Reverie World Studios Forums

Reverie World Studios Forums (http://www.reverieworld.com/forums/index.php)
-   Public Suggestions and Proposals (http://www.reverieworld.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Aura Towers (http://www.reverieworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1300)

HolyPollo 02-24-2010 12:43 PM

Aura Towers
 
I'm not sure if this has been truly addressed elsewhere but I think games that have offered other objectives other than just "attack the enemy" and "defend your base" have always been more exciting to me. Having something like an aura tower that needs to be built up on the map. It may be towers that gain access to a new assault path, something that grants a specific powerful unit/siege weapon unpurchasable else where, or something that grants those around it a nice boost.

Also I'm not sure how much of a role "fog of war" will be playing, especially in the MMORTS, but the ability to manipulate "fog of war" and good monitoring of your enemy and their forces production has been key to becoming a true expert in any RTS I've played. Having alternative objectives that help you spy on your enemies hidden forces will be a huge draw for me.

Darathor 02-24-2010 12:48 PM

You are able to build trebuchets on your towers on your castle, so that's a bit of a bonus besides having your archers getting more range.

HolyPollo 02-24-2010 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darathor (Post 25000)
You are able to build trebuchets on your towers on your castle, so that's a bit of a bonus besides having your archers getting more range.

I was thinking more of buildings in various places of the map that are neutral (maybe an artifact that is broken in pieces) and that any player who wants to spend the resources can claim. Perhaps one tower wouldn't be game changing but 2 or 3 might. Trebuchets could as a siege weapon and is a part of your native defenses. The fact that it helps archers is nice but it's probably something you're just going to have anyways and goes in the "defend your base" category. I was talking more about an alternative objective as opposed to sieging your opponent immediately

DarkMaster 02-24-2010 02:32 PM

I think he means like the capturable buildings in BfME2. If they're implemented in this game, I hope they do it a whole lot better than EA:p

nickson104 02-24-2010 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkMaster (Post 25010)
I think he means like the capturable buildings in BfME2. If they're implemented in this game, I hope they do it a whole lot better than EA:p

Those buildings sucked... They achieved little and werent worth the hassle, especially when they could be destroyed quicker than captured half the time...

I dont think there should be 'capturable' buildings, but more like advantageous landscapes, such as a rock ledge from where a batallion of archers could rain death on the enemies below, the position offers no benefit other than strategical, being higher it means a bonus to range and LOS and makes them harder to hit... It shouldnt affect the existing physics, they shouldnt 'gain +10 armour' or such for being in the location as seen in many games...

DarkMaster 02-24-2010 07:20 PM

Quote:

I dont think there should be 'capturable' buildings, but more like advantageous landscapes, such as a rock ledge from where a batallion of archers could rain death on the enemies below, the position offers no benefit other than strategical, being higher it means a bonus to range and LOS and makes them harder to hit... It shouldnt affect the existing physics, they shouldnt 'gain +10 armour' or such for being in the location as seen in many games...
I really love this notion. It is my opinion that terrain should play a large part in strategy. Just make sure that the player is finding strategies to fit the terrian, not terrain to fit the strategies.:p

Negthareas 02-24-2010 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkMaster (Post 25023)
I really love this notion. It is my opinion that terrain should play a large part in strategy. Just make sure that the player is finding strategies to fit the terrian, not terrain to fit the strategies.:p

Same here - totally agree.

wills370 02-25-2010 12:11 PM

I think it is a really good idea although with the serves only showing a fraction of players etc and a ever persistant world i dont beleive it will be able to be implemented. However the use of npc buildings however and the capure of enemy castles before other options become avalable which may require building up would be more sence?

HolyPollo 02-27-2010 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wills370 (Post 25056)
I think it is a really good idea although with the serves only showing a fraction of players etc and a ever persistant world i dont beleive it will be able to be implemented. However the use of npc buildings however and the capure of enemy castles before other options become avalable which may require building up would be more sence?

Yes for the MMORTS mode, but remember there will be single and multiplayer skirmish modes as well and in those scenarios it's good to have other objectives to spice up gameplay. AoE3 has both trade routes which are upgradeable areas of resources and tribal trading posts which give additional upgrades and troops that don't add to your pop. I've had games where capturing them didn't mean a thing and games where it was crucial to have them to win. It's just another layer of strategy in my mind.

DarkMaster 02-27-2010 07:43 PM

I reckon in skirmish there should be capturable things along the lines of BfME1's outposts and settlements (or camps maybe?). Anything further than this would be bad IMO.

On the other hand, remember that players are always going to be competing for remote resource deposits.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2001-2011 Reverie World Studios INC. All Rights Reserved.