3 squadrons are somewhat low. Better would be 4 or 5 squadrons.

8 Comments·Started 28 April 2016 04:38 AM
Edgar HintzeEdgar Hintze Freshly on the boardEdgar HintzeComments: 0
3 squadrons are somewhat low.

Better would be 4 or 5 squadrons. I find it very convenient to equip identical robots with different weapons.

For example, a squadron with elite Titans and dictator robots with machine guns. And a squadron with dictator-robots with missile throwing.

Would be glad if you could do that.

Many thanks in advance
· Share

Comments

  • Walter RobertoWalter Roberto Forum Speaker Walter RobertoComments: 21 ✭✭✭
    totally agree, Had already sugested it, but I have no idea if someone is reading this, so I'll say it again: having 10 squads would give players no game breaking advantage, but would allow us to explore different options with the gain of time, so just do it!
    · Share
  • Nathaniel BoltNathaniel Bolt Forum Expert Nathaniel BoltComments: 37 ✭✭✭✭
    I dont think that would be fair. If you attacked a human player (you monster!), then if you lose you would just quickly swap another unit with different equipment. Where would the diffifculty be, or how about planning what your squads or mechs will be equipped with?
    · Share
  • Walter RobertoWalter Roberto Forum Speaker Walter RobertoComments: 21 ✭✭✭
    There's no unfairness whatsoever. What is the difference between having 10 squads with all kinds of bots and configurations and only 3 squads, when failing an attack, going back to base and changing a squad bot by bot? None! Except the time it takes, that's my point. I don't want my game to be a static thing. I don't want to use the Osiris MG or Hammergeddon squads for every single base. I like to see variety, to keep the game interesting
    · Share
  • Nathaniel BoltNathaniel Bolt Forum Expert Nathaniel BoltComments: 37 ✭✭✭✭
    Ok so you want a change that will make the game easier for you, but alot worse for others.

    Ever hear the line "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"?

    If you could think of a balancer like letting people have mixed types of shields on turrets, then you might have something. Instead its an idea to make the game easier for you.

    By the way, the game lacks variety because of how unbalanced the weapons are. Rockets are the general purpose weapon. Machine guns on turrets quickly lose any use and are pathetic in damage, while mech mounted ones are too short range to be useful. Cannons are too low damage. Rockets have medium-long range, firepower, and splash damage.
    · Share
  • Walter RobertoWalter Roberto Forum Speaker Walter RobertoComments: 21 ✭✭✭
    lol, how would having more squads be good for me but a lot worse for others?? I'm not requesting a special change for me only, it's meant for all. And would be better for everybody, I see no downsides for any lvl player: you can have more squads with different mechs and weapons readily available, instead of having to go through the dock to pick them. I don't understand why you're so upset over this, when most (I refrained myself from saying "all" here) players would welcome it.

    Mixing different shields is a great idea.

    But if you think "machine guns on mechs are too short range to be useful", you have yet to come across 6 osiris with MG blasting your base at point blank.
    This will probably change with the update, though. Cannon dmg will also change in the future
    · Share
  • NomaduzNomaduz Forum Dweller NomaduzComments: 2 ✭✭
    I agree.....3 squadrons it too low. In my opinion you shoud be able to to build and put together up to at least 10 squadrons to choose from. This option offers no advantage over any other player. There are no repair times on the squadrons which means I can keep using the same mechs over and over again so if I attack someone with a squadron that doesn't work, I'm just going to go back to base and put together a squadron that does work with mechs I've already built. All it does it take a little bit more time is all. It doesn't offer any superior advantage. It just saves time. Good suggestion Edgar Hintze. :D
    · Share
  • Nathaniel BoltNathaniel Bolt Forum Expert Nathaniel BoltComments: 37 ✭✭✭✭
    Nomaduz that is the best sarcasm Ive seen in a while.

    Walter the change is that the game is already wildy unbalanced as at later levels units have more damage and durability than defenses, so its easy to take a squad of Hammers and win 90%+ of the time. Before that you have squads of Osiris' with either machineguns and judgement day rockets just rushing in and winning. This game already is just broken in terms of combat.

    If players had only ONE squad, there would be a larger decision making process in what mechs and equipment instead of having a squad to deal with everything. Unless defenses get something to counter this, its wholly an idea to benefit attackers, not defenders.

    Having more squads is pointless. Either it ruins any chance of Defenders ever winning, or nobody will use extra squads because "Hammerz win LOL!!!".
    · Share
  • Darin CookDarin Cook Freshly on the board Darin CookComments: 2
    Nathaniel Bolt.

    I respecfully disagree.

    There is simply nothing at the moment stopping a player taking nothing but time and changing out the bots as people are suggesting.

    Having more squads available is something that will just give people more 'time' to deploy said squads.

    I, for one, would welcome more squads being available and I too find having only three squads some what slow. Especially when so many mechs are available and one wants to experiment with different mech abilities and how the different specials interact.

    Trying Viper with Cobra etc is awesome. Trying Patriot with Arachne is awesome... mixing and matching and setting up squads is really time consuming.

    Just my two cents (Or 5 cents, given inflation. :P )
    · Share
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!