|
Pages: 1 [2]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: "Improvements" to UQM? (Read 9038 times)
|
C. Bob
Zebranky food
 Offline
Posts: 43
|
I had two concepts -- eliminate the Chenjesu/Mmrnmhrm merge (coming up with some other way to keep them out of the game until the end).
This would make the final battle more difficult and climatic -- the Dreadnoughts/Marauders would pose a real threat, instead of just being a formality before you fight the Sa-Matra. I believe it would have more power if it was the Chenjesu returning to continue the fight, instead of just having the Chmmr blaze through all those ships, and then attacking the Sa-Matra.
The second concept would be to alter the time the Androsynth disappear -- for, say, a year in the beginning of the game, the Androsynth are still around. Then It happens and the Orz appear.
So you could talk to a real Androsynth, and probably fight a few Guardians with your Precursor ship.
- Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Aya Reiko
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 36
Bewitching Smile Amethyst
|
My idea:
Break out of the 18 degrees of freedom.
Instead of the restrictive angles that you can navigate your ship, find a way to have all 360 degrees (or something like it) of freedom when turning while navagating and in melee.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1044
|
That seems like a good idea on paper, but would probably completely break the balance in practice. Don't the big ships with massive weapons have enough advantages already?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
That seems like a good idea on paper, but would probably completely break the balance in practice.
Good, that will provide something for the legendary designers of tfb to do on SCX. 
Seriously, you can't have the 16 directions thing in a new game, you need seamless rotation, let alone things like full 3D movement, which may or may not be necessary for modern markets.
This means the ships will have to be rebalanced, and that's only bad for purists who will not represent the majority of customers for any further commercial SC games, unless they are not very successful. So just give the cruiser 6 hp nukes, 20 crew, and either more speed/acceleration or battery/recharge. Give the blade full thruster power in all 8 directions without needing to turn. Mycon can have better regen, more firepower, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
That seems like a good idea on paper, but would probably completely break the balance in practice. Good, that will provide something for the legendary designers of tfb to do on SCX. Seriously, you can't have the 16 directions thing in a new game, you need seamless rotation, let alone things like full 3D movement, which may or may not be necessary for modern markets. This means the ships will have to be rebalanced, and that's only bad for purists who will not represent the majority of customers for any further commercial SC games, unless they are not very successful. So just give the cruiser 6 hp nukes, 20 crew, and either more speed/acceleration or battery/recharge. Give the blade full thruster power in all 8 directions without needing to turn. Mycon can have better regen, more firepower, etc.
Of course. I wouldn't expect TFB to do anything else with a current release. But that's a new game, for another thread.
However, with regards to improvements to UQM, this would fatally wound a lot of the smaller craft. The game is built around the assumption that these vessels can "hide" inside the fire arcs of the bigger ships, giving them a fighting chance. After all, that a look at the melee in SC3; that had free rotation for all ships, and look at what a mess that was. Never mind the new ships (which almost uniformly sucked), even among the older ships carried over, the balance was irreperably altered; the Chmmr, Utwig, and Ur-Quan totally dominated the other ships, even moreso than they did before. Hell, even the VUX got far more powerful, just for the ability to sweep that laser across targets that strayed too close, rather than having to aim dead-on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2]
|
|
|
|
|
