Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 29, 2022, 11:28:04 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Savage: XR is a new patch for Savage, created by the Newerth.com staff. The XR1.1 Client is out now! Download it now!
190179 Posts in 11018 Topics by 18667 Members
Latest Member: avelesfilho
* Home Forum Wiki Help Search Login Register
+  Newerth Forums
|-+  Savage XR
| |-+  Re-balancing Suggestions
| | |-+  Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Read 1st :: Post here your 2nd generation re-balancing suggestions  (Read 59052 times)
Python enthusiast
Newerth Donator
Sr. Member
Posts: 353

View Profile
« Reply #90 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.

Jr. Member
Posts: 83

View Profile
« Reply #91 on: April 13, 2018, 05:31:27 am »

Suggestion Coil:
Decrease cooldown.
Get cross-hair widening like for MMBow, but much smaller.

XR Main Developer
Legendary Member
Posts: 4825

beware, for this is the everbroken...

View Profile
« Reply #92 on: April 13, 2018, 05:40:06 am »


Python enthusiast
Newerth Donator
Sr. Member
Posts: 353

View Profile
« Reply #93 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.


XR Coder
Legendary Member
Posts: 3837

View Profile
« Reply #94 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.
Python enthusiast
Newerth Donator
Sr. Member
Posts: 353

View Profile
« Reply #95 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.

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?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2019, 04:58:00 am by Bullet » Logged

Python enthusiast
Newerth Donator
Sr. Member
Posts: 353

View Profile
« Reply #96 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.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.017 seconds with 19 queries.