Just thinking, with this as a visibility layer now, then there's nothing stopping underground tunneling units from being a thing...
That would be super badass to see somewhere in the future. Surprise flanking attack from below? HELL YEAH!
no this one just realy would be op how do you intent to counter those make vanguard/infernodrop with those on a enemy that has even remotely his attention somewhere else = instacommsnipe
Unit unpack times, seismic sensors, terrian/water restrictions, and many more. The options for creating limitations to underground tunneling units are many and varied. Personally, there are a lot of things I'd like to see added to the game before this one. It would be cool, just don't feel that it adds anything to the game beyond being cool.
Seismic stations., mines working better against underground units, (perhaps they collapse tunnels), boom bots able to detect them and wait above ground for them to arrive and then... Seriously, it's like saying air or underwater is OP. It's just another option, and there;s no reason for it to automatically be OP just because it's new. OP, UP or plain old even powered depends on how something is placed in the game, not on the basic idea. And yeah, I'm not saying this idea is the coolest of all and has to be added next, but I do think it would be fun.
i don't want it ... simply as that .. if you dont like/agree with my opinion that is your decision ... your specialty seems to be calling others out for their opinions on the forum ... "he doesn't like our idea!!!" "burn the witcher!!"
That's funny, I thought the major obstacle to underground tunneling units was the lack of an underground tunneling feature.
Funny, people here bitch and moan they don't have unit variety but when someone suggests something people here respond with this real gem - 'No.' or this lil' beauty - 'OP.' Breaking news, there can't possibly be unit variety (difficult enough as it) if people always dismiss ideas out of hand this way. No to shields, no to big /experimental/mega units, no to tunneling, cloaking, stealth, jammers and the list goes on - creativity is being sorely limited here and elsewhere but simultaneously demanded its a little absurd..and sad.
never said anything against stealth or jamming ... but yea go on and just put people into drawers .... "we want unitvariety" = "lets throw anything in cause "cool""
If anything, an idea that hasn't been fleshed out is a terrible thing to add to the game, and should be easily dismissed until it has been. At which point people an assess whether such an idea is worth adding to the game. And bringing up shields as an example of limiting creativity is a complete joke, as most people (Tatsujb excluded) would simply have them implemented in the most unoriginal and frankly boring ways possible.
This entire topic brings up a key point; technology is increasing fast today and we are starting to get to the point where we can dig down halfway to the mantle. Why can't we build robots that can MODIFY TERRAIN or BUILD BRIDGES? Why can't we MOVE MOUNTAINS? I think I might make an entire new thread on that.
I'm sure thats not true [your weak shield counter augment], actually i know it isn't. There are dozens of pages on that forbidden (defacto enforcement by community elements really, really counterproductive btw) subject in which fairly creative variations of shielding or something similar were thrown about which were really quite well thought out, elegant and explained clearly; these resulted in flame wars and closed threads, the same is true of cloaking and megaunits to greater and lesser extents. Creativity broadly speaking isn't reflected in these idea's perse because they have been done before in various games in some form or other, but the perpetual shutdown of dialog concerning them are clear symptoms of a problem approaching Luddite-ism and 17th century views on science, and proof enough of a general hostility towards ideas from outside the the pre-beta community and the few of us who oppose dismissing ideas out of hand.
The problem isn't people not taking to new ideas, the problem is believing that if people don't take to your idea, that you are being censored. At the end of the discussions people decided what they wanted to decide, and just because you feel like your side didn't win, a discussion, win a discussion, that you are now being attacked and that all new information is thus banned and that regualr people are going around policing the forum for ideas that you like and others don't to create a single mind set. Get over yourself and that ridiculous notion, people have as much right to disagree with an idea and they have to agree with one.
No this is not what happened at all. At one point following the injection of new players new forumers the yes shield polled higher than the no shield, but the vocal core spoke loudest. Many of those who dared to speak then appear to have been driven off/turned off by the close-minded ones, so yeah...no it really wasn't imaginary, it was blatantly real community-side enforcement of the 'we decided we didn't like shields way back when so dont you dare bring it up now' rule. I fully expect the same treatment of this idea, except i feel the OP and supporters might not see the point in dragging it out so many pages only to leave in frustration three or four threads later. NOt because their idea was not chosen or supported but because it was dismissed with the same circular reasoning that didn't apply if people had actually looked deeper at the ideas being posted. Edit: furthermore none of these ideas have ever been mine, I merely jumped in to say we shouldn't dismiss them without some consideration (as opposed to...i don't know, none) or suggest amendments, call truce etc..
If you feel that some people have had bad reasons for not wanting something, why does that matter? Also, anyone on the forums in in the vocal minority, and frankly most updates have almost been the exact opposite to what the vocal minority wanted, mainly because the vocal minority is made up of people, not one singular hive mind. Everyone has different reasons for liking or not liking something. In the end, you can't please everyone, and the idea presented in this thread is still vague enough that there isn't anything to go on, so while dismissing it might be premature, accepting it as it stands is out of the question, it's obscure in the biggest way possible. And in my opinion, even during the discussions over shields experimental's and the like, non of the arguments on either side were based on circular reasoning, and a large portion of it is merely personal opinion and taste. I don't like shields, and Tatujb does, I like his reasoning for having the shield due to it's effects, but I personally wouldn't have it in the game. And this idea is one of those things, I personally don't like it, especially a vague idea of it, but that doesn't mean I want to ban all discussion on it.
Let's get back on the topic of this thread, shall we? It is actually ok to discuss shields (it's not banned/automatic cause of locking ), but in it's own thread please. @verybad - there's actually a lot more technical hurdles that need to be passed before any kind of underground unit is feasible. The new mine visibility layer may help to create psuedo-underground units (like burrowed Zerg in Stacraft 1), but ultimately, the bigger issues are UI (being able to adequately see tunnels & underground environments) and Terrain deformation (which isn't quite up to scratch to allow tunneling).
Agreed, but thats what suggestions are, discussion provides those additional details. Some of which (the hurdles/cons) have just now been mentioned, usually smallish hurdles open things up for innovation and ideas; as long its not 'sounds OP' -- end of sentence, I'm fine with that.
