|
It is currently Sun May 12, 2024 3:32 pm
|
Author |
Message |
rand4505
Team:
Main: Hooch Dealer
Level: 2763 Class:
Gunner
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:20 pm Location: Who is John Galt?
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
And why the hell should it be against the rules to be annoying? By that thinking any form of pvp should be illegal and this game would be 100% carebear. At that point I would seriously consider quitting as pvp bvb is the thing that most higher level people play this game for.
_________________ 3 Basic types of players(quitters, losers, and winners) Choose your own fate.
http://www.gbtv.com http://www.theblaze.com
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:28 pm |
|
|
JeffL
Site Admin / Dev Team
Team:
Main: Jeff_L
Level: 1028 Class:
Sniper
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:21 am Location: Santa Clara, CA
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Maybe we should change the rule to 20k distance in order to not favor the defenders so much. I feel like at 20k, if the defenders try to make a defensive ring 10k out, they will start to get stretched kind of thin.
_________________ For support, please create a support ticket here and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:29 pm |
|
|
rand4505
Team:
Main: Hooch Dealer
Level: 2763 Class:
Gunner
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:20 pm Location: Who is John Galt?
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
That is even worse. As you would force the newly droped kits to be in max base range, any 2 range auged base would destroy a newly droped kit. You need some kind of space where both kits would be out of range. 25-30k would do it. But if any type of max base range was changed this rule would have to change as well. Attackers must have a greater range to deploy than the defenders, it is the only way BvB can work.
_________________ 3 Basic types of players(quitters, losers, and winners) Choose your own fate.
http://www.gbtv.com http://www.theblaze.com
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:32 pm |
|
|
vampire2948
Team:
Main: Paladinofdoom
Level: 1993 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:35 pm
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
rand4505 wrote: That is even worse. As you would force the newly droped kits to be in max base range, any 2 range auged base would destroy a newly droped kit. You need some kind of space where both kits would be out of range. 25-30k would do it. But if any type of max base range was changed this rule would have to change as well. Attackers must have a greater range to deploy than the defenders, it is the only way BvB can work. Dropping two-range augged kits for that purpose would be a better use of my MFM base slots. ^_^
_________________
newman233 wrote: <3 Pally
This guy gets my full Jiggle!
He is full of awesomesauce, and Jigglyness, buy from him!
Kanga
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:55 pm |
|
|
Klestiko
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:55 am
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Two bases can cover 40,000 distance so any distance cap is capable of totally fucking attackers over.
Edit: Like this
_________________
Simon, Talking about the Admins and I wrote: Well someone has to play the devil if they are the gods.
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:01 pm |
|
|
vampire2948
Team:
Main: Paladinofdoom
Level: 1993 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:35 pm
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Or three at polar coordinates (10k,0),(10k,120),(10k,240). This would work better, Kles.
_________________
newman233 wrote: <3 Pally
This guy gets my full Jiggle!
He is full of awesomesauce, and Jigglyness, buy from him!
Kanga
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:16 pm |
|
|
JeffL
Site Admin / Dev Team
Team:
Main: Jeff_L
Level: 1028 Class:
Sniper
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:21 am Location: Santa Clara, CA
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
After further discussions, we think a limit of 30k would be more practical. It does less to stop the griefing aspect of putting cloaked kits way out, but it's probably still enough of a limit to eliminate the manually enforced rule and it's far enough out that it would take a major effort for defenders to try to cover everything, and even if they did, they would end up with a bunch of bases totally isolated from each other and somewhat vulnerable.
_________________ For support, please create a support ticket here and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:29 pm |
|
|
Dancmpbll
Team:
Main: Tallon
Level: 2653 Class:
Berserker
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:30 pm Location: London
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
What about making it that you can lay further then 20k out but it decays depending on tech level and distance. so like a t20 at 30k dis would take 10 hours or at 60k 5 hours etc that should give you enough time to work your way back in?
Tallon
_________________ Tallon Director of TorchWood Leader of the Talloban!
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:42 pm |
|
|
vampire2948
Team:
Main: Paladinofdoom
Level: 1993 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:35 pm
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Dancmpbll wrote: What about making it that you can lay further then 20k out but it decays depending on tech level and distance. so like a t20 at 30k dis would take 10 hours or at 60k 5 hours etc that should give you enough time to work your way back in?
Tallon This is overly complicated. The fix Jeff posted above yours is sufficient. You don't need to drop a kit more than 20k out, usually. 30k is more than enough of a limit.
_________________
newman233 wrote: <3 Pally
This guy gets my full Jiggle!
He is full of awesomesauce, and Jigglyness, buy from him!
Kanga
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:49 pm |
|
|
Denux
Team:
Main: Denux
Level: 4 Class:
None
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:15 pm
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Klestiko wrote: Two bases can cover 40,000 distance so any distance cap is capable of totally fucking attackers over. You could patch those holes by having some overlap in the radius in which bases may attack, but doing so to cover a very large area now means sacrificing the combined power of these bases in order to acquire area coverage. At that point the attackers could more effectively PvB the bases one-by-one since they won't have to worry about too many returning fire or healing each other at a time. Another option is to even PvB one base and deploy their own in the area that it no longer covers.
_________________ Master Chief: a true hero.
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:52 pm |
|
|
Dancmpbll
Team:
Main: Tallon
Level: 2653 Class:
Berserker
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:30 pm Location: London
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Denux wrote: Klestiko wrote: Two bases can cover 40,000 distance so any distance cap is capable of totally fucking attackers over. You could patch those holes by having some overlap in the radius in which bases may attack, but doing so to cover a very large area now means sacrificing the combined power of these bases in order to acquire area coverage. At that point the attackers could more effectively PvB the bases one-by-one since they won't have to worry about too many returning fire or healing each other at a time. Another option is to even PvB one base and deploy their own in the area that it no longer covers. Try doing that to a base with 100+ ablatives on while the defender tows the other base further towards you. Tallon
_________________ Tallon Director of TorchWood Leader of the Talloban!
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:54 pm |
|
|
vampire2948
Team:
Main: Paladinofdoom
Level: 1993 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:35 pm
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Denux wrote: Klestiko wrote: Two bases can cover 40,000 distance so any distance cap is capable of totally fucking attackers over. You could patch those holes by having some overlap in the radius in which bases may attack, but doing so to cover a very large area now means sacrificing the combined power of these bases in order to acquire area coverage. At that point the attackers could more effectively PvB the bases one-by-one since they won't have to worry about too many returning fire or healing each other at a time. Another option is to even PvB one base and deploy their own in the area that it no longer covers. Me wrote: Or three at polar coordinates (10k,0),(10k,120),(10k,240). This would work better, Kles. Meh. Opens whole new realms of trickery. Great. People just won't bother, and it'll be the same as it is now. The purpose of this change is to remove a grief-y tactic involving invisible base kits. Not to include new tactics in BvBing.
_________________
newman233 wrote: <3 Pally
This guy gets my full Jiggle!
He is full of awesomesauce, and Jigglyness, buy from him!
Kanga
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:56 pm |
|
|
Dancmpbll
Team:
Main: Tallon
Level: 2653 Class:
Berserker
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:30 pm Location: London
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Why can we not have both?
Tallon
_________________ Tallon Director of TorchWood Leader of the Talloban!
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:14 pm |
|
|
vampire2948
Team:
Main: Paladinofdoom
Level: 1993 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:35 pm
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
Denux wrote: Klestiko wrote: Two bases can cover 40,000 distance so any distance cap is capable of totally fucking attackers over. You could patch those holes by having some overlap in the radius in which bases may attack, but doing so to cover a very large area now means sacrificing the combined power of these bases in order to acquire area coverage. At that point the attackers could more effectively PvB the bases one-by-one since they won't have to worry about too many returning fire or healing each other at a time. Another option is to even PvB one base and deploy their own in the area that it no longer covers. Btw. Your red dot is covered by the regular kits in the center of the galaxy. /sigh
_________________
newman233 wrote: <3 Pally
This guy gets my full Jiggle!
He is full of awesomesauce, and Jigglyness, buy from him!
Kanga
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:29 pm |
|
|
rand4505
Team:
Main: Hooch Dealer
Level: 2763 Class:
Gunner
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:20 pm Location: Who is John Galt?
|
Re: New base placement limitation proposal
I don't see them being mutually exclusive.
_________________ 3 Basic types of players(quitters, losers, and winners) Choose your own fate.
http://www.gbtv.com http://www.theblaze.com
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:30 pm |
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|