I Know How to Fix The Entire Game! (Most of it, anyway)

Should ammo be added?

  • Nope

  • Yep

  • Yeah but your way is horrible


Results are only viewable after voting.

n2galactic

Spammer of Megatons
Joined
Aug 18, 2018
Messages
38
Likes
41
Points
120
#22
Yeah, hard pass on this. Your suggestion involves a mandatory level of complexity which is not suitable for many players. Take a game like Pokemon - the breeding and EV systems allows incredible sophistication to power-game and customize your team ad nauseam, but your average non-competitive player (or ten year old) doesn't have to learn all that to have fun. In Terratech, the crafting system is entirely optional. It offers advantages to players who want to use it, but you don't need it by any means to play. Your ammo suggestion, on the other hand, would require every player, regardless of play style, to endure that complexity.
I can agree with that to some limited extent, but it must be said that this problem occurred to me. Manually loading ammo wouldn't be complicated. You keep some ammo on your vehicle and drag it onto your guns when they stop shooting. That's pretty simple. The situation you describe involves requiring conveyor based loading, which isn't what I said. Using conveyors to automate weapon loading would probably be a better idea, but manually loading would be easier, making the Pokemon-like complexity layering existant within my system.

Honestly, I'm not totally sure I understand your motivation for ammo, "The best techs are just covered in guns with no armor". Does that mean you're having trouble fighting this kind of tech? Or you're bored fighting in endgame campaign? Or are you talking about multiplayer? There are solutions already in place for each of these problems, but ultimately Terratech is about creativity across a diversity of types of play. I personally tend to spend more time in R&D mode than anything else experimenting with movement, and I would not find an ammo system enjoyable.
The common best designs are a box with the topside covered in missiles or a pyramid of guns. In a better game with a more balanced weapon system that observation would be impossible. I shouldn't be able to tell you, "this design style is the best," because what creativity or design skill does one need to devise such a contraption? The kind of observation one might make and be correct about a particular matchup would be, "Well this tank has five cannons and the other tank has seven. The one with seven's gonna win." Absolutely no design quality was taken into consideration there and none ever is in this game. It's just a bunch of, "oh I'm bigger! I'm gonna win!" This makes for a horrible combat system and that, my friend, is what I'm trying to fix here.
 

n2galactic

Spammer of Megatons
Joined
Aug 18, 2018
Messages
38
Likes
41
Points
120
#23
what if instead, your guns automatically regenerated ammo, but having more armor would make more ammo regenerate, and more guns make less ammo regenerate?
That sounds like a tacky tacked-on solution that reeks of, "We're not going to actually make having fewer guns and more armor a good idea. So now you just can't shoot very fast without thick armor."
 

burger1113

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
45
Likes
68
Points
420
Age
31
#24
It would also limit player creativity.
Hmm yeah it does limit the freedom doesn't it?
But I think missiles could be counter balanced with flares while i think all weapons including missiles need longer range. AI should obviously go on full alert as soon as it detects an attack, too.
 
Last edited:

burger1113

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
45
Likes
68
Points
420
Age
31
#25
Well, I think it would be cool to see some end game weapon using resources, like a reticule research delivery canon
Ooh we could have a nuke! Which would require a large and vulnerable facility to produce it and high value materials to make each shell.
I guess there currently isn't anything to shoot it at though...
 

Saelem Black

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
80
Likes
279
Points
160
#26
The common best designs are a box with the topside covered in missiles or a pyramid of guns. In a better game with a more balanced weapon system that observation would be impossible. I shouldn't be able to tell you, "this design style is the best," because what creativity or design skill does one need to devise such a contraption? The kind of observation one might make and be correct about a particular matchup would be, "Well this tank has five cannons and the other tank has seven. The one with seven's gonna win." Absolutely no design quality was taken into consideration there and none ever is in this game. It's just a bunch of, "oh I'm bigger! I'm gonna win!" This makes for a horrible combat system and that, my friend, is what I'm trying to fix here.
I entirely disagree with your base premise. I don't think I have a single pyramid-with-guns tech in my entire lineup, and most of my combat techs would have absolutely no problem demolishing a tech as you described. Defense and mobility have a much bigger role in this game than it seems you give them credit for.
 

Lord Zarnox

Founder of the IFTTES
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,865
Likes
2,217
Points
520
Age
19
Location
Australia
#29
From an engineering perspective, efficiency is key. But this doesn't mean a gun of pyramids (wait, no, reverse that; it was to funny an accident to fix) is the best option for everything. It may be fine for damage output in all directions, but it heavily lacks mobility. You need a balance to be most efficient.
For example, take the Landkreuzer P. 1000 "Ratte", a proposed german tank that is so big that it would actually destroy roads simply by driving on them. It has naval artillery, and plenty of armour, but its size and lack of speed make it an incredibly easy, and obvious, target. Sure, it can destroy anything pretty easily, and can tank plenty of damage (pun intended), but due to being 1000 tonnes, mobility is practically non existent.

In short, yes, gunbeds are effective at killing, but they aren't efficient at killing. They have to put themselves in a prime position to be damaged in order to attack effectively.
 

UltimateDominator

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
5
Likes
6
Points
110
Age
28
#31
just make ammo modify the projectile. no possible disadvantages in not using ammo, while keeping the game fair, for the AI and the players.
 

UltimateDominator

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
5
Likes
6
Points
110
Age
28
#33
Option 1: Change how explosions work.

Option 2: Make shields have an option (or get new shields) that absorb projectiles. Just zoop. No explosion.

Option 3: Get some sort of munitions defense(from FTD).

Option 4: Just allow triggered players to cheat in The Bane Of Pigs!
Option 1: No Ammo

Option 2: Ammo not required for guns to fire
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
6
Likes
12
Points
9
Age
20
#34
Every surface block (besides guns) would contribute to regeneration of ammo. Every weapon on the tech will reduce the speed of ammo generation. Every block in total will contribute to max ammo. Guns and lazers would use less ammo, while cannons and missiles use a lot more.
I like the idea, but I think instead of every block adding to ammo regeneration, and weapons reducing ammo regeneration, you could have a fixed, per-cabin regen rate. In addition, you could have (much like fuel tanks/batteries) ammo boxes (or autoloaders, you get the idea) that are explosive. This way, if you have 100 machine guns, you wouldn't regen ammo slower, but you'd chew through the ammo a lot faster. In addition, if you want to sustain continuous fire, you would need several ammo boxes, and you would need to think about protecting them or risk having them explode and damage other components of your tech. I feel that this implementation would lead to both a fun and balanced ammunition system that would add a level of complexity and thought to weapon placement.
 

Soviet_Samuelson

Getting a permit to life in a jolly box
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Messages
1,397
Likes
987
Points
220
Location
My box
Website
forum.terratechgame.com
#36
I like the idea, but I think instead of every block adding to ammo regeneration, and weapons reducing ammo regeneration, you could have a fixed, per-cabin regen rate. In addition, you could have (much like fuel tanks/batteries) ammo boxes (or autoloaders, you get the idea) that are explosive. This way, if you have 100 machine guns, you wouldn't regen ammo slower, but you'd chew through the ammo a lot faster. In addition, if you want to sustain continuous fire, you would need several ammo boxes, and you would need to think about protecting them or risk having them explode and damage other components of your tech. I feel that this implementation would lead to both a fun and balanced ammunition system that would add a level of complexity and thought to weapon placement.
entirely new blocks meant for ammo regen? different blocks for different types? (bullets, ven missiles, hawk missiles, every gso shell, shells, hard light converters (lazers)

Perhaps even lubricant for faster weapon rotation (up to a limit of, say, x1.5?)
 
Likes: Sokolov

Sokolov

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2018
Messages
61
Likes
84
Points
125
Age
20
#39
Not really. A fast enough tech will never get hit. Megaton Cannon turrets are much to slow. Nor can they deal with planes or high hovering bombers.
I agree with you on the fact,that the fast tech is usually not getting hit by cannons. Yet a proper big combat tech usually has much more than just cannons - including fast-firing weaponry and/or AA, which make short work of those racers.
 

NotExactlyHero

FORUM DEFENDER
Joined
Apr 9, 2017
Messages
841
Likes
1,061
Points
500
Location
Anywhere and Everywhere
#40
I agree with you on the fact,that the fast tech is usually not getting hit by cannons. Yet a proper big combat tech usually has much more than just cannons - including fast-firing weaponry and/or AA, which make short work of those racers.
Nope. The tech attached is faster than any gun. And it's not that fast...
 

Attachments