new optional game mode. "Underdogs".

posted on October 22nd, 2013, 1:57 pm

I was thinking if there was a new game mode that had a losing side be given special access to a ability, resources, or/and unit that would even out the playing field.

This could make the game go on much longer which for some maybe more fun.

I don't know how this would look nor is it for me to say its not my game. Though I thought this was a idea that could add some more dimensions to this game.

posted on October 22nd, 2013, 4:44 pm

Nice idea. It's got my vote.

posted on October 22nd, 2013, 4:59 pm

Interesting! A handicap system would be helpful too, so new players can get in online without being creamed every time or everyone else having to go easy.

posted on October 22nd, 2013, 6:35 pm

Neutral map objects that gave different players special abilities might be handy with a game variant like this. Players could be awarded one of these objects as an underdog. Also, it would just be fun to have special map objects scattered around the map in general. For example:

- Abandoned Cardassian Starbase
- Abilities: Starbase grade weaponry, can produce small cardassian warships

Abandoned Charting Station
- Abilities: Boosts the sensor range of all units by 20%

Abandoned Research Station
-Abilities ALL a player's units get a generic special ability (phase torpedoes, repair team, boarding parties, engine overload, etc.)

Feringi Trading Station
- Abilities: Supplies can be freely traded with Di and Tri.

Automated Di (or Tri) Moon
- Abilities: Being near this moon automatically gives you a steady stream of resources.

posted on October 22nd, 2013, 7:31 pm

Yeah new game mode sure, the new patch has been in dev for over 2 years and your suggesting a new game mode HAAAA

posted on October 22nd, 2013, 10:24 pm

Calling v4 a patch is drastically trivializing it.

posted on October 23rd, 2013, 1:29 pm

Calling v4 a patch is drastically trivializing it.

The fact i named it a patch rather than a new version is irrelevant, the point still stands its been in dev for over 2 years now and still on going with no release date in sight so requesting ideas like this is pointless im pretty sure they have other more important stuff to work on.

Not to mention the fact i cant ever recall anything suggested in this section ever being implemented into a patch or release making this part of the forum pointless.

posted on October 23rd, 2013, 4:12 pm

Well, v4 has been in development for two years, so you have to go back three or four years to find anything that's been implemented. The mod system is a good example, as are several warp-ins, like the Excelsior.

posted on October 23rd, 2013, 4:59 pm

...
Not to mention the fact i cant ever recall anything suggested in this section ever being implemented into a patch or release making this part of the forum pointless.

I can assure you that the developers read this forum, and take some ideas seriously as well, or use / abuse them to form new mechanics.

But let's be honest here: most ideas you can read here are quite random, thrown out into a forum, without the topic starter thinking it through the slightest. Which leads to a simple issue: the developers can't (and they definitely shouldn't) implement such.
Mostly this forum is more about brain storming, than having actual thought through ideas.



Edit: on topic:
this is an RTS game, one person / team earns a win by better gameplay (mostly), it's up to the underdog to make a comeback now. Also i agree that in many cases a snowball effect comes into mind, which makes comebacks rather tough, giving free units though is nothing i would want to see.
I would definitely prefer having improved game mechanics, or better hard counters late game, real "game changers", than just constantly giving the losing side some free units - also, at which point does a player actually lose?
I've seen quite a lot of base AND fleet trading games (in the old days). So let's say now i lose my starbase, and my fleet is gone too, do i get a free cube?
(i can't really see this working)

posted on October 23rd, 2013, 5:28 pm

Requesting things on the forums is never pointless - as Kamk described, we do definitely read the forums, and we like to see discussion of game concepts. Yes, not all ideas are used - just as not all people agree on the forums. Just because an idea is not used verbatim doesn't mean that concepts here don't make it into Fleet Operations .

Furthermore, just because we are in a long development cycle doesn't mean we are not open to new ideas . Even if something is not possible at this time or not planned for entry immediately also doesn't mean that it's never going to be considered again. Over the years there are a great many ideas posted on the forums that have made their way in.

posted on October 24th, 2013, 4:43 am

i agree that in many cases a snowball effect comes into mind, which makes comebacks rather tough, giving free units though is nothing i would want to see.

Generally, the usual attitude is "'Comeback?' You can 'comeback' for a rematch!" I will say that the difficulty of achieving such is one of the reasons we only rarely see late-game units in competitively played 1v1 matches. And I have to admit I'm a bit tired of watching Fed replays where it's over before Chassis 2 is researched. I've got no idea how the tech tree in 4.0 will work, but I did always feel that in the current versions it would have been better if research was slower but cheaper; make it so that you'd have to be desperate or stupid to not have your research buildings active.

As for the free units thing ... reminds me of the old arguments about warp-in, which was designed as an integral part of the Fed faction.

posted on October 24th, 2013, 8:53 am

This would be an insteresting addition as it could mean that I could play online finally without having to lose all the time. As it is now its very easy to counter my strategy..........since I only have one strategy and I will always only have one strategy.

posted on October 24th, 2013, 9:04 am

This would be an insteresting addition as it could mean that I could play online finally without having to lose all the time. As it is now its very easy to counter my strategy..........since I only have one strategy and I will always only have one strategy.

instead of holding out hope for the game to change, why don't you just change your strat?

posted on October 25th, 2013, 12:14 am

NEVER!

DEFIANTS...........ONLY DEFIANTS!

posted on October 25th, 2013, 4:38 am

Tradeoffs and simple bolsters might make the game go back and forth like a top and wind up being no fun. The concept of an underdog is 'even though you know you're weak, muddy, and blood stained, never stop... the lights will go out on their own if fate so decides'. It's taking ten minutes to sneak your last constructor through Mut-nebs in hopes of avoiding the enemy and building a starbase. (Yes, that was me in STA I... nostalgia...)

There could be some pre-reqs when using this option: Once a player has expanded and been reduced to a significantly weaker position proportional to the opposition, then;

If player has acceptable kill count, send reinforcements as a sort of reward. (reward a player's aggression)

If player's fleet strength is 20% of opponent's fleet strength, player's fleet receives attrib bonus. (this would prevent or slow the snowball effect)

For Fedi warp-ins, you could double the warp-in allotments if there are no shipyards.

Remember this would all be on an option. That's why I like the idea. It seems like simple statistics to me, easy for moders to add and distrobute...