View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0009082 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Game Mechanics | Jul 31, 2012 3:56 pm | Oct 7, 2012 2:03 pm | |
| Reporter | Kahuna | Assigned To | |||
| Severity | feature | ||||
| Status | considering | Resolution | open | ||
| Summary | 0009082: Warp Gate Command Station | ||||
| Description | Warp Gate Command Station would allow the player to teleport ships between the Warp Gate Command Stations. It would work like Transports. The player puts ships in it on planet A and unloads them on planet B (ofc planet A and B both would need the Warp Gate CS). Boom! Teleported! This could be hella handy.. for example.. I could easily defend my Experimental Starship Fabricator or Advanced Factory on a distant planet (few AI planets between the "distant planet" and my other planets). MarkI could teleport ships over 3 hops MarkII over 6 hops MarkIII over 9 hops or something like that. Ships immune to transportation couldn't be teleported. Edit: Warp Gate CS could also be like Warp Jammer CS. It wouldn't have Mark levels. It would be just Warp Gate CS and it would also cost resources like Warp Jammer CS. It would allow teleporting 4 hops away. Edit: Warp Gate CS could also be MarkIII Logistics CS since higher Marks of Logistics CSs are so useless atm. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | Feature Suggestion | ||||
|
|
I like this idea. With the recent harvester buffs, Econ stations are going to be difficult to be given a role. Especially with the new Reactor change, I find resources easier to come by than ever. This would open up a whole new way to play while still being relatively balanced. |
|
|
Yep. Should the Warp Gate CS consume resources like the Warp Jammer CS? EDIT: Yes.. they should consume resources. Otherwise players could just place MarkI Warp Gate CSs every 3 hops and thus teleport even more than 9 hops for free. That would be overpowered. If they consumed resources like Warp Jammers.. well.. the player would have to pay for that. They could even consume more resources than Warp Jammers. They would probably be worth it. |
|
|
I like this idea very much. And yes, they should probably consume resources. Higher mark stations should consume less than the lower levels for the same distance. (I.e. a mark 3 should consume less than 3 times the amount of the mark 1, making it more efficient). |
|
|
Warp Gate Command Station could also not have Mark levels. Like Warp Jammer Command Station. It would be just Warp Gate Command Station and would allow teleportation over 3 or 4 hops, consume as much resources as Warp Jammer and have a ship cap similar to Warp Jammer. |
|
|
Wouldn't that impact the usefulness of logistics stations? |
|
|
Not entirely, KDR. Logistics stations would still lower AI units' speed, as well as buff your unit's in-system speed, which would be useful when that system is under attack. |
|
|
"KDR_11k: Wouldn't that impact the usefulness of logistics stations?" Huh? Logistics CS speeds up my ships and slows down AIs. Warp Gate CS allows teleportation between planets. From planet to planet. Not on that planet. So nope. |
|
|
KDR didn't say remove the usefulness of logistics stations, he said impact it. Furthermore, he's right. I frequently see Logistics stations used to increase the movement speed of allied ships travelling across the galaxy in order to increase responsiveness to threats to allied territory. A command station that can teleport ships across systems would definitely impact that function of the logistics command. |
|
|
Oh.. I thought everyone used Logistics CSs to slow the AI ships. If you want to move your fleet around fast then you can just use Transports. So no. The effect on Logistics CS would be very small. And.. "Edit: Warp Gate CS could also be MarkIII Logistics CS since higher Marks of Logistics CSs are so useless atm." If that happened it would make Logistics CS MORE useful. So I don't think this would have any negative side effects. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2012 3:56 pm | Kahuna | New Issue | |
| Aug 1, 2012 12:04 am | tigersfan | Internal Weight | => Feature Suggestion |
| Aug 1, 2012 12:04 am | tigersfan | Status | new => considering |
| Aug 1, 2012 11:17 am | Wingflier | Note Added: 0027261 | |
| Aug 1, 2012 11:24 am | Kahuna | Note Added: 0027262 | |
| Aug 1, 2012 12:11 pm | Kahuna | Note Edited: 0027262 | |
| Aug 2, 2012 1:24 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0027294 | |
| Sep 12, 2012 12:57 am | Kahuna | Description Updated | |
| Oct 3, 2012 2:05 pm | Kahuna | Note Added: 0028583 | |
| Oct 3, 2012 2:27 pm | KDR_11k | Note Added: 0028584 | |
| Oct 3, 2012 2:29 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0028585 | |
| Oct 7, 2012 2:35 am | Kahuna | Note Added: 0028617 | |
| Oct 7, 2012 2:39 am | Kahuna | Description Updated | |
| Oct 7, 2012 11:38 am | Lilli | Note Added: 0028628 | |
| Oct 7, 2012 2:03 pm | Kahuna | Note Added: 0028636 |
