Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

Poll: WOMD
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Nuclear bombs (da classic, massive devastation, devastating fallout)
5 11.90%
Neutron bombs ( like nuke, but without nature devastation, anhilate organics)
4 9.52%
ION cannon ( special orbital laser, that will charge up and shoot it with lighting speed, causing great devastation and meltage of cities)
5 11.90%
Weather control ( allow you to throw tornados at enemies !)
4 9.52%
Tectonic drill (allow moving with tectonics desks, this thing allow you to create vulacnoes, tsunamis or earthquakes)
1 2.38%
Thermobaric weaponry (similar to nuke, but without radiation, more fiery)
9 21.43%
Vacuum rockets ( a massive rocket that will hit large area, reducing pressure to looks like in space, that mean any organics will be instantly destroyed, wood will suffer too, maybe)
4 9.52%
Nano robot swarm ( a swarm of micro robots that will "viscerate" entire armies and cities, they will recycle them)
3 7.14%
Solar burst (a laser that will shoot on special sattelite that will refflect to another one, with each charge, it will be more hot, then final one will strike it back on Neter, melting fleets or fortress alike !)
5 11.90%
Temperature control system (this one is nasty, you see a fleet of nuc subs coming toward you, you change sea temperature to - 700 celsius, they are STUCK as hell)
2 4.76%
Total 42 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Weapons of mass destruction (voting)


Perhaps I could offer some of my own opinions on WMDs within the scope of FTD.

I'd say, realistically, it's not so much the matter of a win button or the weapon's power level within itself, but more, what purpose it serves within the game world, and why you want it implemented.

To take one of your earlier examples of a "Insanely fast one-hit-kill laser jet", why can one make an insanely fast one-hit-kill laser jet? Why does the existence of such a thing necessitate the addition of WMDs to counteract? Why does a counter to it not exist within the current game layout? Or again, an indestructible island fortress. Why is it indestructible? Why can't the player just build bigger until they destroy it? Why do we need a WMD to destroy this construction.

If the delivery method of the WMD has a weakness of any form why would it be able to approach this insurmountable obstacle any better than an unconventional ship? What would give its deliverance method an advantage that the conventional vehicles would not have that would somehow allow it to bypass these defenses that needed a WMD to destroy in the first place? What would stop the owner of this super-insane overkill fortress or vehicle or installation from simply installing defenses against the pre-defined list of WMDs that weren't delivered by a conventional vehicle?

Perhaps the question at hand here is, in fact, why you feel a WMD needs to be added. Following that train of thought, perhaps there is a balance issue within the game that causes you to feel we need WMDs, and, perhaps we should address that instead of simply adding more weapons that are overkill against anything but that source problem and, either still cannot address that source problem or are far too powerful in and of themselves.

I am not trying to be rude I am merely pointing out that something appears to be wrong with the game if you feel a 'trump card' needs to be added. And most of your proposed drawbacks stipulate that a normal fleet would have trouble stopping the deployment of the weapon, not that the target that required a WMD to be added into the game in the first place would have trouble stopping the deployment of one. I'm concerned that whatever implementation came along either would fail to address your base problem or would fail to be balanced within the context of the game.

Let's look at some of the problems. I'd appreciate responses to this section of the post where possible.

Insurmountable physical defenses: What does this list include for you? Shields? Multiple meter thick metal walls? Why aren't these things possible to destroy with conventional means? Will the planned nerfs to the engines fix any of these problems or is the problem perhaps with current repair mechanics?

Weapons that cannot be defended against: Much like the above, which weapon categories are currently breaking the game? Would any planned changes appear to resolve these? Do any balance changes need to be made on top of the planned changes?

Vehicles that cannot be hit: Considering that proximity detonated flak shells and improvements to the aiming AI are in the pipeline, will these targets retain their invulnerability? Is the problem with them perhaps not in their speed but in the amount of firepower they can retain while having that speed? Is it perhaps not in that, but in their ability to repair what damage does get through insanely fast and therefore leading back to the question about repair being unbalanced right now? Would a buff to missiles or the addition of some kind of "High Speed thruster" resolve any of the issues you've noted?

I would caution against responding to imbalance with the addition of more devastating features, and to temper any suggestions with consideration for how it ties into the game and how it would function in practice, not just in statistics and theory.

If your reason for implementing them is simply "It is cool" then would you perhaps agree to dropping the pretense of there being some pressing need for such weapons and instead turn an eye to downgrading their power and fitting them into the current scale of the game's encounters?
(2015-02-13, 01:32 PM)Nick Smart Wrote: I also spaghetti my pants

Messages In This Thread
Weapons of mass destruction (voting) - by mrvecz - 2015-01-19, 06:37 PM
RE: Weapons of mass destruction (voting) - by Bombzero - 2015-02-14, 09:42 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)