Guest Black-Cloak Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I have an idea for how mind control could work in AR. Im in a rush right now,but if possible,perhaps it somehow make the enemy vehicle work like a "remote control drone" that your team-mates could take control of by pressing BACKSPACE (opening up a menu list of mind controlled units),then selecting a mind controlled unit. This means the Yuri who took control of the vehicle can retreat while his team-mate somewhere else controls the unit. (If Yuri is killed his comrade back at base looses control of tthe mind controlled unit). If players could spawn into mind controlled units that would be even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWA Posted May 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I have an idea for how mind control could work in AR. Im in a rush right now,but if possible,perhaps it somehow make the enemy vehicle work like a "remote control drone" that your team-mates could take control of by pressing BACKSPACE (opening up a menu list of mind controlled units),then selecting a mind controlled unit. This means the Yuri who took control of the vehicle can retreat while his team-mate somewhere else controls the unit. (If Yuri is killed his comrade back at base looses control of tthe mind controlled unit). If players could spawn into mind controlled units that would be even better. That'd be too hard to code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EVA-251 Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) Try getting an apoc elite Vs GGi Battleforts Anyways, it's just the fact the guns have large damage and some fool at westwood made the apoc's elite warhead too powerful versus none, flak and plate Fool? Eh, Apocs, Rhinos, Grizzlies AND Lashers get anti-infantry weapons when elite. I'd say it wasn't just some "fool", but rather a conscious design decision. And GGI Battlefortresses didn't really kill Apocs all too fast. Apocs and GGI Battleforts were equal in speed, too. But that isn't to say that the GGI Battlefortresses lost to Apocs. Fortunately, in Apoc Rising, the GGI Battlefortress will be far from the death machine it was in YR just for the fact you will need to drag five of your teammates away for it. Edited May 24, 2009 by EVA-251 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GummiBear Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Fortunately, in Apoc Rising, the GGI Battlefortress will be far from the death machine it was in YR just for the fact you will need to drag five of your teammates away for it. well in a way you can also argue it will be much stronger actually, as in RA2 when you loaded a BF with 5 inf they would all shoot at the same target, thus wont necessarily be true in apoc rising Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWA Posted May 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 well in a way you can also argue it will be much stronger actually, as in RA2 when you loaded a BF with 5 inf they would all shoot at the same target, thus wont necessarily be true in apoc rising It's really a double edged sword isn't it? ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stormweaver Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 It's really a double edged sword isn't it? ;p Well it was originally supposed to dominate the battlefield...It couldn't do this properly in RA2 because of the gameplay, but I think in AR it will more than likely be the gamebreaking unit of doom for the allies. albeit where allied peoples will be saying 'OMFG APOC RUSH WE'RE DOOMED' some soviet people would be saying 'OMFG ONE BATLLFORT WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOOMED' query: In RA2, most units just used their own weapons, instead of the IFV-boosted weapons we all thought they got when we first ever built one and went 'omfg this is awesome'. In AR, to make up for the fact it's taking a whole 5/6 of you to drive this thing, will weapons be boosted to be more effective? If so, will engineers and perhaps techys have thier repair effects, and such would they be able to repair the said battlefort? If not, can you do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EVA-251 Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 (edited) Well it was originally supposed to dominate the battlefield...It couldn't do this properly in RA2 because of the gameplay, but I think in AR it will more than likely be the gamebreaking unit of doom for the allies. albeit where allied peoples will be saying 'OMFG APOC RUSH WE'RE DOOMED' some soviet people would be saying 'OMFG ONE BATLLFORT WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOOMED' query: In RA2, most units just used their own weapons, instead of the IFV-boosted weapons we all thought they got when we first ever built one and went 'omfg this is awesome'. In AR, to make up for the fact it's taking a whole 5/6 of you to drive this thing, will weapons be boosted to be more effective? If so, will engineers and perhaps techys have thier repair effects, and such would they be able to repair the said battlefort? If not, can you do this? Don't over-estimate the GGI. The GGI's missile weapon, for a matter of fact, did almost unnoticeable damage to buildings. Against infantry, the Battle Fortress with GGIs fell way short. Tesla Troopers, which won't have a head zone to hit (if I understood the podcast right), will likely be brutally effective at stopping or forcing Battle Fortresses to turn back, or divert GGIs for anti-infantry units. The wonder of RA2 put into FPS is that you have these brutal units and combinations, but they are all defeatable, directly or indirectly. In the case of the Battlefortress, a direct counter would be Tesla Troopers, Boris, Rhino Tanks and most significantly, Apocalypse Tanks. As I said before, unless you bring anti-infantry, a small group of Tesla Troopers will be able to hold of the BFRT. Boris is more than enough on his own to tear a BFRT to pieces (especially in an FPS environment where cover can be used), and those GGIs would follow immediately afterwords. 2-3 Rhino Tanks would be all you need. Battle Fortresses are no faster than Apocalypse Tanks and have 25% less armor. In YR these shortcomings meant nothing because you could have a helluva lot of BFRTs. In an FPS environment, the greatest practical number of Battle Fortresses loaded with GGIs, on a team of 16, would be 2. (2 Drivers, 10 GGIs, 12/16), which would still leave only 4 people to defend the base, destroy Soviet buildings and defend against infantry, so even that is kinda impractical. You probably wouldn't want to try to stand off against Apocs with a GGI BFRT either. Unlike in RA2, you can't survey every flank at once in an FPS; all it takes is one clever Apoc pilot to simply get close and hit the BFRT from the flank. The two vehicles move at the same pace, so there is no escape or way to crush the Apoc; the BFRT would be as good as dead. Or they can take the indirect approach. They simply ignore the huge, slow-moving BFRT and gut the Allied base, which has vastly depleted manpower. Even if the GGI BFRT gets in the Soviet base, these aren't APB Rocket Soldiers. If 5 APB RS and 1 APB APC shred a Barracks in X time, 5 GGIs and 1 BFRT will take atleast X*2, probably closer to X*3. All of this is just using RA2/YR balance, AR isn't totally bound to it, and I bet that GGIs will be made a bit more useful on buildings than they were in YR. (throwing in a Navy SEAL or a regular GI would likely change the outcome a little, but the the GGI-BFRT simply can't be as powerful as it was in YR without overpowering the component units) Edited May 25, 2009 by EVA-251 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xiphias6 Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Uhh...the Battle Fortress can turn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWA Posted May 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 With all these points taken into consideration. It may be an idea to provide a second option which allows the driver to "buy" ai units to sit in the seats. It's less effective skillwise, as the ai is really dumb, but it helps to fill the battle fortress up. This idea will probably take the form of a battle fortress loadout menu, which costs the driver extra to buy units for the turrets. Units should be able to be bought anywhere on the battlefield for ease of use. You just need the credits. What do you guys think to this option as a secondary to the human player option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamWolf Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 I like it, but i think that he should be refunded the credits of an AI when a human player fills that place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kakashi Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Some of you seem to forget that the AR Battle Fortress can't have all five players sitting inside of it aim at the same target, at least if the turrets are placed on individual spots of the hull (no matter how you place them, some will always be in some sort of blind spot iether becuase of the hull or other turrets being in the way), so the Battle Fortress. So even if we assume that there is a mix of AT and AP infantry inside there will always be blind spots to expoit, something that wasn't Present in YR. I like the idea with the AI turrets, you would have to make the Battle Fortress helluva efficient to balance out having five guys in one vehicle while the enemy can fight you with five Apocs at once. And if you can purchse them in the filed you can taxi a bunch of mates to the battle and then up your attack after dropping them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest r34ch Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 With all these points taken into consideration. It may be an idea to provide a second option which allows the driver to "buy" ai units to sit in the seats. To streamline the whole thing, the turrets should simply be AI controlled at all times until a human passenger enters the turret. Once they leave the turret reverts back to AI control. The AI turrets could fire GGI/GI weaponry. This means the AI packs a punch, but the fortress could be made more effective if a player with better weaponry enters. This means the fortress is effective at all times, does away with dicking about with load outs in the middle of a battle and basically makes life easier when people enter and leave. It also means the fortress is effective at all times and doesn't require most of your team to be inside just to be useful. Obviously you'll need to scale the AI ROF so 8 battle fortresses don't end up with the firepower of 40 infantry (even though Kakashi points out that only half the turrets can aim at a single target) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xiphias6 Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 That is unless the rear turrets are placed sorta higher than the front two turrets. The frontal MG/Infweap is essentially turn the whole body of the BFort to shoot, with maybe some degrees of depression so it can shoot things. I kinda agree with OWA's suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kakashi Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Aren't the turrets at the sides of the Battlefortress? Your idea has it's advantages and disadvantages, versus Apocs it may be a good one (since you can focus your fire and thus kill the tank faster), but versus fast units like Rhino tanks or flak tracks it makes fighting them harder (since it creates bigger blind spots at the back of the tank and thus makes hitting enemies swarming around you harder, unless the thing had some beastly turn rate... which I doubt). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xiphias6 Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 IIRC the BFort has 1 frontal MG/IFVweap, and two 2 stick-looking fireports on both sides... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EVA-251 Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 (edited) Aren't the turrets at the sides of the Battlefortress? Your idea has it's advantages and disadvantages, versus Apocs it may be a good one (since you can focus your fire and thus kill the tank faster), but versus fast units like Rhino tanks or flak tracks it makes fighting them harder (since it creates bigger blind spots at the back of the tank and thus makes hitting enemies swarming around you harder, unless the thing had some beastly turn rate... which I doubt). All units in RA2 pretty much had the same turn rate. (5) Also, there is one forward facing turret on the Battle Fortress. As for the idea of having AI controlled turrets, I would have to say I strongly disagree as it allows for the Allies to gain a dramatic force multiplier that really, the Soviets can't match. The balancing factor of BFRTs in an FPS environment WOULD be the lack of numbers. It is the fact that awhile a BFRT with a nice infantry set is devastating, even in a 16 player team you could only effectively have 1 fully loaded BFRT before you start harming the team, as I pointed out in a previous post. But in a 32 player game with no vehicle limits with this proposed system (which you stated would be the ideal situation for AR in the podcast), BFRTs would become unstoppable if kept together and in numbers greater than 5. Being able to change turret loadout on the spot would also give the unit far too much flexibility. When you figure in the virtual players, the Allies could have more than 40 players on their team with this method. Braindead AI drones controlling BFRT turrets or not, its just something that a smaller Soviet team would be completely unable to stop. Also, the AI is dumb, but you can attach target priority and it has a tendency to aim perfectly for the head (well, the Haxbox and Turret AI love to, in APB). And playing APB for these few years has taught me that a very large proportion of gamers simply don't understand target priority. Nor does any sizable portion of the player base aim perfectly for head. So, I guess in a way, the AI would be a better choice than many human players. EDIT- Apparently I like the term "simply" Edited May 25, 2009 by EVA-251 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWA Posted May 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 To streamline the whole thing, the turrets should simply be AI controlled at all times until a human passenger enters the turret. Once they leave the turret reverts back to AI control. The AI turrets could fire GGI/GI weaponry. This means the AI packs a punch, but the fortress could be made more effective if a player with better weaponry enters. This means the fortress is effective at all times, does away with dicking about with load outs in the middle of a battle and basically makes life easier when people enter and leave. It also means the fortress is effective at all times and doesn't require most of your team to be inside just to be useful. Obviously you'll need to scale the AI ROF so 8 battle fortresses don't end up with the firepower of 40 infantry (even though Kakashi points out that only half the turrets can aim at a single target) If we do it this way, then the Price will have to be heightened to account for the extra manpower inside. A simple button could be used to populate the turret to begin with (randomised from the GI and GGI) and when players enter and leave, the turret could default back to the ai again, providing that there was ai there before. This puts the fully ai loaded battle fort's price at about 3000-4000 credits. Steep eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonsense715 Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Meh, if you want to beat Apocalypse Tanks, then only use the Fortress as damage taker. You should just use tactics against soviet firepower as you are allied god damnit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kakashi Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 I always loaded the Battle fortresses with lots of Clegs, worked just fine and no tactics involved ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonsense715 Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Haha, actually you are right, against 8 Apoc tanks, use 8 Chrono Legionnaries and you have won the battle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EVA-251 Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 I always loaded the Battle fortresses with lots of Clegs, worked just fine and no tactics involved ... That's very...cost prohibitive, and very easily overwhelmed by tanks and aircraft... 2000 + (1500*5) = 9500. And don't forget if you lost a Battle Fortress in YR, the infantry inside went with it. Giving the BFort a default loadout also would be very untrue to YR, in regards to that. And raising its price tag for this default loadout wouldn't be good either. It would be much better to get a $2000 empty transport, buy the AI units individually (not that I like this option at all) or just simply get some buddies into it, which would distribute the cost over 5 other players. Not only that, default loadout/AI would discourage players from even jumping in. The AI can instantly switch and prioritize targets if needed, will always catch ambushes, and aim better (although it can't lead, but with the homing weapon of the GGI, it shouldn't be a problem). Why would you need human players to get inside when the AI could do it better in most scenarios and is guaranteed not do to these things? >Bail-out of the vehicle to chase a butterfly or other unimportant object. >Idiotically fire at nothing, potentially giving your position away. >Try to preserve its own skin and point total, instead of contributing to the ultimate victory of the team >Go AFK at inopportune moments >Emerge to be slaughtered by the Soviets when the vehicle is destroyed @dtrngd- Chrono Legionnaires, when properly micro'd, can do that. In Battle Fortresses, the infantry all occupy the same cell, and therefore will all acquire the exact same target (provided they have matching ranges), meaning that 1 Battle Fortress with 5 Cleg will engage only 1 Apoc at a time. Also, warping away 1 Apoc with 1 CLeg? Takes forever, man. A player with a brain could probably get a Flak Track from their base over to the danger zone before one Apoc is erased, and once that 9th unit comes, it all falls apart. You switch to the Flak Track, the Apoc kills that Chrono Legionnaire, the Flak Track is freed, the Apoc and Flak Track kill the next CLeg, next think you know, you are telling your Chrono Legionnaires to leave the area and go back to crate whoring. IMO, BFRTs will do just fine using ambush tactics and teammates. Sure, they may try to do the things I said an AI wouldn't do, but it doesn't really matter, it helps balance the fact that the combination itself is unbelievably overpowered. And nothing would be better or funnier than to be waiting behind/on a hill and descending upon an unaware column of Soviet tanks, perhaps honking a horn (or the VO where the driver goes "CHARGE!!!" Allied Battlefortress Driver: Soviet Rhino Tanker: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonsense715 Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Heh, I just said that if there are 8-8 players per team, there is a simple way to stop Apocs. If teams are balanced, then a 9th and 10th Cleg would just come for that Flak Track and the next, so it would never end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GummiBear Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 That's very...cost prohibitive, and very easily overwhelmed by tanks and aircraft... 2000 + (1500*5) = 9500. And don't forget if you lost a Battle Fortress in YR, the infantry inside went with it. Giving the BFort a default loadout also would be very untrue to YR, in regards to that. And raising its price tag for this default loadout wouldn't be good either. It would be much better to get a $2000 empty transport, buy the AI units individually (not that I like this option at all) or just simply get some buddies into it, which would distribute the cost over 5 other players. Not only that, default loadout/AI would discourage players from even jumping in. The AI can instantly switch and prioritize targets if needed, will always catch ambushes, and aim better (although it can't lead, but with the homing weapon of the GGI, it shouldn't be a problem). Why would you need human players to get inside when the AI could do it better in most scenarios and is guaranteed not do to these things? >Bail-out of the vehicle to chase a butterfly or other unimportant object. >Idiotically fire at nothing, potentially giving your position away. >Try to preserve its own skin and point total, instead of contributing to the ultimate victory of the team >Go AFK at inopportune moments >Emerge to be slaughtered by the Soviets when the vehicle is destroyed well quite simple, give the AI counterparts only like ½ the firepower of its human equal, and another thing a human if like something is just about to get away and the bfort have the side to it there no way the BF could catch up, it might actually be a good idea for a human to get out and chase it down and foot and then get back to BF after killing it too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAoS Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Maybe just make 2 of the turrets AI until replaced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stormweaver Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 I think the simple solution is simply to keep it as it was in AR. Driver gets a nice front mounted chaingun (which should be boosted in AR IMO, as it'd be useless in comparison to how things were done in AR) and is driving a heavly armoured tank that can RUN OVER anything but a mammoth or a Kirov. plus, any smart rush involving BFs normally got covered by mirage/prism tanks back when I used to play...againt the AI. Against real players, grizzly swarms were normally the way to go. Note: grizzly swarms in AR will be win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWA Posted May 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 I think the simple solution is simply to keep it as it was in AR. Driver gets a nice front mounted chaingun (which should be boosted in AR IMO, as it'd be useless in comparison to how things were done in AR) and is driving a heavly armoured tank that can RUN OVER anything but a mammoth or a Kirov. plus, any smart rush involving BFs normally got covered by mirage/prism tanks back when I used to play...againt the AI. Against real players, grizzly swarms were normally the way to go. Note: grizzly swarms in AR will be win. The Mammoth Tank isn't a unit in AR and as far as I can remember, the Apocalypse Tank could be crushed by the Battle Fort. Only silly kirov pilots land and get out of their kirovs on the battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stormweaver Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 The Mammoth Tank isn't a unit in AR and as far as I can remember, the Apocalypse Tank could be crushed by the Battle Fort. Only silly kirov pilots land and get out of their kirovs on the battlefield. Blegh, same thing. They just wanted it to sound scarier :/ To be fair OWA, it was rare that a battlefort ever survived long enough to close with an Apoc in RA2. With the FPS enviroment, Methinks having everything crushable might been seen as abusable. IE: Soviets make an apoc rush, with a hill to one side. BF is at top of hill, and Pounces - it could flatten the whole rush (and at 1750 per apoc that a lot of funds lost) and anything that was inside, with next to no way of stopping it, other than being able to see/shoot over hills. I could understand that for the smaller rhinos, but they'd have a chance to respond to it - apocs are too slow. It would just seem fair, as each vech is the 'OMGWEREALLGONNADIE' unit for each side... (plus i believe I read it in a blog a while back) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EVA-251 Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 (edited) 3 Apocs, 1 salvo from each kills a Battlefortress instantly. If a column of Apocalypse Tanks cannot 1) Spot the Battlefortress by its sheer size, either before it moves or as it moves 2) Spot the Battlefortress on Radar 3) Move out of the way (Apoc speed=BFort speed) 4) Blow the Battlefortress away then every single Apoc driver is f***ing retarded and deserves to be smashed. Also, the Battle Fortress will more than likely have its own very loud and distinct engine noise. Throw that in, and losing an Apoc column to 1 Battlefortress? Completely inexcusable on the part of the Soviets. You need to remember the Battlefortress is no faster than the Apoc, the Apoc and Battlefortress had the exact same turn rate, and the Apoc can engage the Battlefortress at a distance. Simply driving down a hill could work on some newbies for the first few times, but after that it would become completely ineffectual. All the Apoc has to do is simply continue moving forward and fire at the Battle Fortress. The Battle Fortress will NEVER catch up, awhile the Apoc can destroy it at will. Edited May 26, 2009 by EVA-251 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Inferno Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Really, a BattleFortress filled with GIs was MUCH better than a GGI filled battlefortress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xiphias6 Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 That was in the RTS, not in...well...an FPS environment, that'll be harder actually. The GI's Para (Deployed state, not M16 undeployed) does massive damage to lots of stuff, be it Rhinos, Grizzies, IFVs, Lashers, Flak Tracks, Terror Drones, Conscripts, Dogs, people, tanks, planes, some buildings etc. Apocs, War Miners and units with...I forgot that armortype, fared off much better, though. I can swear a buncha GIs deployed could take down a CY in five seconds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts