The mighty Fort Firght

  • Thread starter DeletedUser30224
  • Start date

DeletedUser22575

No, the elegant solution is the CONSISTENT solution, not backasswards diminishing returns. There's a traditional gaming logic to crits, but there's no logic to taking more damage from everybody because you CAN take more damage.
^^says it all right there. the solution is not a "magic bullet" that does more damage if you have more HP and less damage if you have less HP. While one solution to the HP problem it is an incorrect solution IMO and not a solution i would support. there has already been enough backassword solutions and poorly thought out and planned changes to the game without us encouraging more.


I realize it takes more hits still, but more hp taking more damage is illogical. It makes much more sense to me for more SP in health to be less effective exactly as it is for every other fort skill.
^^^ that is the correct solution to the problem and a supportable one as far as I am concerned.
 

DeletedUser30224

^^^ that is the correct solution to the problem and a supportable one as far as I am concerned.
the correct way with the same goal :unsure:. I would support the other one any day ... but "there has already been enough backassword solutions and poorly thought out and planned changes to the game without us encouraging more." .... no comment, if I didn't put brain-labour in this one then I must be some idiot needing help to put a spoon in his mouth.
 

Hellstromm

Indeed Tuttle, your comment is insulting to zd3's efforts and out of character for you to state.

This proposal is not bassackwards and not poorly thought out. A hundred proposals out there fit that description, but this is not one of them. Please review the reports provided and you'll see this addresses the same goals, imposes the same effect, without intruding on other aspects of the game.
 

DeletedUser22575

Indeed Tuttle, your comment is insulting to zd3's efforts and out of character for you to state.

This proposal is not bassackwards and not poorly thought out. A hundred proposals out there fit that description, but this is not one of them. Please review the reports provided and you'll see this addresses the same goals, imposes the same effect, without intruding on other aspects of the game.
Its a case of the ends justifies the means, and I don't agree with that. I did look at the reports. But the bottom line is I think the fix is in the sp diminishing returns not gun damage being based on HP. Gun damage should be a fixed range period.

the correct way with the same goal :unsure:. I would support the other one any day ... but "there has already been enough backassword solutions and poorly thought out and planned changes to the game without us encouraging more." .... no comment, if I didn't put brain-labour in this one then I must be some idiot needing help to put a spoon in his mouth.
I didn't say you hadn't put brain work into it. You obviously have. But compared to the diminishing sp returns like other fort fighting skills a gun that does damage based on HP is backasswards, sorry.
 

DeletedUser30224

TjTuttle, I've no more to say, I just hope someone decided already to put it to a vote or not, so that if it gets rejected I can focus on another way of lowering HP ...

By the way, there is nothing much to discuss other that giving opinions about how backwards it is or realistic.

So, can someone please put it in the develop stage please? If it gets shut down, so be it, if it passes, all the better. Regardless of result, I will pursue this further with another ideas on how to lower the hp...after all if it passes a vote, it doesn't mean it will be implemented.
 

Dark Terror

This would be a good solution, but so would the diminishing health points. As Elmyr said, all the other fort skills require more SP to get to higher levels so why not make health do that too? The thing I like about this solution is that it will even out the damage a little, I think.
 

WanderingStranger

Well-Known Member
Now, if the attacking side had a chance to kill those defenders, some of those defenders in the first rounds, it would balance it out in the big picture. 30 or so attackers shooting at a player with 4-5 or even 6k hp on point "should" kill him. If a player is dead in the first round, it is one less gun shooting at you. While Reds would also fall faster, taking in account that they have more players to sacrifice would even it out ... enough to tip the scales in favour of a good leader ... and here strategy and movement comes.

This is my logic, I may be wrong, please tell me, I can't muster more than this.
This was the only post I saw discussing how this would actually work in a fight and I am sorry but it is wrong.

In an attack you can focus most, or all in a small, of your shots on just a few players players. The defense can not do this because towers lose LOS close to them and any people on the ground north and south. are spread out because they are shooting around the corner of a tower and it limits their LOS.

If this is implemented it is a win for any semi-decent attack no matter how good the defense because the attack (who already has a number advantage) would gain an even bigger number advantage more quickly.

Basically my biggest problem is almost anyone who took point in a tower is dead while on the ground the same isnt true because you cant have as many shooting at them.
 

rice farmer

I, for one, would like attacks to have a higher success rate than what it is currently. :D
 

WanderingStranger

Well-Known Member
I, for one, would like attacks to have a higher success rate than what it is currently. :D
I would be willing to test this in attack against any defender because attacks would become unbeatable with just a simple surround 1 tower and have advents keep snipers from getting LOS strategy or get between the towers and have advents block snipers.

Those same strategies are used now because the make the defense work at it coordinating swaps with tanks on point so they dont use guns.

If it was changed it wouldnt matter what the defense did because a very large % of attacks (90%+ in my opinion if they are at all decent) would just roll over defense because they would kill guns much more quickly and maintain a gun advantage the whole fight.

It might even be possible that a weaker attack with less number and less health could win and win regularly because no one could take point.
 

DeletedUser30224

I do not think this is the case My dear Sir :)

While the tank you are talking about would have 5-6000 HP, it wouldnt much affect the whole picture as the fella nex tto him would be forced to lower his HP, and the fella on the ground as well and so on. DO not underestimate the power of the tower and a nice fat class player holding the point.

I would still kick your but in a defense ... sometimes you have to adapt to the situation and not try it over and over and over again until you are successful. Of course I can't guarantee anything as I cannot forsee the future. From the woting received, It looks like it won't pass beyond that so no worries anyway :)