Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Some ideas

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Elarma said:
i see fully booby trapped dreadnaughts with rail deflectors,emps' and gatling defence coming am
nd NOTHInG will stop it.
Click to expand...

Hm, in this context, a "Demolition Charge Disabled" could work as a "Demolition Charge detonated" setting the Explonaut ablaze safely from afar :) Though this could lead to some rather unexpected game variants with an early lucky hit of the trusty blind artillery lobbing :)

*BOOM* Igniz has been vanquished (Turn 2)

Auntie Edit sayeth:
elarma said:
I would really like more of everything for this game,but i would settle for more maps right now.I read a little bit about the developer and it seems they create smaller type games.
Click to expand...

I won't take this as a reason though, because we were all told "Leviathan means BIIIIIIIIIIIG" in the Trailer ;)
 
Last edited:
One could keep this version running and release voluntary content to use as a beta for a full on PC release.Voluntary to keep the "I didnt pay for this" crowd quiet,but I couldn't see who would complain about that.But you are correct i this is all going to be talk,but lets keep talking.Now i'm not saying a full on PC version should be a clone of this version just boater,but it could be a useful tool to try out new boats,defensive and offensive equiptment,maps,etc. etc. etc.
 
I see this thread needs some attention,so I was in a 2v2 the other day with 3 other quality players and boy there was some strategy going on and I got to thinking,this type of game would really be a good platform for E-sports.Ofcourse it would need an overhaul with some additional boats and weapons and such,but not so much as to be confusing to the average gamer,not really including casuals here as they are a different breed allthough they can be drawn into the gaming culture.Ive seen some other e-sport type games that require e players to reach a certain weapon or get to the sweet spot first to win the game.This game has a much deeper game going on,even in its current version.Ive read some discussion on procedural map generation,i dont think this would be a good idea as this would really cause alot of roaming around,running into shallow areas with deep keel boats and it just seems a little anti tactic based to me.You could always just have a large volume maps to choose from,the land forms need to look pretty but really how much does anyone pay attention to it when your playing.Anyone else think this type of game would be a good candidate for e-sports?
 
I do have 1 more suggestion for the game in its current state.The railgun cost is simply not enough.The damage output from 5 rails is just silly.The only other real counter to it is another 5 rail boatNow in theory the artillery should be a counter to it.The advantages of the rail gun it too great over its counter,being point cost,superior damage output and allthough the range of the arty is slightly greater it is far offset by the 5 minimum range of the railgun.Maybe the arty could be a counter if it had not been nerfed for unknown reasons,but a 5 arty boat to match the Instant death machine is just not a practical boat to run,and I have tried that on numerous occasions I am not sure if it was intended for a single boat to have a nearly one shot kill capability on a fully armored boat,but it doesnt seem to fit with the game.As far as i am concerned this game is as close to balanced as any game i have seen to date.But there is room for just a few more tweeks.Anyone else have an opinion on this?
 
Spaces after your sentence periods please; makes reading so much easier.

Anyways, I think the cost of rails is pretty decent right now, but perhaps a better balancing point would be to reduce the armor and/or health of the Atlas, maybe even swapping the values with the Dreadnought. This would make the Dread something to be feared but won't instakill while making the Atlas more of a lethal but relatively fragile glass cannon that needs to be carefully protected instead of the monster it currently is.

Rails could also stand to have a longer charge and traverse time, which would keep their anti-capital potential but reduce their effectiveness in targeting smaller ships trying to outflank it.
 
Well I see the point,however the atlas needs to have that durability to stave off the other elephant in the room(spearheads). Also,I don't know if it would be wise to nerf a ship to balance a weapon,or to make another boat more useful. I will admit the dreadnaught,along with the intercepter, are missing something. I like the idea of more traverse time and/or recharge time.After I play these monsters I look at the replays and frequently see 1800-2000 plus damage being done,that is just too much. This is the reason I say increase the points. Perhaps if it were weight units instead of points you could use the maximum speed of the ship as an unloaded speed and as you load it up these numbers go down causing the bigger ships to be used with more caution. This would cause the bigger ships loaded with rails,arty or rockets to move much slower.Now if you still want the speed and power you must sacrifice armor to make that glass boat,like the intercepter is now fully armored.
 
Last edited:
I guess it still could use the point system but it would have to be based off individual ships instead of the whole, the speed penalty that is. As exhibit C Leviathan 1, replay 123773 will show, the point cost of the rail gun needs to be revisited. 6 rails every round could have been fired down that narrow pass for the entire game.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it's worse than that. I could have been firing 12 rails every turn had I wanted to, but it made more sense to stagger them in most cases because I lost my vision early. I had a later game on that map with that fleet where I didn't lose the scout off the bat, and was able to put 12 aimed rail shots out the entrance there every turn, effectively ending the game the third turn after the opponent came around the corner (aside from hunting down two scouts which between them were just enough points to keep him in the game after the main portion of his fleet was dead).
 
Yes it could have been worse. I was taking into account traverse time which usually puts the recharge time near the 2 second mark for the next round,depending on how far off center you aim. Evil,just evil.
 
Last edited:
I am going to keep this thread alive for as long as I am playing this game. So, if the game was to be furthered into a full release semi destructable enviroments would work well with debri scattered in the water as hazards.I also think there should be no less than 4 factions each with different ships with different attributes.There should be a War raging online at all times and the War should have a time frame , say 2 weeks.The player participating in the War should pick their faction before entering and cannot be changed until the war has ended.The player may not choose the same faction more than twice in a row,perhaps even being randomly recruited into a faction after the initial pick.Each map would be part of a greater world map and worth varying amounts of points, with only maps sharing a common border held by different factions being able to battle.Defeat in individual battles for the current owner of the map would have a set amount of points taken away from the overall health of the said map.Once the owners points reach 0 the last faction to deliver the final blow becomes owner of said map and must now defend it against all hostilities, or lose it.Each faction has a home base map that if lost removes them from the war until it is over.This home base map cannot be reached unless the maps on its border are taken first. A player must use the warships from their respective faction as well a faction specific weapons.Therefore balancing must be supreme.If no faction captures all maps in the world map to claim victory it may be based off total points captured at he end of the season. If owner of a map wins a match it will be consdered a sucessful defend only and no points awarded.There should be some kind of weapon developement scheme that comes at some kind of cost to said faction with new weapon types being produced on some kind of schedule.Just a rough draft,any thoughts?
 
I do believe you have a whole new game right there hahaha. As a current computer science student I really wish I knew enough to start developing my own interpretations of games I've liked.
 
You know you could also roll campaign into this by providing AI to defend the chosen map and a victory over the AI would result in some points towards the war effort but maybe half the points of defeating a human opponent.Also as you get closer to the enemies home map the AI would get tougher,similar to an easy,normal,hard or insane setting in other games only this is done automatically.Providing you have a large amount of maps,somewhere around 100, this would satisfy the not enough campaign crowd greatly and the multiplayer crowd at the same time.
 
I have been trying to make broadside work again. As I was playing a very entertaining match,if not the boatest reply I have seen Lev 1 replay 131934, I was thinking to make it work the armor system needs to be reworked a little. I think the armor numbers are pretty good the way are, with the exception of the intercepter gaining 1 point of bow armor and the spearhead losing 1 point of armor in the bow. Where it falls apart with broadside is the armor on the side and stern are the weakest and are totally exposed. If you take the current numbers for armor and allow the player to select where on the boat the limited armor could go you could put the best armor on 1 side of the boat, the side with the guns. Now you wouldn't be able to stack armor, just move it around the boat a little. Maybe even have a separate armor category just for broadside use. Any thoughts on this? One more thing, I think they should make the beams destroy vision as they did with mines. The vision defeats too many things in this game for such a low point cost.
 
Last edited:
I'd definitely like to see broadsides reworked. I think the best way to do that though is to rework the armor values on the hulls that are designed for broadsides, rather than to make the "extra armor" location player-choosable. That's already handled by what level of armor you mount there - light, normal, heavy. It's just that the hulls with primarily broadside-aiming guns should have the highest base values (and thus highest "heavy armored" values) along the sides, with a balance bow and stern. Rather than the current setup where all boats are bow-heavy, stern-weak.

Also agreed on destroying vision with beams, or any other weapon that can destroy mines (even artillery can do it, you just have to get really lucky on the accuracy :p)
 
Also, it seems when you use broadside tactics on boats such as the bully, the weapons get disabled very quickly. It is almost as if the hit boxes are protruding from the boat much more than putting them well inwards such as an Atlas. Another discouraging feature of broadsides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back