Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Why we should'nt have forts
Page 1 of 2
Therascalking3
Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:11 am
#1
because of all the recent attention i figured i would start a thread for each view on this hot topic. Since forts are something that will go beyond combat balance we should be good to suggest whatever we come up with.
So for all the haters in here (jk lol) post here why you dont support the idea.
Therascalking3
Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:07 pm
#2
we arent getting a revamp for a while anyway lol.
JTL
Combat Balance
Smuggler Revamp
(and we all know there will be another five jedi patches before us as well)
I forget who said this i think it may have been Panzer but if Ranger camps were improved and became amazing refuge camps and stuff and then SL forts because powerful offensive structures to use in battles it would bring camps back from the dead.
MailekEOC
Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:01 pm
#3
The SL revamp was coming before the smuggler revamp if you remember. It was supposed to be in with the combat balance. I still think this should and could be done for a few reasons.
Squad Leaders are just about or even more broken then smuggler is, and i'm not playing favourites cause i was a rogue and SL at one point. Smugglers have some nice working pistol specials, one is the best in the game for pistols and they have slicing which can definately help bring in some income. Not to mention the fact they can buy faction, another good perk.
Squad Leaders should be the most important person to group with, they are a bit right now but very little, mainly boost morale, form up and the ranged and melee defense mods.
Now for the revamp, it would be a lot easier to implement SL revamp first because, changes would be pretty simple, all it involves is some tweaks here, some new code there and perhaps a few new art designs (comlink and fortifactions). Smuggler would require a complete revamp of the spice tree and changes to all spice like chefs, changes to slicing, a complete overhaul of the underworld tree and a robust smuggling system put into play. This effects the entire SWG economy which means it will take more development time to do so. Also smugglers have requested some type of player involvement in smuggling and perhaps having them or other players gain visability on the BH terminals.
This doesn't even include the space part of smuggler which they wanted to do post JTLS. Squad Leader could easily be done as a mini publish like the IDs, we don't need an entire publish dedicated to us, but smugglers do. So if the dev team were smarter they would do us first cause this smuggler revamp will be large and probably even more important then the jedi revamp since it has the potential to effect all types of players.
Rarrot
Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:18 pm
#4
It'd be impossible to include them in the profession without taking away from our leadership abilities (or those we could have if you didn't try to pitch an idea to the devs that has nothing to do with leadership). I'd rather stick to abilities that are actually related to leading.
PanzerGR
Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:56 pm
#5
Yog-Soth wrote:
1. No need for a fortification , when i have mastered the scout camp tree. Everything proposed for forts , is exactly wot my Camps do. Fortifications would be wasting SP because we have atool for that already in-hand.
2. Makeing fortifications a "group" venture, means forcing me to find a commando, ranger whoever so that i can use it. If one is not in the group, it becomes even more of a waste of SkillPoints.
3. It is totally out of character for the Proff. Soldiers don't build structures, they blow them up.
4. Removes the usefullness of other classes in the squad, who may have tools and abilities similar to the preposed.
5. Current skill trees for SL are useful, and go with the "theme" of SL.
6. Tweaking the current SL ablities instead of removing them for new coded ablities would be WAY faster to get implemented.
7.Adding this ability would require dropping other SL powers , that do more to Enhance the potential of said troops. ( otherwise it would be inbalanced)
8. Standing behind a structure thats keeps me safe , while everyone else must be static , or run around away from the "bonuses" of the Structure WILL cause animosity. (establishing that you wouldn't need to be in the Building to get the bonuses , makes "droping" a fort redundantly pointless, when a you could make such things a passive power)
9. RascalKing supports it
10. Would require purchasing or harvesting multipule mediums to construct them, ontop of the materials needed to create camps.
11. A large fort would be nothing but a giant sign " Hey !! I'm prolly acquiring TEF at the moment, would you like to come over here and attack me too ?!? "
12. Prolly too drastic an implemintation for the DEVs to code anyways.
13. Forts traditionally attract Angry Braves , and Large Mexican revolutionary armies. ( Remeber the Alamo !!!)
14. We've waited long enough for an abilities fix, making new abilities would be too much for the DEVs to handle while they work J2LS and fix it's bugs after launch
15. My magic 8-ball says it's a bad idea.
16. Surgeon General has stated that asbestos used in fort construction causes cancer.
I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons that other people are opposed to it as well i may not have thought of.
( a couple of these reasons are meant for levity ,and not to be taken serious)
Something tells me you havnt read any of Thuliums official discussion threads on the SL branches yet...if you had a few of yoru statements might have made more sense.
How do yoru camps do everythign a fortification would? Camps dont provide extra defense or quite a few of the other things proposed forts would heh
Forts wouldnt "take up a branch" as many of you have stated....if nothing else you could throw them into mobility or novice/master......exactly what else were YOU planning to have them put into mobility, for instance? We already have the passives...theres no actual "skill" that goes int hem. I fidn this concept of "itd take up a whole branch" to be unfounded and not ill-conceived.
YOu say that it will "force" yout o have that proff. No, it doesnt FORCE you to do anything. It would ALLOW you to perform EXTRA duty if those guys were present and capable. It is getting the most out of yoru squad.....thats what SL's do.
You seem to not pay any attention to the fact that there are uses for everything.....even if it is a STATIC it still has a use in soem cases..and as i said thats what an SL should be......we should have skills and abilities that allow us to enhance our group in EVERY conceivable fashion.....mobile warfare, static warfare, and a mix. It's called flexibility.
and number 6 is just too funny. I have been playing an SL since beta. This profession has been broken sinc elaunch. They broke it even more in October when they messed with the SL xp, and peopel were able to gain SL xp TWICE as fast as they used to.....now you have ppl levelling to master in a day, which is ridiculous. I could care less if they took an entire month to do the SL revamp when they got aorund to doing it.....ive already been waiting a year for it to get fixed. Ims orry that you just picked upt he skill and think you know everything now, and that you cant be patient liek the rest of us who have been waiting for over a year to get fixed and you think that having them redo SL "FAST" has anything to do witht he equation. I dotn want a FAST fix at all.....its WAYYYYYYYYY too late for that. I want a QUALITY fix now.
Ive waited over a year for this so i want it to be one of the best revamps the Devs have done...if it takes them a bit longer to do that and they need to fill the tree to busting with skills to do that.......then by all means do so. I can wait an extra few weeks if it coems out strong.
Telakyte
Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:49 pm
#6
to note: Soldiers do indeed learn to make structures. Temporary camps, even camp fortifications.From the Roman Legionaire to the Marine, all soldiers are trained in professional camp making.
Insulting 
Blackferne
Thu Aug 19, 2004 7:59 pm
#7
If forts were implemented in teh game I would want them to serve as a seige staging ground against faction bases. Perhaps giving defensive bonuses similar to a city with military specialization, but more importantly I would want them to be dropped in such a way as to reduce lines of sight to as to give the group choke points to defend much like real forts. Also the camp itself should be given hit points so an attacking force could whittle down its defensive bonuses and eventually over run it.
*leaves 2 cents on table*
Yog-Soth
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:16 am
#8
1. No need for a fortification , when i have mastered the scout camp tree. Everything proposed for forts , is exactly wot my Camps do. Fortifications would be wasting SP because we have atool for that already in-hand.
2. Makeing fortifications a "group" venture, means forcing me to find a commando, ranger whoever so that i can use it. If one is not in the group, it becomes even more of a waste of SkillPoints.
3. It is totally out of character for the Proff. Soldiers don't build structures, they blow them up.
4. Removes the usefullness of other classes in the squad, who may have tools and abilities similar to the preposed.
5. Current skill trees for SL are useful, and go with the "theme" of SL.
6. Tweaking the current SL ablities instead of removing them for new coded ablities would be WAY faster to get implemented.
7.Adding this ability would require dropping other SL powers , that do more to Enhance the potential of said troops. ( otherwise it would be inbalanced)
8. Standing behind a structure thats keeps me safe , while everyone else must be static , or run around away from the "bonuses" of the Structure WILL cause animosity. (establishing that you wouldn't need to be in the Building to get the bonuses , makes "droping" a fort redundantly pointless, when a you could make such things a passive power)
9. RascalKing supports it
10. Would require purchasing or harvesting multipule mediums to construct them, ontop of the materials needed to create camps.
11. A large fort would be nothing but a giant sign " Hey !! I'm prolly acquiring TEF at the moment, would you like to come over here and attack me too ?!? "
12. Prolly too drastic an implemintation for the DEVs to code anyways.
13. Forts traditionally attract Angry Braves , and Large Mexican revolutionary armies. ( Remeber the Alamo !!!)
14. We've waited long enough for an abilities fix, making new abilities would be too much for the DEVs to handle while they work J2LS and fix it's bugs after launch
15. My magic 8-ball says it's a bad idea.
16. Surgeon General has stated that asbestos used in fort construction causes cancer.
I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons that other people are opposed to it as well i may not have thought of.
( a couple of these reasons are meant for levity ,and not to be taken serious)
MailekEOC
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:58 am
#10
I don't hate the idea of fortifactions cause I did 100% support them back when they first were around. Only problem is how the game has evolved, camps as it is are pretty much obsolete. If we were to get a fort say at novice level then master level that would be fine but do not waste an entire tree to static options, plus the art department would take their sweet ass time desiging a bunch of them.
Yog-Soth
Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:25 am
#11
Hey smackTards THIS IS THE REASONS WHY WE SHOUDLN'T , PERHAPS IF YOU ALL SPENT MORE TIME READING YOURSELVES YOU WOULD BE POSTING IN THE CORRECT THREAD.
i CANT WAIT FOR THEM TO **edit** UP THE ARCHITECT CLASS, WAIT I MEAN SQUADLEADER CLASSS THEY WAY 2 OR 3 OF YOU WANT IT TO BE.
DK_CRAKER
Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:17 pm
#13
Yog-Soth wrote:
3. It is totally out of character for the Proff. Soldiers don't build structures, they blow them up.
Im sure you know about soldiers considering you are one right?
5. Current skill trees for SL are useful, and go with the "theme" of SL.
the theme of a SL is to lead and help the Group.helping the group includes the building fortifications to AIDE in the victory of battle
8. Standing behind a structure thats keeps me safe , while everyone else must be static , or run around away from the "bonuses" of the Structure WILL cause animosity. (establishing that you wouldn't need to be in the Building to get the bonuses , makes "droping" a fort redundantly pointless, when a you could make such things a passive power)
not really, war isnt always Static, usually people bunker behind other things for protection, while their flank group goes to another fortification for a better shot.
10. Would require purchasing or harvesting multipule mediums to construct them, ontop of the materials needed to create camps.
whoah, god forbid we have to do a little harvesting, but we harvested in Scout. so we are well suited for the job. in Vietnam the soldiers used to HARVEST bugs and eat them. so saying that a SL shouldnt harvest is ridiculous
9. RascalKing supports it
11. A large fort would be nothing but a giant sign " Hey !! I'm prolly acquiring TEF at the moment, would you like to come over here and attack me too ?!? "
13. Forts traditionally attract Angry Braves , and Large Mexican revolutionary armies. ( Remeber the Alamo !!!)
15. My magic 8-ball says it's a bad idea.
16. Surgeon General has stated that asbestos used in fort construction causes cancer.
this isnt a joking matter
I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons that other people are opposed to it as well i may not have thought of.
( a couple of these reasons are meant for levity ,and not to be taken serious)
doesnt matter, we are trying to fix and repair this profession to what a Squad leader ACTUALLY DOES
Page 1 of 2