Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Fort Discussion (forget the other threads)
Page 4 of 4
Ceraphim
Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:03 am
#40
I think Squad Leaders and Architects should have to work together to build fortifications on the battlefield. The Architect could build it, and only SL's would have the cert to place them.
I also think that zero attribute bonuses are necessary to make them worthwhile. I recommend instead they be able to hold a Turret with a control terminal just like detachment HQ's. With a small safe haven to fight from or retreat to, a turret and a ranger camp behind it with dancers and doctors healing etc. it would make for an effective strategy during larger battles.
Yog-Soth
Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:10 am
#41
Now this is an interesting Fort idea..
My main complaint is why remove, nerf, or cancel out our passive group buffs to make them reliant on a contingent structure ?
Thats redundant, damaging, and im not flaming, but it's also poorly thought through. Because balancing will remove or berf the passives for this.
now a Structure made by an architect, and only a SL certified to drop them, with turrets or wot'not , but no ability enhancments, is a decent idea. Used like equipment, not as an " ability" is a better idea, i believe. I think we need to seriously get away from the Idea of having our abilities dependant upon contingencies, or upon only certain situations. How are you gonna drop this fort inside a Thempark or dungeon ? Your not, that simple.. And where will the use of the SL be then ?
Lets concern ourselves more with wot we CAN DO , and Less on wot we CAN DO IF A ='s (situation).
MasterTexiria
Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:41 am
#42
I never implied that we should loose our passive bonuses...I personally think they should be increased to about 50 fpr the defensive mods( a noticible difference). Also I think they had the right direction for our skills like with rally and volley fire but they need to be changed to be more effective. For example volley fire should give a dmg increase comperable to specials, and or should be make it pool targetable.
irott
Fri Sep 03, 2004 10:33 am
#43
Yog.... trust me when I say Squad Leader will change. It will almost be unrecognizable after the CB, which we all know will be a very good thing.
Don't worry about in combat passive and active buffs, thats nots whats being discussed here.
The SL fortification (yes I have always envisioned all of our high end stuff like E-Webs and Forts to be crafted by other professions) is a pure defensive structure that is found outside of battle. It won't be placednext towhat your team is attacking, but a ways away. This is where your team will go to if they are in need of a Full heal of both damage and wounds (this means it is a good idea to have a doctor and a Musician or Dancer there at all times.). Because if you can keep your team in battle, then you have a better chance of victory.
Thoughts?
Blackferne
Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:41 pm
#45
irott wrote:
The SL fortification (yes I have always envisioned all of our high end stuff like E-Webs and Forts to be crafted by other professions) is a pure defensive structure that is found outside of battle. It won't be placednext towhat your team is attacking, but a ways away. This is where your team will go to if they are in need of a Full heal of both damage and wounds (this means it is a good idea to have a doctor and a Musician or Dancer there at all times.). Because if you can keep your team in battle, then you have a better chance of victory.
Thoughts?
I think it can even be on the edge of battle. Basically with SLs working in concert they can help stage a seige on a bank of bases or something similar. But I definitely think they should be craftable items made by crafting professions. Even better would be if it was a combo peice. Architects make the frame with final assembly rights, weaponsmiths can make active defenses (like turrets maybe but not as powerful), armorsmiths can create armor plating, droid engineers can make communication equipment to link up several forts (3 forts within a certain distance of each other get another littlebonus?)
I really like the idea of us shooting out of them from towers and walls etc.
*goes back into pillow fort*
Yog-Soth
Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:00 am
#46
Irrot
Your idea of "forts" sounds just like the camps i make. WHy is wasting DEV and Art dept. time to do something we already do, a "good idea ?"
I believe the CB is not a Balancing at all, it's an Engine over-haul im sure. I doubt that all the Corrospondents were "amazed" with fixes , they were "amazed" by an all new system. I'm willing to bet 2 more months subcription on it.
But to the point though.....
Forts as a SL certified piece of equipment, would be ok i guess.. But as an ability, no sir, i think we should keep shopping.
Therascalking3
Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:51 am
#47
still Yog you have to admit that a structure of some kind makes more sense in the manner of providing defense than just a simple group leader.
unless the squad leaders are taking all the damage for everyone 
Making it something crafted by archtects would kill SLs in the purse but its better than not having it.
And lastly i think some people need to really look at what rangers are in comparison to SLs. They are nothing alike and the ranger camps versus the sl forts illustrate that point exactly.
MailekEOC
Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:13 am
#48
Forts are really a mixed bag for me, as I do like the idea but don't know if it would work right in a game as fast paced as this. We don't need an entire tree for forts, we should only get maybe 2 types or something, the command center type be at the master level box. We also don't have any clue if the devs will agree and use the extra art time necessary to develop these forts. Irott should find out asap if the devs think this could work.
Ceraphim
Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:39 pm
#49
This is what I was trying to avoid...that is, taking away the necessity of ranger camps. I think a fort should be for fortification purposes only. A ranger camp is tough to maintain during a battle mainly because of one thing, it lacks fortification. Plop a fort next to it, turret and all, bam, fortification. SL and Ranger with a handy Architect, dancers and musiciansall in one place helping out in a group effortand right there you have half the non-combative skills working together to win a battle.
irott wrote:
Yog.... trust me when I say Squad Leader will change. It will almost be unrecognizable after the CB, which we all know will be a very good thing.
Don't worry about in combat passive and active buffs, thats nots whats being discussed here.
The SL fortification (yes I have always envisioned all of our high end stuff like E-Webs and Forts to be crafted by other professions) is a pure defensive structure that is found outside of battle. It won't be placednext towhat your team is attacking, but a ways away. This is where your team will go to if they are in need of a Full heal of both damage and wounds (this means it is a good idea to have a doctor and a Musician or Dancer there at all times.). Because if you can keep your team in battle, then you have a better chance of victory.
Thoughts?
irott
Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:01 pm
#50
Ceraphim wrote:
Plop a fort next to it, turret and all, bam, fortification.
I agree with this.
I would rather have no fortifcation for SL's, and allow Ranger camps to function in reguards to being a real "Field Base". The SL's role would be to provide the E-Web/Heavy Repeaters to protect the location.
Still a lot of problems pop up with forced requirements of having a ranger and all that stuff. But this is still only a rough idea, there is a ton of more work to be done on this idea before its even close to a well rounded proposal.
Yog-Soth
Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:58 am
#51
I didn't say it was fine, and i didn't say i liked it.
I said i wouldn't opose them..
But wot you want a rant about is more and more like wot i thought you meant in the begaining. Which yes i am opposed to.
Besides that the DEVs aren't going to implement them anyways
Page 4 of 4