate against first-time newbs that come online to have scores like 0-40. It would also make it easy to grief your commander/team, just by spawning at SH and typing /kill (need only 10 minutes to get 0-40 with a 15 second respawn timer). P.S. You can multi-client to speed up the process.

Can we do something about mag buff users standing on demos? Maybe increase demo hitbox?

Yes, it's a game-breaking mechanic that (I extensively use myself and that) I would love to see changed. I remember there is a topic somewhere where many possible solutions were proposed, and most of them discarded as bad.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on September 28, 2015, 07:10:51 pm
To me, idea of setting higher tax for better players doesn't make much sense, because ultimately it makes your team weaker.
However, if I was to speculate, I'd rather propose dynamic tax - the more gold you already have, the higher the tax.
With commander being able to specify minimum tax.
That will not only make better players share more, that will also make them care more about picking up gold, because it will be harder to reach 15k.
Thank you for your constructive opinion.  :-)  However, you seem to forget that if officers and normal players have different tax levels, the commander can use the tax-rates the opposite way aswell- giving the normal players more tax and less tax for the officers.

To devs/ anyone who bother to read:
Another thing Imiss in the commander seat is the possibility to see the teamscores. I haven't found any other way than to resign and pressing tab. This is something I would consider rather useful info for a commander, you can call it a picture of how well the team is doing. Is there any chance to get this up besides gold/redstone amount in the HUD for commander?

Neither deaths, nor kills should matter. The goal of the game is to kill the enemy base. Unfortunately, there are still way too many people whose only goal is to get considerably more kills than deaths; I would hate to see the number of such people increase.

Your proposal would also make commanding harder. We have always wanted the opposite - more people capable of commanding. It would also raise the degree of hate against first-time newbs that come online to have scores like 0-40. It would also make it easy to grief your commander/team, just by spawning at SH and typing /kill (need only 10 minutes to get 0-40 with a 15 second respawn timer). P.S. You can multi-client to speed up the process.

Deaths and kills does allready count, indirectly. You just dont normally think about it in the game. Once again, we can use the kinixxx gold starve example regarding beherushes. Dont you realize that if a team cant spawn, there will be about minuts or seconds before their base falls unnless someone get gold into the account for the commander to buy. This can actually be the start for the end of draws, if it get implemented the rigth way. This will encourage teamwork more, and for a commander it is also more skillrewarding. Today, it's not skillrewarding enough. It's not like you have any favorite commander, rigth? I dont, that's for sure. There is very few commanders in savage who have a unusual commanding style. There's only one I can think off on the run, and that is Ale (who does his burrow rushes, noone else uses them much).

Regarding the issue about multiclients taking team gold: add individual gold- enforce level for players. If player "A" is a douchebag and wants to ruin his teams economy, put enforced gold on 40.000 for him, and only for him. The rest of the players can use gold below 40.000, but he cant. This is a side-change, but overall, this will also be a very usefull tool for any kind of commander. In a way, the commander can guide the stupid newbie more that way ( if it is a newbie dying with cata all the time).

Regarding the chance for increased camping I'd have to say no, but I understand your fear for why it will increase camping. I can see no direct reason for why it should increase camping, when the suggested deathlimits I mentioned is as high as 150 just on tier 1, and as high as 250 on tier 3, it will normaly be the commander who worries about the limits. Can you tell me when and why a player will think: "I'm gonna camp. the deathlimit is low". He ain't gonna camp. He is gonna go kill monkits or kill some enemies, because his commander will order him to get gold to buy new deaths when the number gets close to max. If the commander doesnt do his job, he will get impeached and someone else will get elected to do the job. Yes, commanding will be harder.

But no offense, if commanding is very newbie friendly, there is only the fps/melee combat in savage left which is skill-rewarding. Savage is far more famous for its FPS-part than its RTS-part. Why not make RTS better? This will also, in the long run make commanding more fun as a part of the whole commanding experience. Commanders will need to plan when to buy deaths, before or after an offensive push? before, during or after the fwd-sub is killed? There is a reason the expression "go train on a empty server" excist, because players wont be happy with a incompetent, newbie commander.

Besides, when a team have bougth new amount of deaths (25000 for 100 deaths), it will have every reason to push.
Another thing that counters camping, especially among humans- If beasts gets the effect that sacrifices doesn't count as deaths (but on their personal scoreboard it does), they will have a very good reason to kill bali-camping/siegecamping humans. Also, I think we can agree that beasts doesn't camp as much as humans in general, so this is maybe something that can get rid of camping aswell.


Summary: Imho. the change does this:
- Makes commanding more skillrewarding.
- Makes players more aware on teamgold, focus on deaths (and kills) and focused on teamwork.
- Make games draw less. A team out of deaths --> will loose fast if not new deaths is bougth. Defending + dealing with goldstarving can be brutal and fatal!
- Have equal impact on small or big games, independent on server pop.
- Tactics like temping a teams gold source (npc's) and dragging them to your base can be very rewarding. Protect your gold source!
- Reduces camping among humans if usage of the sac-item doesn't give beasts -1 on the deathlimit score.
- Will make commanders more aware of a their teams gold economy and more often utilize the current tax-tool and the gold-enforce tool (commanders rarely bother nowadays unnless shield is down ---> Not skillrewarding)
- Will make the sanctuary/monastery building more important (it provides a unit, it's supposed to be important!)
- Gives equal opportunities to both races, will probably not im-balance the game. (commanders will get confused in the start though!  :-P )




Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: SavageBeard on August 19, 2016, 12:59:24 pm
I think a problem is that sometimes games become a stalemate due to no way to mine redstone efficiently, and people don't want to remote mine.

I suggest that we enable players to carry 150 redstone at level 6+.

This will benefit both teams, won't impact balance very much apart from letting games flow faster in times when it grinds to a halt.


I would also like to once again suggest a rebuildable/capturable garrison (I forgot which thread I put it in the first time). Essentially a "ruins", that can be rebuilt into a garr/sublair. When destroyed, it turns into a ruins again for either team to capture.

In additon I also think it's a huge problem that once you're out in the field, you're basically spent already, there is very little you can do to recover your resources, this coupled with often encountering the same enemy 1-3 times on your way to their spawn, means that games grind to a halt easily.

I suggest that the commanders can build stationary heal/speed/restock buffs on the ground (use the buff pool to do this). These would apply to any player (even enemies) and exist for about 2 minutes for anyone to pick up. The enemy can use them as well, and they can't be destroyed. For example, you walk across half the map as human, use all your medkits. Your commander drops a restock station next to you, and you can reload on your medkits. Or as beast, you're in human territory and damaged, your commander drops a heal station next to you, so you can hold the position without getting slowly grinded down by newbs. Or a speed boost to get your out from spawn faster.


It has probably been suggested before, but I would also like commander to be able to disable tech/spawning at points.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on February 13, 2017, 07:15:06 pm
The re-balancing suggestion:
Implement a donate-gold button in the loadout, such that players can give gold to the team.

1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
A button which donate 1k Gold from your personal gold-balance to the team. If you're below 1K gold, everything that is left is given. If you're empty, nothing is given.

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
Commanders are brilliant- but a big majority of regular commanders dont keep track of gold at all, except the start when they build a shield and their general defenses. Sometimes when shields go down, or when a siege rush is needed but gold is rare, it would be quite useful to be able to just donate some gold to help the team (especially if you have more than you need - or when it is needed fast and gold is hard to get)

3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
- Improve overallteamwork
- Less of a hazzle on low-gold maps to get gold fast for a specific purpose for the team/commander


The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Might be harder to beat humans overall in long games, since getting gold for defensive buildings such as a shield or a tower is easier - if the team have gold of course.

5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
I dont think it will make it easier or harder on individual level for anyone.Might make the economical understanding of the game more intuitive for the newbies.

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
None.

7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
Assuming it is possible to implement in the loadout menu.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on February 13, 2017, 07:22:05 pm
The re-balancing suggestion:
Implement a donate-gold button in the loadout, such that players can give gold to the team.

Done!
This is not really a rebalancing thing since taxing, officers etc, is available to both races. It might favor one or another team at some point, but so does every single thing... like... mining! Beasts can leap mine, humans can't, but still, they carry the same amounts.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on February 13, 2017, 07:42:51 pm
Done!

great, that wasnt much work  :-P


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on February 16, 2017, 12:02:08 am
The re-balancing suggestion:
Not much of a re-balancing idea the traditional sense, more of a dramatic, but exiting idea of changing how the teamwork work in the game.

1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
Oh boy, here is the list:
- Map/minimap  , officers, custom tax level is all disabled, teamgold capped to 10K, redstone capacity capped at 2K - at the start of the game. Only commander have minimap.
- New tech in arsenal and nexus:
     - Mapmaker - unlocks minimap and minimap drawing for field players
     - Officers cabin / pack leaders  - unlock officers and the ability to promote officers
     - Taxation - Unlocks custom tax rate. Servers can set the defualt tax rate as they wish.
- New building : Treasury
   - tech : Increase team gold to 20K (tier 1), 40K (tier 2) and 60k (tier 3)
   - Alternatively the tech can be put in the research center/arcana

- New building: Redstone Silo
   - Increase redstone cap to 4K (tier 1), 8K(tier 2) and unlimited (tier 3)
   - Alternatively the tech can be put in the research center/arcana

New HUD icons:
- Compass (for players, gets replaced by minimap once minimap is researched)


Note: If the silo/treasury is destroyed, the technology which the building provided is still available, but the limit cap cannot be exceeded. Example: Treasury unlocked gold cap to tier 2, and made the cap for the team 40K.

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
- I want more teamwork, more depth in the tactical possibilities in how your team can hurt the enemy team. I believe the lack of important teamwork features, and the fact that they can get unlocked, will increase the amount of teamwork in late games, even in a public setting.
- The commander position need more options and more depth in my opinion. Currently the strategies and research patterns commanders are doing, is limited to only 3 tech-trees , which makes the strategical aspect very repetive, despite numerous maps and never the same team at your disposal. To get a more basic understanding of what I am suggesting - you can take a look at Warzone 2100's tech tree here, and compare it with savage's tech tree:

Warzone: http://warriorhut.org/spring/mods/metalstorm/models/weapons/Warzone2100%20techtree/Warzone2100%20v110%20b77.bmp (http://warriorhut.org/spring/mods/metalstorm/models/weapons/Warzone2100%20techtree/Warzone2100%20v110%20b77.bmp)

Beast tech-tree:
http://www.savagexr.com/beast_techtree.html (http://www.savagexr.com/beast_techtree.html)
Human tech-tree:
http://www.savagexr.com/human_techtree.html (http://www.savagexr.com/human_techtree.html)

And lastly, the length of each gameplay periode (early game, mid and late game) - will take longer to reach for both teams. 


3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
- More teamwork in games, slower and longer tier 1/tier 2 gameplay . Less  teamwork in the start, but more as the game goes on.  - To a certain degree, a more team-feeling in each teams I believe is reasonable likely to happen, especialy in late-game.
- More strategical (long term) and tactical(short term) options for the commander, in terms of research pattern and guiding/controlling your team on the ground. Priorization and usage of resources become more important, and commander more fun and skill-rewarding.

The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
- Commanding will be harder and more rewarding.
- Earlier strategies and known tactics, will be changed to both easier and harder. For instance, fire-rushes will be harder to cordinate for commanders on large maps, in early games - simply because there is no minimap for the team (unless he researches it). Getting your team to go the the right redstone mine at start can be a challenge. The compass can help the team in the right direction.

5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
- In general, harder for everyone to master.
- Especially commanding will be harder, for obvious reasons. The more choices and options he have, the harder it is.


The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
- The savage community probably wont like the changes at all, even if someone else agrees to the suggestions - it would probably be made adjustments to tone down or abbandon the most dramatic changes (the minimap research for instance, or the redstone silo).
- Sensors still work for commander, despite minimap not beeing researched- since he have the minimap anyway. Sensors might need a boost in that sense, maybe make some noice when a enemy gets withing its radius or something.
- 6th Sense might need to be able to be more useful overall, since minimap might not be visible before its researched - maybe show how much gold the each enemy will drop ?

7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
- replace map with compass early on before map is researched.
- Spawnpoint selection (in the minimap) in loadout need to be re-worked and should instead list garrisons/flags, with distance to SH/Lair and a marker on the one spawnpoint you last used (to spawn from or entered). Garrisons under construction can also show up, greyed out. When minimap gets researched, the list is replaced with the minimap we all love today.




Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on February 16, 2017, 12:51:23 am
The re-balancing suggestion:
Re-worked and more realistic economy in the game.

1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
- No more random value on gold-drops, especially not on normal units. NPC can still have lottery though.
- Each unit have a different basic gold-drop value (the higher the tier, the more it drops + siege units are valuable too)
- The amount of items you carry into battle matters- if all item slots are used, it is the units base value  + 250 gold for each slot which makes up the default gold-drop.
- 6th sense show how much gold enemies will drop if you mouseover them (with limited range though)
- 6th Sense no longer shows enemies that will die within one hit from your unit



2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
- If you take every single game lasting longer than 15 minutes in Savage, and generalize how each team performs and and who is winning/loosing, you will see that :

----  Every time a team is out of team-gold, it looses map controll gradually, and the opposite team advances equally much.

---- Humans use relocators and NPC's to stack up on gold when starving, at the cost of effectiveness in the team. Beasts uses only NPC's to stack up their economy  and is therefore much more map-dependant than humans, and also much more vulnerable to enemy advances if their economy goes bankrupt.

---- Beasts doesnt really have anything to counter the economical advantage humans have from their relocators.

- There isnt many things which are symmetric in the game, and not many things should be, gameplay wise. But - the economy is one of the things that should be symmetrical, simply because 90 % of the framework the economy in general is symmetrical. An example to elaborate this:  Workers carry equal amount of resources, and work same speed.  Players have the same level of gold cap. Players mine equally fast, and carry equally much, and structures cost the same, both in terms of redstone and gold, despite beeing different races. This made me consider each teams opportunities to maintain a stable economy trough a game, and beasts came out as the weaker side in general, especailly in terms of gold.

- In a real economy , money flows around, and isnt created out of thin air. I think savage will be even more rewarding tactically and strategically for competent players with more realistic economy. And I want the game to be even more hardcore and unforgiving than it allready is.


3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
- 6th sense isnt  a very much used item. I think it will make 6th sense more used, and improve the beasts gold-economy overall (remember that each kill taxes a % gold to the team..)
- Its likely a boost for beasts - and isnt ideally the best thing balance-wise (beasts win 8 % more in public games than humans), but there is other thing un-related to this suggestion that can counter this.
- There will be less kill-farming in the beast team, since they no longer can see which enemies dies on one hit. A general kill is more likely to be economically beneficial for the player himself and the
- The general player will feel that gold is more important for team victory than it was earlier (and be more aware of own usage aswell).
- The economy(gold) gets much more balanced with not-random golddrops anymore, and rewarding kills on players which are skilled with more gold.

The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
- In general, getting gold might be harder or easier, depending on skill. There is no luck anymore, no more lottery. However, newbies can still win the lottery with killing npc's.
- You are more responsible for not dying and feeding the enemy team gold (but its not like anyone gonna point you out in the chat, noone can see how much gold you use from the team anyway...)
 
5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
- Not really sure, 6th sense will make skilled humans players targeted quite alot, in that sense its harder to be human vet player. For beast veterans I think it is harder, because newbies are not likely to have much gold --> less items --> less gold drop --> less targeted by beast vets. For human newbies = Easier. For beast newbies = no difference, can still gain gold by npc's, but you feed the enemy team more by dying- but noone notices that, right?


The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
None.


7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
None.

Sorry for any spelling mistakes, and sorry it became a wall of text  :bow:
Feedback, comments and thoughts are appreciated.   :smitten:


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Marbello on March 01, 2017, 01:51:40 pm
Hope this is the right party!

How about adding additional effects to fire/elec buffs? --> doubles shaman/chaplain heal and doubles repairing of buildings by all units.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Trigardon on March 10, 2017, 03:24:11 pm
Changing sixth sense.

Right now sixth sense is unused. Currently it does show enemies (like sensor does) and if the enemy is low on hp.

Compared to sensor (which does not has to be carried to be working) which does show enemies on the minimap, their location, invisible units and buildings (including gateways) it's even more terrible.

Right now, humans are almost never hiding because they do not have to at all. Beasts on the other hand gain advantages if they're succesfully hiding.

TL;DR right now sixth sense is never making sense.


My proposals:

1)
Make it detect sensors. Right now sensors can be well hidden without getting seen by players.

2)
Make it show enemies through wall (in case this is technically possible) - like a wallhack.

3)
Make it show enemies on the minimap just like sensor does

4)
Make it show enemies health bar just like siege.

Any other proposals are welcome and so are any other ideas or opinions on this.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on March 31, 2017, 03:01:53 pm
The re-balancing suggestion: Players shouldnt tax when team-gold is full

1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
Currently, when teamgold is full, players still pay tax to the team (and hence, gold is lost).
The opposite logic of my suggestion is allready in place: when personal gold is full, everything goes to the team.
The logic needs to be implemented the other way around.

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
Played a game, payed taxes when team gold was full, realized its basically wasting money in the game. Its bad logic.

3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
Its purpose is to make it easier for players to get gold when team gold is full, without having to request gold from team.


The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Good pushes with cost-heavy units and equipment (with full teamgold) will be easier to achieve. In general, people will have more gold overall when the teamgold is full.


5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
Might make it slightly more harder to defend, since pushes can in theory last longer before the gold for the offensive team gets drained.


The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
None that comes to my mind atm.
7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
- None that comes to my mind atm.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Shitler on April 03, 2017, 07:24:02 pm
Carried stone should be transfered to team storage when carrying units die on field (just like XR 1.2).


The new update is a huge disadvantage for beasts in lategame. for example on maps like watershipdown when teams are out of stone, but you can still mine at mid, to get pushing sub/garr or to rebuild tech.
humans can easily run far distances and reloc after mining 100 stone, while beast have to be running all the way back. nobody will do that. people will push instead when they already in mid and humans will gain all mined stone from beast, because every pred will die sometime on field without coming back to lair. so beast stone will be lost while humans earn twice. thats fucked up.

my solution is: units simply shouldnt drop mined stone.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on April 03, 2017, 07:46:08 pm
It's a legit subject. Noted, although now there are various ways in which overall, mining is easier.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on April 03, 2017, 11:24:03 pm
The re-balancing suggestion: Remove sprint from behemoths.

1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
Remove sprint altogether from behemoths

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
Flags are hard enough to capture as it is for humans with a xr verison 1.2 behemoth. The 1.3 version is even harder, since it can sprint. Not to mention - behespawning and behecamping gives a even more effective defense with sprint aswell.

3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
Weaken behemoths defensive usefulness.


The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Easier to cap flag for humans, and easier to demorun.

Note: The current population of savage is in general, declining. This implies smaller maps in general to be played. We've seen a trend the past 2 years with smaller maps becoming more popular - kinixxx and izi in particular. On small maps in general, behemots are more powerful, making them more dominant for the game. Hence, giving sprint to catapult isnt even close to the improvement a sprint is for a behemoth. The game is allready favored in beasts favor, I think removing sprint would be a good call.

5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
No thoughts on this

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
None.
7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
- None that comes to my mind atm.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Necrophiliac on April 04, 2017, 12:05:01 am
100% agree with behe sprint being removed. I thought the newerth council was there to stop things like this being implemented. Behe spawning for defensive purposes was a big problem in 1.2, but now you're giving them sprint? Just can't see the reasoning behind it.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on April 04, 2017, 12:41:21 am
The re-balancing suggestion: show health on heavy transport and conflux (like siege units and buildings)
1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
When mouseover heavy transport or conflux, they show reamining health for enemies, and friendlies.

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
I shot multiple summ shots at a heavy transport, but had no idea how close i was to killing it or not. What struck me was that for me, as an enemy player - the heavy transport is not a unit, but a building (just moving). The overall aspects of the transport got more in commong with a garr/sub than with a regular unit.

3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
Making it harder to protect the heavy transports and confluxes,


The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Hard to say, its been out for a few hours.. I guess, if multiple confluxes or heavy transports move together, it can be hard to know for the enemy to find out which one is most damamged, and which one isnt.

5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
No thoughts on this.

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
None.
7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
- None that comes to my mind atm.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on April 04, 2017, 02:29:44 pm
The re-balancing suggestion:  General items (not in techlines) avaiable in  all caches/altars. This includes medkits, carn, xbow, frenzy etc in all caches/altars from heavy transport/conflux

1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
General items (not in techlines) avaiable in  all caches/altars. This includes medkits, carn, xbow, frenzy etc in all caches/altars from heavy transport/conflux.

In general - I want the caches/altars to be have more general purposes instead of the small niche-usage they currently have.


2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
Its the most essential items - its unlogical to give storm shield out in a altar, but not frenzy. Same applies to giving out demos, but not medkits. Noone can demorun without medkit anyway, against a proper defense.



3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
It makes each cache/altar more usable.

The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Hard to say, patch been out very short..
5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
No thoughts on this.

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
None.
7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
- None that comes to my mind atm.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Brad_Troika on April 05, 2017, 09:17:28 pm
So I played a game using chaplains and I have a few questions.

How does the energy resistance work? I had a red aura and jumped into a fireward without blocking and received no damage. Shouldn't it be a damage reduction instead?

If I use poti on 3 people, including myself then we all get the orange aura for a set amount of seconds. However if I use the poti again on another person who has no aura, and he has the people around him who already have an aura, the 4th person only gets the healing effect, because it seems that the poti does not count people already under the effect when deciding what effect should it have. Using poti on people with aura also does not refresh the duration of the bonus, they have to wait until the aura is gone to get it back. I'm not sure if this is intended, but what I would love to discuss is the idea that every poti used should a) count every people in its range when deciding the effect b) restart the timer, or upgrade/downgrade the aura on people.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Hakugei on April 05, 2017, 09:24:01 pm
How does the energy resistance work? I had a red aura and jumped into a fireward without blocking and received no damage. Shouldn't it be a damage reduction instead?
It has:
stateSet energyArmorAdd 0.300000 (this is the damage reduction)
and:
stateSet splashProtect 1 (this protects against splash damage, like the fireward)


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Brad_Troika on April 05, 2017, 09:26:11 pm
So every aura completely negates all splash damage?
Does that include firebuff, your own demo, fire spire damage?


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Hakugei on April 05, 2017, 09:31:05 pm
So every aura completely negates all splash damage?
Does that include firebuff, your own demo, fire spire damage?
Yes.
Daemon is already reconsidering this specific part, but wishes for more feedback on Chap Potion in general.
(This is not the topic to discuss this, though. Feel free to move/delete these posts, Daemon!)


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: SavageBeard on April 16, 2017, 03:59:51 pm
1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
Self buff to cost 7500 gold (deposited to the team bank from the player)

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
Too many players self-buffing only for kill farming. No reward to good commanders who are on top of the buff-game.


3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
Fewer wasted buffs. Commander to buff more for strategic gain. More goal-oriented game play will emerge. Encourages team work.


The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Harder for individual players to do well if their commander is bad. Harder to farm kills.

5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
No difference (newbies dont self buff, or use it ineffectively).

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
None.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on April 16, 2017, 06:33:36 pm
So every aura completely negates all splash damage?
Does that include firebuff, your own demo, fire spire damage?

It was fixed a while back.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Crashday on April 17, 2017, 01:14:19 pm
The re-balancing suggestion: Make launcher and fireball very effective against conflux and transport respectively
1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
8 launcher/fully charged fireball hits should be enough to kill a conflux/transport.

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
Transport/Conflux are extremely sturdy. Yes they are slow but since they behave like buildings (it is possible to heal and repair them) it can be incredibly hard to kill them. So far Launcher/Fireball do not have a real purpose after all.

3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
Giving Launcher/Fireball a real purpose.

The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Making it easier to kill Transport/Conflux.

5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
Neither.

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
None.

7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
If this change will be considered we should adapt tooltips on launcher/fireball to make it more obvious that these weapons have a designated purpose.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on April 17, 2017, 02:30:38 pm
The re-balancing suggestion: Make launcher and fireball very effective against conflux and transport respectively
1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
8 launcher/fully charged fireball hits should be enough to kill a conflux/transport.

Shooting 8 fireballs aimed at a huge, stationary target like the stronghold, takes 35s. I doubt you'll even have the luxury of shooting at a bus undisturbed for at least 35s. And there's also the standard way to kill human vehicles. Using blaze (+mana stone) to kill a bus takes 12-13s. Same with sac, not to count 1 behe hit.

Rockets are way faster than fireballs, but even so, they're harder to aim than the weapon of choice for killing bulky beast units, the pulse, who dispatches a conflux in 11s and with less than 3/4 ammo.

I agree that the fireball (and the rocket) need some boosting but this ain't it. Plus, with only one of conflux/bus left, there's really


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on April 17, 2017, 08:46:31 pm
The re-balancing suggestion: 
  • Completely re-worked squad system
    • More responsibility to officers
    • A new gold-layer to squads (no longer just playergold --> teamgold, but instead playergold--> squadgold --> teamgold)
    • Custom squad-sizes
    • Custom squadnames
    • Internal gold-request-rules and self-buff rules for squads
    • Squad-specific orders and minimap icons (given by officer)
    • Improved management over squads for commander
  • Incentives for players to be in squads in the first place
  • Improved teamwork, rewarding skill economically, without beeing to OP



1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
Generally, the idea is that squads gets a purpose, funds to do it, and gets much more usable.  How? Here it goes:

  • For the commanders:
     
    • Ability to create squads with purposes (names), custom maxsize (numbers of players who can be in the squad), custom tax-rate,custom self-buff setting for those players, and custom gold-account
         
      • An example of name can be: "Sacrush Group" or "Siege defence"
       
    • Commanders have six default, pre-made squads at the start of a match (which can be changed anytime by the commander):
             
      • General format: Name - Maxsize of players in squad - taxrate (how much players in the squad tax to the teamgold) - Self-buff default setting - Squadgold size
      • Scouts- Max Size 6 - Tax: 20 % - Selfbuffs: On - 3000
      • Miners- Max Size: 10 - Tax: 30 % - Selfbuffs: Off - 2000
      • Harassers- Max Size: 6 - Tax: 40 % - Selfbuffs: On - 10000
      • Base defense- Max Size: 10 - Tax: 30 % - Selfbuffs: On - 15000
      • Forward Garr- Max Size: 10 - Tax: 30 %)- Selfbuffs: Officers only - 19000
      • Gold - Max size: 3 - Tax: 100 %- Selfbuffs: Off - 1000
           
    • Effectively, the squad gold is not tied (not directly) to teamgold or players personal gold, its a new seperate account of gold, just for the squad.
           
      • Gold requests in squads can now work this way:
                 
        • Requests are first sent to squad-gold,and officers handle the requests (with keybinds to accept/decline the requests), and/or auto-accept/auto-decline setting in loadout-menu (only officers in the squad can see and change the settings in the loadout menu).
        • If denied from officers, the gold-request is denied, and nothing more happends.
        • If accepted, the gold requested is withdrawed from the squad-gold. If there is no gold or not enough gold to get the requested gold, the request is passed on to the regular team-gold, where the commander can use his settings to handle it(auto-accept, manual accept, etc.)
      • Here is how I imagine squadgold can be refilled:
        • Teamgold is filled first to 50K, before any squads earn anything. Squad specific tax-rates apply to the players in squads during this time (you can benefit more gold personally by chosing a squad with low tax-rate).
        • If teamgold is full, the squads tax their squad-specific tax-rate to their own squad instead of the team.
        • Gold-donations go to teamgold first. If teamgold is full, it goes to the squad-gold.
        • The squad tax-rate can be changed  in the loadout-menu by officers in the given squad
        • Commanders can decide the size of the squad-gold, with a minimum of 0 (0 = No squadgold, basically disabled for the squad) , and maximum of 20K, and with a maximum of 50K when all squads  combine their squadgold's maxsize.
                   
    • The commander can place players inside squads in the units screen (but they can leave, and play without beeing inside squad
    • The commander can pick 1 unit, 1 weapons and one item for each squad,  which get a 50 % discount in the loadout-menu if their squad-gold AND teamgold is full at the same time plus that each player in the squad must have a big surplus of gold self to reach this special bonus. (This is rather hard to achieve for a single squad, because other not-so-good squads will constantly drag down team-gold) but it is inteded to reward a squad which carry the team, and encourage usage of the squad's intended purpose). Siege units cannot be chosen.
  • For players:
    • Players are assigned randomly in warmup to a squad on the team they are in. Late joiners(joining in middle of match) dont get assigned, and have to pick the left-over squads.
    • Players cannot switch squads themself more than once per minute, just like there is a minimum wait-time to switch teams.Not even commanders can bypass this limit.
    • There can be maximum 3 officers per squad, with a total of maximum 20 % of the entire team beeing officers (commander excluded)
    • If and while no officers are appointed in a squad, the internal gold-requests in squads are set to auto-accept automatically.
    • Officers in squads can mark a target destination (with a small, pre-defined squad-coloured x) on minimap in loadout menu. Commander drawings overwrite these, and also clears it if he choses to clear the map
    • Squadmembers of your own squad have their own squad colour on the minimap. Allied players and other squads all have the same colour(but not your squad colour) colour.
    • Squadmembers of your own squad have their own squad colour on the minimap. Allied players and other squads all have the same colour.
    • Players are still free to play the way they want(even without squad), but are now incentivized to use squads because of the economical advantage, increased teamwork, and the unit/weapon/item discount 


Additional things, to make squads more usable in the game:
 - Squad name should show under teammates name if you mouseover them in the field (not on enemies though)
 - The current limit of only 6 squads per team should be removed (with 41 players on each team  on pulse = 41/6 ~7 players per squad, a bit too much imho)
 - Im pretty sure there is a limit to how many players can be in a squad aswell currently (6?) , and I think this limit should be able to set by the commander.
 - Squad selection in loadout menu for players :  with squad icon + name of squad + number of players in the squad showing + join button
 - Button to leave squad you current squad in loadout menu.
 - Although i like the feature to see what items, unit and weapons my squadmates are carrying im unsure if it would manage to fit all players in the current HUD setup for squads , this might need to be minimalized more to get place enough for all (in a large squad)

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)

Noone uses squads, ever. Theres no incentive to use it for players, at all


3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).

More teamplay, improved management of groups from commander, give players a reason to obey the squads purpose, give officers more responsibility besides giving orders.


The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Gold management will become easier, teamwork will become easier (in squads, ofc.), pushes will last longer if they are successive, good players are rewarded with more gold overall.


5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
Hard to tell, both teams are affected, but i do believe genuinly that the game will be more fun for both newbies and veterans.

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
Some of the values might need tweaking, particulary the maxsize for squads (if a team of 20 players are 10/5/5, in theory, they can have 50K extra teamgold if they do well) + the maximum squadgold of 20K is also maybe a bit much.

One thing that will need to be removed is that commanders select "missions" for the squads which get told in squad chat. The squad name alone will be a fitting indicator.

7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
I think i mentioned them all, but could be some logical flaws that I have missed.

PS: Apoligize for any typing mistakes, I know its a long-ass post  :-)[/list]


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: SavageBeard on April 17, 2017, 09:11:39 pm
Really overthinking a feature that should just be removed, if anything.

People find it annoying to be placed into random squads, and prefer to do their own thing anyway.

 As a commander you already have the attention of the few players who will do some team work, without having to divide everyone into squads, which isnt going to help make anyone listen.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Stringer on April 17, 2017, 09:15:07 pm
bullet, no offence, but you're crazy to post that big kind of a request and think someone will even think about implementing it.
If you want something like this to be done, you will have to find a programmer willing to code it on his own free time without pay that you can also trust with savage code.
GL with that.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on April 17, 2017, 09:45:05 pm
You're right, its crazy to hope for all that, but I do hope for some of that, maybe some of the key features. Besides, you never know what devs come around  :-)



Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Trigardon on April 17, 2017, 09:54:37 pm
Squads were surely useful at some point in clanwars, but nowadays there's no point wasting resources in a feature which will never be used anyway. :|


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: ^.#Tasty on April 20, 2017, 08:11:15 am
i Agree that squads are useful in clanwars  :mrgreen:

But we have no clanwars  :uglystupid:


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on June 07, 2017, 09:09:19 pm
The re-balancing suggestion: This is not a re-balancing suggestion, rather a proposal to add  some new meta-gameplay between teams and their tech developement strategies. What I suggest adding is simple "shell" buildings the commander can create, based on all major techlines (not nexus/arcana/arsenal/rc), but to chem/fire/strata/mag/entrophy /elec , and charm shrine/siege workshop.

1. The precise change you wanna see done, including exact values and item/unit names etc.
Adding shell buildings (empty, no function beside looking like a real building), which cost 200 redstone, have a HP of 1000 and same buildtime as the building they are meant to look like. Limited to one building per tech (you can only build one mag shell building for example). All models are the same size as their real counterpart.

2. What triggered it (what is the CAUSE that made you think of something to eliminate that cause)
I find the simplicity in the way the tech strategies in savage, particular in early games - to be a bit too repetive and predicatble. If there was some way a commander could trick the other enemy team that they went for fire for example, but instead went strata, that could lead to some interesting gameplay and deceptive strategies between commanders early on, but also at later stages.

3. The predicted overall effect of your change (its PURPOSE).
Add more meta-gameplay between teams and commanders, make scouting more important and fun, add more fun to basebuilding for both races (where are you going to hide the real techbuilding youre building from the enemy scouts?). Increased interest in enemy tech-developement from your own team, more focus on what tactic your own team use. More rewarding for skilled commanders.

The impact on the game:
4. What will become harder (or easier) to do, and for whom (units, teams etc).
Scouting will become harder and more important,  but more interesting aswell. On very large maps the tactics are less likely to be used (but so is behemoths, gates, scattergun and a bunch of other stuff aswell). , but on mid-sized and small sized maps it can be really interesting I think.

5. Will it make the game harder or easier for newbies (vs. veterans), and why.
Hard to say, as a commander can use the tactic for tricking the opponent, and its success rely on the opponent team and their reaction(specifically - their commanders reaction). I dont think there will be any bigger gaps between newbie commanders and veteran commanders.

The ripple effect
6. Subsequent changes needed to tone down (compensate for) the effects of this change.
None that comes to my mind.
  
7. Other changes, which the current suggestion would benefit from or depends on (so it can work properly).
I think the building tab for commanders might need an own option to build shell buildings (properly marked as shell buildings).
Additionally, fake garrisons and sublairs might be a interesting concept as well (tricking the enemy to defend with a fake sneak can be interesting..)  


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on June 09, 2017, 05:11:27 pm
New suggestion:

When the difference in number of players on the team are bigger or great er than two, I suggest that the team with the lest amount of people, get increased gold from kills. The amount of increased gold is based on (percentage-wise) how much more players the other team is. For example: if there is 5 vs 10, the 5 people will get 200 % gold, instead of 100% gold when there is 5 vs 5. If there is 7 vs 5, the 5-man team get 140% gold, because 2 more players = 40 of their own force.

The idea is to help teams when just random bailing occurs. Since it is based on percentages, it works good no matter what the server population is.

Sorry for not following normal form, Im writing from mobile while I still have the idea bright on my mind.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: drk on June 12, 2017, 08:33:58 am
Suggestion: make fire/elec/mag/etc regen that depends on the quantity of the buildings. For example: 2nd fire increases regeneration by X%.
In this case a team/com that controls a lot of territory (and mines) will have an advantage to win.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on June 12, 2017, 05:55:36 pm
Suggestion: make fire/elec/mag/etc regen that depends on the quantity of the buildings. For example: 2nd fire increases regeneration by X%.
In this case a team/com that controls a lot of territory (and mines) will have an advantage to win.
That means more frequent buffs and that sucks. It's also the reason the altars/caches do not add to the buff pool regen - less buffs, less frustration. But of course, we can discuss it.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Storky on June 13, 2017, 09:37:56 pm
XP and gold reward for healing/reviving.
Death with successful sac not counts. Successful means inflict damage in close range, close range means range when sac killing basic tower.

added: chaos bolt almost unusable. Add mana refund for successful shot in amount of shot's cost (but not vs buildings). Means with 100% accuracy mana not wasting, gonna be tactically interesting and slow kind of pulse cannon vs siege.




Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: drk on June 14, 2017, 07:42:47 am
XP and gold reward for healing/reviving.
Now if you heal you get an XP. If you revive you get gold (1000). Isn't that enough?


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on June 15, 2017, 05:42:43 pm
Suggestion: Some simple buff suggestions, applied to different targets than the usual player. I hope that savage can have more variation in buffs (but not in total number of buffs used in a normal game), for the sake of varitiation. I hope that savage can get atleast 3 buff for each tech-tree, and go away from only beeing targetting individuals. I suggest and hope that each tech tree can get:
1 buff for solo players (allready in place for most tech tree, except entrophy)
1 buff for enemy players  ( i know its not a buff, but for the sake of simplicity i call it that now)
1 teamwide buff for your own team.
1 buff for friendly or enemy structures/tech.
1 mapwide buff, affecting both teams in some way.

The more players and gameplay the buffs affect, the weaker they must be, in general, for balancing purposes.

Following is some simple buff suggestions i have ( i know some of them are straightforward bad ideas, but its just brainstorming, to give you devs some food for thought if you were to make more buffs into the game).
Buff 1:
a buff that makes you drop no-gold if killed while buff is active, and any enemy who kill you(with ranged, melee or buffs) are drained instatnly of their personal gold (and it is given to you upon your death). Other buffs cancel the buff.  This buff can work for both races. Its particular interesting to use as humans, demorunning. You got no special powers, but it simply sucks to kill you for any enemy.

Buff 2:
 buff that simply cancel buffs on enemies upon successfull melee hit (beast buff mainly). Newbiefriendly buff, great counter for selfbuffers.

buff 3:
A map-wide buff that makes all npcs go crazy and run towards your teams sh/lair. Great for stealing the gold income of other teams.

buff 4:
Commander can select a specific enemy, and remove half their exp (basically, level that person down ).

buff 5:
Commander selects an enemy player and trigger the buff on him. The buff is active as long as he is alive, and persist even after re-supplying and/or changing gear in loadout menus in spawnpoints. What it does, is basically make his melee weapon useless (does only 1 hp damage on successful hit), and forces him to use ranged weaponry only. Its a great buff for humans to use on beast players, forcing that specific player to keep his distance. The buff should be expensive and be an alternative in a tech tree to other buffs (not solo buff for a tech three).

buff 6. Similar like buff 5, but forces player to use melee weapons only. Ranged weapons doesnt do any damage at all while it is active. Great for beasts against camping humans. Last a lifetime.

buff 7. This is a special one : Corrupted redstone mine. If a commander fear he is about to loose an important redstone mine to the enemy, he can corrupt it - basically making it a bomb, that explodes when mined empty. The damage equals to 4-5 sacrifices, and will damange both friendly and enemy buildings nearby. Use with caution. The other commander cannot see that a redstone mine is corrupted. It is very expensive, in terms of pool usage. Can only be cast on redstone mines which are close to your own buildings ( you cannot target a redstone mine in the base of the enemy, to illustrate this).

buff 8. Blood smelling animals. All NPC's on the map will instantly start to attack nearby enemies (if withing a certain radius of the npc). Great for pissing of the other team, and distract the enemy in the combat. (in terms of the lore of savage, this buff belongs to the beast team - could possibly be a nice, cheaper alternative than the gate, in the entrohpy tech tree?)

buff 9. Mark a group of animals, and use buff on them. They wont respawn in 3 minutes, after killed. Great for goldstarving the other team. OP on small maps, must be expensive to use (not just buff pool to use it - maybe some money required aswell?)

buff 10. Target a friendly structure. Simply doubles the range of the friendly structure (only works on defensive buildings such as towers and spires).

buff 11. Target a enemy defensive building. The enemy defensive building will, while the buff is active, only target siege units, but not only your teams siege unit, also siege camping players which are, in theory, friendly to the tower initially, but during buff it targets all siege unites. This is great for dealing with siege campers on the other team, and very helpful for your team offensively

buff 12. Target enemy spawnpoint/spawn structure. While active, anyone trying to spawn will be sent back to loadout menu and get 5 seconds to their respawn timer. The buff last only 5 seconds, and is medium expensive to use. Cannot be used on sh/lair.

buff 13. Creates a portal, which allies and enemies can go trough, but no siege units can enter. Much like gate, minus entrance for siege units. Call it a cheap and downgraded gate, if you wish. HP decays over time, self destruct in 90 seconds, regardless of HP.


PS. I hope other people can post their buff suggestions aswell, if they have any.

To Daemon: isnt this thread a bit old, the initial posts and whatnot havent been updated or achieved after 1.3 release... ? It can be a little confusing to read old discussions which might not apply to xr 1.3  :-)










Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on June 15, 2017, 06:09:15 pm
To Daemon: isnt this thread a bit old, the initial posts and whatnot havent been updated or achieved after 1.3 release... ? It can be a little confusing to read old discussions which might not apply to xr 1.3  :-)

Indeed. You volunteering to compile the list of changes? I have zero time these days.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Storky on June 16, 2017, 02:50:10 pm
XP and gold reward for healing/reviving.
Now if you heal you get an XP. If you revive you get gold (1000). Isn't that enough?
Its ok.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on June 16, 2017, 09:37:57 pm
Suggestion: Increased connection between team and commander in mid and late game.

The idea I have in mind is to increase the attention the team pay to how the team does overall, in the game. Early in the game, this is achieved with redstone and the team pmining to get tech which each player benefits from with weapons and tech as the result. However, in mid-game and late-game this attention from the players are completely gone often, except in some emergency cases (shield down etc..), and very often the commander can struggle with receiving the attention of his team to make them follow his strategy.

Here is some more concrete ideas which I think can help achieve that attention in mid- and late game:

- Goals & subgoals that the commander can set in gameplay (destroy building X, capture flag Y, kill siege units in area Z, kill player A, etc.)
- More tech , which can be only introduced after a certain time, or event (100 enemies killed in total, timer past 15 minutes, other team have full basic tech, team have done total siege damage of X, team have died Y times in total, etc..) - making resource management late game more important for the team, and for the commander.
- Random events in the game, which applies to both or one of the teams (electrical frequenzy which disables all defensive buildings for a time, hazardous waste from the sky making any healing for beasts useless (buff,rabid and carn), production error (disables weapons and items in the loadout menu for players and buffs for a given tech line for a limited time ( last X time).
 -----  As a side note for the random events:  If any lore-related tech in terms of "religion" or "magic" gets implemented, it could possibly be connected to this, to increase the chance of good events for your team, or bad events for the other team)




Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Trigardon on June 17, 2017, 04:28:15 pm
Nerf Siege Units:

If spawned as siege and re-entering spawn positions (Including everything, SH, Sublairs etc.) give them a 30(+ / -) on respawning as one.

This should include:
- Ballista
- Catapult
- Summoner
- Behemoth


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on June 17, 2017, 07:23:19 pm
Nerf Siege Units:

If spawned as siege and re-entering spawn positions (Including everything, SH, Sublairs etc.) give them a 30(+ / -) on respawning as one.

This should include:
- Ballista
- Catapult
- Summoner
- Behemoth


That's not nerfing siege units, that's nerfing siege spawnpoint camping. Since your intentions aren't clear in the least, do bother with posting a proper explanation or /ignore.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Trigardon on June 17, 2017, 07:35:02 pm
Nerfing Siege Camping

Intentions shall be clear! We're suffocating under siege camping for as long as this game exists (probably). So I thought of this simple fix!

If spawned as siege and re-entering spawn positions a 30 second respawn penatly will be given to the player.
This simple fix should forbid people from re-entering and successfully camp at spawn locations.

This should include every single siege units including the ejected unit (so sieges are actually dying for the mess they can cause / will cause).


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Storky on June 19, 2017, 03:15:18 pm
Nerfing Siege Camping

Intentions shall be clear! We're suffocating under siege camping for as long as this game exists (probably). So I thought of this simple fix!

If spawned as siege and re-entering spawn positions a 30 second respawn penatly will be given to the player.
This simple fix should forbid people from re-entering and successfully camp at spawn locations.

This should include every single siege units including the ejected unit (so sieges are actually dying for the mess they can cause / will cause).
I support this, looks effective, wise and easy to realise. But except summoner, its already "nerfed" - spawning with not full mana.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on June 21, 2017, 10:13:15 pm
Suggestion:

Increase gold cost of behemoths to 10K.

reason: If beasts have a good period and gather up enough gold in the team, they can easely win on any small maps given that enough behemoths spawn and go for enemy bases, and that it is a short path to the base. It also takes very few successfull hits with behemoth to re-earn the gold the behemoths costs, despite building beeing shielded.


Example: kinixxx at flag

Another reason is simply because the human/beast in-balance in public settings.
I do also not think this nerf to siege beasts will affect competetive gameplay as much, simply because the teamgold in competetive is 50K, but only 5 players, so there is still plenty of gold available most likely in competetive play.



Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Trigardon on June 21, 2017, 11:31:59 pm
Nerfing Siege Camping

Intentions shall be clear! We're suffocating under siege camping for as long as this game exists (probably). So I thought of this simple fix!

If spawned as siege and re-entering spawn positions a 30 second respawn penatly will be given to the player.
This simple fix should forbid people from re-entering and successfully camp at spawn locations.

This should include every single siege units including the ejected unit (so sieges are actually dying for the mess they can cause / will cause).

Summoner automatically reload mana, ballistas do not so I think this is a fair deal. I've never understood why people spawn as summoner to defend ANYTHING...
I support this, looks effective, wise and easy to realise. But except summoner, its already "nerfed" - spawning with not full mana.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Brad_Troika on June 30, 2017, 12:11:19 pm
When burrow/outpost is destroyed by the enemy the team gains no stone.

I think this should be removed because it's pointless.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Tjens on June 30, 2017, 06:53:49 pm
Empower healing units enough to make them a viable choice for commanders early and midgame.

In their current form, healers still don't have a substancial impact on the game. Sure, Shamans will help beasts push over long distances as long as they don't get hunted (wich they will), and since the latest change a group of Chaplains can become a well-oiled "ball of healing" when playing against a sub-par team. But mostly both fail to impact pushes or alter gameplay all too much.

This may be an area of improvement, and there are a couple ideas and changes I've been thinking about for a while now, that I'dd like to share with you, in the upcoming days.

1. Change the Chaplain's Revive skill into a ranged ability

Ever tried to revive a Legionnare in the middle of a teamfight? The first thing that usually gets on my plate is a Chaplain Sandwich with Predators being the buns. No chance you're going to get that block off in time especially when you consiter the Chaplain animation is finnished right before the guy you're reviving. Two preds at once? Forget about it.

I'm not even going to start with revive being pretty useless as most people will relocate away immediatly, leaving you stranded and vulnerable for dinner.

By giving the chaplains a chance to do their good work from the back, in the bushes, or anywhere away from the Chaplain Meatloaf loving Predators, Revive can actually be a pretty good skill for use during battles and gives the caster some time to recover while not being reduced to Chaplain Sausage.

I'dd say give it a range for about 50% of Flux range

Pros:
Increases Chaplain survivability
Makes Revive more effective during fights

Cons:
Makes Chaplains play more carefull?
Idk, can't really think of anything


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on July 16, 2017, 06:32:19 pm
Some simple skills a support-oriented unit can use for keeping humans offensive pushes longer:

Skills that target specific enemy:
*  Beam that drains stamina, when it reaches zero, it will start draining health instead from the target.
* Throwable, bouncable objects/missiles/etc that does one/more of these things upon impact/hit/explotion:
  - Disables mana regeneration for x time
  - Disables any gold-earning for x time
  - Disables buffing (pro-active debuffing) for x time. Does not disable active buffs, however.
  - Disables  passive stamina regeneration (not frenzy) for x time
  - Turn friendly fire on for targetted unit  :roll:
  - Raises gold for killing the hitted unit, with 2x the normal value.
  - Small throwable object. On hit, disables sacrifice, storm shield, frienzy and basically all positive/active effects on the beast (except buffs)

Skills that target multiple enemies:
* Throw smokebombs, greatly reducing vision for ally and foe (cover for siege)
*
Skills that affect structures/areas:
* Throwable item(s) that does one or more of these things upon hit/impact/explosion:
  - If thrown on a gate, make the gate a neutral building and allow friendly humans to travel trough it (watch out beast commander!)
  - Disables spawning from whatever structure it hit for a given time
  - Captures a flag/sawmill/redstone (throwable flag capturing, imagine that, good counter to behecamping!)
  - Makes spawnable building/flags immune for a given time to damage/capture. (good to hold flags, once again..)
  - Small little grenade, that stuns any beasts withing a small radius. Limited, and bounces on the ground. explodes on hit.
  - Small poisonous grenades that drain health over time in the area they explode in. Perfect for corridors and tiny pathways. Storm shield gives immunity. Strong vs siege and summoners behind cover.
  -

Skills that affect friendly player(s):
* Beam that increases their stamina
* Beam that converts enemy workers to your teams cause.
* throwable object that gives friendly targets hit one/more of these things:
  - Double gold income for x time for that player
  - Tvice as fast fire-rate with any  ranged weapon
  - Tvice as long range with any ranged weapon
  - Tvice the firing rate for siege units
  - Tvice the damage for siege units
  - Change friendly player into a monkit, perfect for sneaky operations. Lasts 30 secs.  :lol:
  - Throwable potion, that makes any damage the target takes for X time, goes directly to you, instead of them. (you need to bring medkits and/or a chap with you)
  - Make the player immune to ranged damage (doesnt work with siege)
  - Make a siege unit immune to melee damage for X time.
 -
Skills that affect objects (mines, et.c)
  - A throwable item that makes demo packs explode imidiatly (if it lands within x radius of a placed demo)
  - A throwable item which converts enemy mines to friendly mines.




Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on July 21, 2017, 09:11:46 pm
Simple suggestion, its actually a visual melee improvement. Should add some more meta to newbies, and maybe make it easier for them to land hits as beasts.


Make players able to choose between left-handed or right handed melee in player options. Currently, most melee animations start with an attack from the right hand.

I believe some players will find the melee easier to learn if they can choose what "hand" the animation is going. For example, currently preds have two right hand swings and one left hand swing. A mirrored, left-hand version of this have two left arm swings and one right arm swing.

The visual difference between the attack animations doesnt even need to be seen for the opponent, as where the hits land is the same regardless of what hand swings.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: SavageBeard on November 18, 2017, 07:40:36 pm
1) Make monkits turn properly when moving. Currently they are sliding backwards and sideways.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Tjens on November 18, 2017, 07:49:49 pm
I NEED A GIFD OF MICHEAL JACKSON AS A MONKIT DOING THE MOONWALK ASAP


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: ValrogM on March 05, 2018, 09:50:28 pm
Observation: Rabid is almost exclusively the Beast weapon in every game, other than Blaze against siege units.

Suggestion: Boost non-Rabid weapons somewhat, to increase variety, while still maintaining them as an inferior alternative to Rabid, so that balance is not affected. Special care needs to be taken to not affect early game balance (think scavenger vs nomad - Venomous is already very powerful). Perhaps leave damage unchanged but make mana consumption of weapons much lower.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on March 30, 2018, 02:16:37 pm
Suggestion: Players must fullfill certain criterias to be able to selfbuff and be buffed by commander.

The criterias can be multiple, but only one of them has to be met.

Example criterias:

  • Mined 500 stone for the team
  • Donated or earned a gold surplus of 10000 to the team
  • Placed 5 or more sensors
  • Done 5K building damage or more
  • Killed 3 or more enemy siege units
  • Revived 2 or more friendly units
  • Have a accuracy of a certain percent with all ranged weapons (combined accuracy)
  • Have a 2:1 k:D ratio

The purpose is to encourage more teamwork, and less solo-running around with buffs. I understand this will deny commanders and players alike to use buffs in critical situations, but it could be considered overall useful for preventing selfbuffs beeing wasted to non-useful teammembers atleast.

Since the game allready tracks lots of this information for a player during a game, I do believe this could be relatively"easely" to implement, as it only have to check these criterias when requesting buff from the buff pool or when commander attempts to buff you.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Storky on April 13, 2018, 05:31:27 am
Suggestion Coil:
Decrease cooldown.
Get cross-hair widening like for MMBow, but much smaller.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Daemon on April 13, 2018, 05:40:06 am
Why?


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on April 17, 2018, 04:34:13 pm
Suggestion: re-worked target prioritization for all towers.

if i'm not mistaken, towers currently auto attack the closest enemy target in range, unless it is beein provoked to shoot at something which is atttacking it.


What I'm suggesting is the ability to switch the target prioritization when the tower is not beeing attacked (just when it have a enemy in range). What i want to be able to switch between is  Regular units prioritized first, or siege units.

I believe this will be benefit humans more than beasts overall, and last time i checked, the balance in public games, regardless of map, was slightly in favor of beasts.

Thoughts?


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Hakugei on April 17, 2018, 04:43:01 pm
Just be aware that commanders can manually order towers to attack, effectively deciding who/what to attack.


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on March 09, 2019, 12:41:45 am
I just got an idea while brainstorming concepts for a RTS game.

In savage, sometimes games are stale and hard to win. Here's an idea which gives commander a hugely rewarding but also potentially dangeorus tool to get their team to push harder.

TLDR for ur lazy asses:
It's quite simple : The commander of both teams can enable a temporary state which negatively/postively  affects their own main-base, and  while active -  providing faster/slower respawn for their own team. It can be used in defensive contexts, aswell as offensive contexts. Optional effects (subject to discussion), instead  affecting respawn time  can be other options, such as increased/decreased gold income, increased/decreased buff pool generation, more/less effective mining etc.


Behold, the great wall of explanatory texts:

Since the  base systems for both teams are assyemtrical, we need two asymetrical systems. Both commanders can toogle this state for their sh/lair.
 

For humans:
1. Healing Stronghold with 0,5 % of max HP per time unit (a time unit could be every 5th second for example)
2. Neutral (no healing to stronghold- default state)
3. Decaying (decaying the hp with 0,5 %  of max possible HP per y seconds), basically reverse healing. The damage bypasses shielding.

For beasts:
1. Damage mitigation -  25 % of damage directly to lair is evenly shared to all buildings nearby the lair. The less buildings, the more damage to each building. If no other buildings are nearby, the damage is just reduced by 15 % on the lair. And yes, this can kill tech structures.
2. Neutral (no damage mitigation from lair- default state)
3. Damage Centralization - All damage beast structures take (mapwise) are dealth to lair aswell. Turned off automatically once lair HP reaches 30 % of it's max size.


Some constraints:
For humans:
- SH cannot go below 20 %  hp when decaying, and the state is changed to neutral once it reaches 20 %.
- The healing also automatically stop once the SH reaches 100 %, and state is changed to neutral.

For beasts:
Damage mitigation for beast lasts 2 minutes, but can be turned of sooner.
- Damage Centralization stop once lair reaches 30 % hp, and is switched to neutral state automatically then.

For both races:

- Neutral is default state.
- Once a swap to neutral happends, it cannot go back to the former state the next 5 minutes ( a 5 minute cooldown)
- Both races start with 5 minute cooldown on both their non-neutral states.


Changes needed:

UI changes:
- The swapping of the state could to be either inside their respective home biuldings (lair/sh) or in the UI on top menu, next to taxation etc. for the commander.
- If quicker/slower respawn are enabled, it shows up a tiny icon next to the spawn button in the loadout menu for players.

Logic changes:

- The voice message "our lair/stronghold is under attack" + ping on map would need to be modified to check if decay/damage centralization) is enabled for both races.
- Passive healing for structures needs to be disabled and removed, or atleast for the SH ( I believe shielded buildings are healing really slow?)

======================================

Now, what do these states do ?  They affect the respawn time, a core mechanic to alter a team fighting capabilities, both in defensive and offensive contexts.


* Healing/damage mitigation --> 5 more seconds to respawn time for team while in effect. Considered the defensive option.
* Neutral  --> no change in respawn time. Everything is as we know it today.
* Decaying/damage centralization --> 5 seconds less respawn time for team while in effect.  Considered the offensive option.


Discussion:
I believe respawn time might be a unpopular opinion , in particular with "increased" respawn time. Another aspect  it could affect is gold income, such that the offensive option gives more gold income for example (gold is crucial to strong siege pushes), and less gold income with the defensive option. Buff pools is another option which can be affected - 50 % slower buff pool generation for example. Only your mind is the limit.

And finally, the most important part of this suggestion:
Spoiler (Mouse-Over to read)
What are your thoughts?


Title: Re: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
Post by: Bullet on July 19, 2019, 03:17:07 pm
Not really a gameplay related suggestion, more of a QoL suggestion for maps + the map editor:

I've noticed some maps that the commander have to rotate the camera (try the human commander view on kinixxx for example), where the default camera view doesnt match the angle I believe most commanders would prefer (the most "commonly" used angle I believe would be that the camera is aligned with the direction the stronghold/lair is facing.

However, this doesnt seem to be the case with many maps. That's too late to change for most maps, I realize that. But, would be be useful with a feature that lets the map-editor set each commanders default camera angle for the commander, when they get into the comm seat?

It's not really  something of a big deal, but came to mind when i took the commander seat earlier today.


Note: Might be poor choice of words, but with "angle", im not really talking about angles that affect the height of the camera, i'm talking about what direction "up" is, if you we're vieweing the map from top-down.