Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Fort Discussion (forget the other threads)
Page 1 of 4
Therascalking3
Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:46 am
#1
ok i realize it probably wasnt smart to make 2 threads and we will discuss it all in one so we can respond to each other easier. Now especially since Yog seems to be very angry and writing all in caps.
I have changed my opinion after reading Panzer's post and believe that forts should just be put into one of the existing trees such as mobility or something so that it doesnt take up a branch and doesnt force people to grind it to get master if they dont want it.
Still in the end i believe camps should be an addition to the Squad leader profession. As you may have read in the other threads, camps are in fact something that soldier are trained to construct and they would add a new element of combat to provide the Squad leader with new tools to use in other situations like static battles. Flexibility was the best word used to describe that although i forget who posted that.
Also about the SL revamp over the Smuggler revamp. This was said before but the smuggler not only have a larger player base but also are a more Star Wars involved group of people. And i dont remember their ever being a time that we were supposed to come first. Truth is that we definitely could be done in maybe one or two mini patches and the forts which would be the biggest system to implement would only consist of new modeling as a system for laying camps is already implemented. (obviously their would be coding involved but not like the smugglers would need)
not only would doing SL in mini patches be reasonable but it would satisfy a player base and add new elements of fun to the game. Maybe irott should push this idea if he agrees.
Anyway discuss away people
Yog-Soth
Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:05 am
#2
Ok , i will revamp my opinion..
If This Fort idea , is a side note, tacked into something without removing the current abilities some people actually like, then i would not oppose it.
However, the idae of a fort that adds bonuses to def and att is redundant , as the class already has this ability. And i believe for the DEV to implement this , they would have to "Balance" this out. And we all know wot balancing means, not just in SWG but any MMo, it means removing..
Yog-Soth
Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:06 am
#3
1. Rascal is right, i did fly off handle this morning. For that i appologize. And invite anyone to dismiss me.
2. WHy does the forum keep double posting me ??
Therascalking3
Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:12 am
#4
i dont know but it does it to me too sometimes.
Anyway yeah i think if we just tack it on to one of the more lacking branches like mobility it would help smooth over the idea with the community. Now i think there should be both the passive SL buffs to defenses and on top of it fort buffs to defenses but maybe we could change what defenses. I think SL have defenses vs. non-medical states would be cool and then the bulk of ranged defense and attack can be reserved for forts.
Also dealing with melee guys and SL forts. I think it only makes sense for melee guys to benefit from the larger sized forts and only when they are like right in front of it. So to compensate (even though theoretically we are only qualified with ranged support) passive melee attack and defense buffs can be put it.
Blackferne
Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:27 am
#5
Basically I see forts as an exciting idea to help bring more tactics to PvP combat. Here is kinda what I could see happening. Assume for a second that a fort is a camp that provides ranged defense bonuses and melee defensive bonuses in addition to those already provided by teh strategy and tactics line. It would only apply to members of the SL's group who are in teh boundries of the camp.
Okay here is the scenario. There is a faction base that is heavily fortified. You know that even with all your badasses you can't flush them out by charging in. Your best hope is to draw out a few at a tiem and kill them in your fort(acting as a trap) and then letting some buffed TKMs in your group guard their cloner thus cutting off unbuffed reinforcements. This would be a new kind of strategy to implement.
Adding a campschematic in the mobility line that has these propertieswould suffice since it would be teh camp that is providing bonuses not the SL so much. If a MSL dropped teh fort/camp provided at mobility 1, the camp itself would have no more advantage than a novice SL with mobility 1. I would say add a novice camp, a medium defensive camp at mobility 3 and a master camp complete with a moat.
Okay maybe teh moat is a bit much, a simple ring of fire would suffice. 
Rarrot
Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:41 pm
#6
Two reasons why we can't have good forts:
Since each profession only gets a certain amount of power (in the interests of balance), it follows that a new idea like fortifications could follow one of two paths; either they would be so weak (ie. bonuses no larger than rally gives now) that they don't really make a difference, or they'd take something away from the leadership aspects of the profession. This isn't just a squad support profession, it's squad leader, and it should have half-decent abilities fitting the title.
Second, it causes even more balance issues. Right now, we already push peoples' defenses almost 25% beyond the cap. That's a big difference, and anything much larger than that would make an incredible difference in the amount that someone can be hit. (Generally, letting anything go to extremes will 'break' the equations used in manners that cause unintended side effects; take the speed and armour equations as examples.) The only safe way to allow fortifications to give a half-decent bonus would be to nerf our passive bonuses, too. That means you really would be throwing squad leader out and making the combat engineer you seem to want so much.
Leave abilities unrelated to a profession out of it. Politicians don't get accuracy bonuses with rocket launchers because it doesn't make any sense, and that's reason enough to disallow your fortifications proposal; it's just not what the squad leader does in combat.
Since each profession only gets a certain amount of power (in the interests of balance), it follows that a new idea like fortifications could follow one of two paths; either they would be so weak (ie. bonuses no larger than rally gives now) that they don't really make a difference, or they'd take something away from the leadership aspects of the profession. This isn't just a squad support profession, it's squad leader, and it should have half-decent abilities fitting the title.
Second, it causes even more balance issues. Right now, we already push peoples' defenses almost 25% beyond the cap. That's a big difference, and anything much larger than that would make an incredible difference in the amount that someone can be hit. (Generally, letting anything go to extremes will 'break' the equations used in manners that cause unintended side effects; take the speed and armour equations as examples.) The only safe way to allow fortifications to give a half-decent bonus would be to nerf our passive bonuses, too. That means you really would be throwing squad leader out and making the combat engineer you seem to want so much.
Leave abilities unrelated to a profession out of it. Politicians don't get accuracy bonuses with rocket launchers because it doesn't make any sense, and that's reason enough to disallow your fortifications proposal; it's just not what the squad leader does in combat.
Therascalking3
Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:49 am
#7
rarrot you have to stop with this whole concept that it is totally not part of our profession to build forts. You have heard from several squad leaders in the actual military who have told you time after time that part of their RL job was fort and camp construction.
After that you have to see that making SL really strong would be no problem because it is a group profession. Everyone is available to the bonuses of SL so it isnt being unfair. Also it doesnt make an SL more powerful than any other profession because it is a support profession and not a combat profession.
And you should see that if you really want SL to be just a leader and not have forts you shouldnt have bonuses to defenses. Why does having one guy in the group boost your defense unless he is taking all the hits for you. It makes no sense. At least a forts makes sense for why you are better protected. There is no reason why one guy having a (L) next to his name in the group window means i am safer from a mind shot. However a big wall being in the way of his mindshot should defense me a little more than no wall.
And maybe we should be giving combat bonuses to politicians. Many serve in the military and in the good old days they used to practice fencing and pistol marksmanship. How about when Brooks beat the hell of out of Sumner with a cane during the Antebellum times. Shouldnt they get a bonus to 1-handed damage. /sarcasm off
thelar
Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:38 am
#8
I really like the idea of having the forts provided that they are useful and meaningful. There are more then enough abilities in the game that are obsolete so we dont need to add another one.
I think it would be very cool to have them, but they should come as an enhancement to our profession, it should not come at the expense of any of our leadership abilties what so ever. Besides, its not like giving SL's a little dev love is going to hurt anyone. Both sides have access to them and it benefits everyone and makes the game more fun to play.
Yog-Soth
Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:27 am
#9
The reason SLs give these bonuses in a group , is because the sqaudleader is shooting cover commands, postions, targets etc.. etc... "Jimmy bring the 30 cal , left flank target haystack area !" I.E.
The idea of a Fort to do this is again, redundant, as we do it already. I hear this " if ain't broke don't fix it.." To balance it out, they'll remove the passive buffs we give. Again a re-tweak of current powers is wot i would like to see. Not recodeing, testing, recoding, ttesting, recoding then handed off to an art department, then submitted to Lucas Arts for approval.
"if you don't like it don't use forts then !" True... but how about this... " if you want forts and bad ass camps, play a Ranger.."
I don't blame any rangers for dislikeing the idea, sounds to me like encroachment of their class.
I use all the current SL abilities , even if they don't work exaclty like WE think they should , i have found Tactical uses for them all.
Yog-Soth
Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:11 am
#10
Also why would a Fort add to your offensive capabilities ?
Forts were, are now, and will be a defensive measure. The enemy does'nt allow you towalk upto them and then bring in equipment , level the ground, have lunch-union rules, then start placeing foundation etc.. etc..
They only time a "Fort" will give you an "offensive" advantage is if you COUNTER-ATTACKING someone who already is sieging you.
And then your still on the DEFENSIVE.
Forts are used to "hold" a line , mark a boundary, or for a place to enforce your dominance FROM.
Therascalking3
Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:17 am
#11
Yog-Soth wrote:
Also why would a Fort add to your offensive capabilities ?
Forts were, are now, and will be a defensive measure. The enemy does'nt allow you towalk upto them and then bring in equipment , level the ground, have lunch-union rules, then start placeing foundation etc.. etc..
They only time a "Fort" will give you an "offensive" advantage is if you COUNTER-ATTACKING someone who already is sieging you.
And then your still on the DEFENSIVE.
Forts are used to "hold" a line , mark a boundary, or for a place to enforce your dominance FROM.
so by your logic a sniper tower adds nothing to a snipers offensive ability. or how about a bunker where you can more clearly fire at your target because you are protected and have more flexibility of position. And what if we want forts to defend as well. I think a faction base with a bunch of sandbags and trenches and bunkers defending it would make it a more secure location. Is that a problem? Maybe if people could defend their bases like that there would be more of them around instead of no one putting up new ones cuz a single toon can slice the whole thing.
Therascalking3
Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:26 am
#12
Yog-Soth wrote:
The reason SLs give these bonuses in a group , is because the sqaudleader is shooting cover commands, postions, targets etc.. etc... "Jimmy bring the 30 cal , left flank target haystack area !" I.E.
The idea of a Fort to do this is again, redundant, as we do it already. I hear this " if ain't broke don't fix it.." To balance it out, they'll remove the passive buffs we give. Again a re-tweak of current powers is wot i would like to see. Not recodeing, testing, recoding, ttesting, recoding then handed off to an art department, then submitted to Lucas Arts for approval.
"if you don't like it don't use forts then !" True... but how about this... " if you want forts and bad ass camps, play a Ranger.."
I don't blame any rangers for dislikeing the idea, sounds to me like encroachment of their class.
I use all the current SL abilities , even if they don't work exaclty like WE think they should , i have found Tactical uses for them all.
A person shouting commands doesnt block bullets from hitting a body. A single guy calling for a machine gun to be placed doesnt protect a soldier a sword stabbing him. However a wall in between the bullet or the sword would definitely defend the soldier. Passive buffs would be a game-style idea not a RL idea. So i am confused with all of the people crying about how SL's in RL dont make forts, but they somehow provide with a defense from harm. Im not saying get rid of passive buffs because they are good. We should just changed the way passives work. Passives should be against things like intimidate, stun, and other non-medical states. Fort structures should provide the buffs to ranged defense ranged attack and all the combat stats.
Also where would little jimmy be bring the 30 cal? maybe to a sandbag position or a trench? And where exactly is this 30 cal equivalent in the professions of SWG.
I think you should talk to some rangers too. They understand that there camps are not war camps but refugee and resting camps. They call for better more useful rest camps that will be especially more useful after the buff nerf. They do see the great ideas behind SL forts and many of them support them as long as their is a clearly defined difference in the uses of the structures which there obviously is.
Yog-Soth
Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:28 am
#13
LOL again bunkers , sniper towers are defensive structures.
Shouting , doesn't stop bullets no. Giving commands on wot to do keeps them safer, not safe.
Second all your doing is flaming me
So get your foot off my nutz, and take a step back.
Page 1 of 4