Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by exterminans, August 14, 2014.
We all love polls, don't we?
Multiple responses can be selected.
Honestly i dont see what the big deal is. All it ever did was screw with pathing and mex/building placement. Also created luck based combat where whoever's units auto fired the first volley and destroyed the wreckage inbetween would end up trading worse.
Hardly anyone actually reclaimed unit wreckage so it has not much gameplay value.. It's always been better to spend fabber time building mex instead of reclaiming.
This is because the design and numbers were flawed, wreckage CAN be done right so it greatly improves the game.
Whether it's worth it or not is determined by numbers.
Yes, the previous implementation was an annoyance at best, wreckages gut fully destroyed most times (due to lack of a grinding feature) so it didn't yield much metal either.
True, removing it from gameplay was a good decision. But removing it from visuals was not. It's nice to see some burnt remains left from the battle.
I want reclaimable wrecks, but the should fall about with one shot. Also naval wrecks should sink.
But this is just saying the triangle hole is flawed, because i can't fit the square block through it. Are the 'design and numbers' flawed, or is the wreckage feature 'flawed'? Neither are, they just don't fit together.
Uber has chosen a faster paced metal game than TA, and there isn't any inherent problem with this to justify slowing it down just so we can have meaningful wreckage gameplay.
I would slightly miss the visual effect of having a battlefield strewn with wrecks, but I suppose this would look silly with several thousand unit's carcasses cluttering up the place. Not bothered by lack of recoverable wrecks, yet.
AT LEAST cosmetic...completely removed is stupid.
Imagine: You kill a commander and his base gets destroyed (because he has lost), and you basically see nothing in the end. No sign of a base, no sign of anything, really.
Actually building wreckage is still here.
I don't see why it couldn't have been made like supcom, which has been proven to be excellent:
Remove all collision. Remove power drain to reclaim it.
Well there's no power drain to reclaim with combat fabs at least.
Voted for #2.
It's almost like TA had encountered this problem 16 years ago and solved it.
Wow. It's almost like the current developers tasked with such matters don't understand how to balance the games mechanics to provide a varied and strategic consideration to multiple choices. Such a statement doesn't apply to TA.
Not very shocking.
yea but you sure do, right? you should immidiatly be hired by uber ....
The former problem with wrecks was that units would destroy them way too easily. As a result of this problem there were hardly any wrecks around to reclaim, and nobody really put much effort into reclaiming any wrecks.
It is my understanding that wreckages cause a pathing problem- it costs too many cycles to have units path around them. Presumably after experiments with more durable wrecks, but perhaps not.
So here is what needs to happen with wrecks.
1) Make units leave wrecks that are very durable. Wrecks should be extremely difficult to destroy from weapons fire. Easily justified as it is much harder to vaporize scrap metal than it is to turn a functioning vehicle into a scrap metal.
2) Make wrecks pathable. Units can move over/through wrecks. (Possibly consider a movement speed reduction for rough terrain in this regard.) If wrecks are rubble they also will not block shots, which could also be computationally expensive.
3) Experiment with wreckage value/mex income numbers. Perhaps wrecks might be valued at 50% of the unit's metal cost, and mex income might be reduced. Players will be getting metal from wrecks as well as mexes and it makes sense to slow down the metal creation because metal can now be recycled.
Well, the results from the poll already speak a clear language.
Removing wreckages all together in Vanilla is by far the least favored option.
It's not a game-making mechanic.
Does it "make" the entire game? No.
But the game is lacking negative feedback mechanics as it is, and dropping this one makes it even more broken than it already is.
We are actually a VERY small area in the playerbase of this game, these polls are worthless without a thousand or so participants. Without a bias already, a thousand random players.
56 participants so far. That number already has some significance. when only determining a bias.
Separate names with a comma.