Goliath Optimization Programme
-
@SinJul I don't think it's meant to be a transporter. I rather think its "APCness" (randomword) is meant for self-defence or to get the hell outta that battle you cannot win. And it still has that armor which bounces some bullets.
But yeah, I agree with missiles. They should be slightly faster.
yay.gorilla
-
I'm glad that the G.O. Program is taking flight.
Thank you! I have read each and every single opinion. The overall concept has been reviewed carefully. Yet, let me clarify some aspects that were (very) ambiguous due to the disorganized format I used ,since I was "brainstorming" (I apologize for that):- The notes about the offensive use of the Goliath are based upon the in-game design and not on the new design.
- The new design is intended to be faster and stronger.
- The new design has its launchers higher and can turn/aim them more than the original Goliath but up to a certain extent (less than 360°).
- Despite the fact that the new design might appear to be too powerful, it has 2 weaknesses:
Its BACK ("watch your 6") & aerial units. - I was intending to make the Goliath resemble the biblical Goliath. Apparently almighty but with a critical weakness.
An amphibious unit would be interesting, we could discuss that.
I will upload some tactics involving the new design to portray my ideas more clearly in a more organized way.
I will relate them to Sun Tzu (since MACHINES was inspired by the Art of War) and include the dynamic camera effect for strategic and tactical purposes.
Thanks again to all of you for your opinions and thoughts!
Any other suggestions?
-
More sketches.
More coming soon.
I tried to show both the tactic and how it would look in the game. There's a Paladin concept as well, not my favorite but I wanted something asymmetrical.
Finally, the quote isn't applied entirely, just the wind and mountain verses. But I liked it. -
So, you say, the more enemy units are stuck together, the easier it is for a Goliath to kick their asses? Yay!
Also, I like the Paladin's look. Feels fresh. And badass.
Also, yeah, bilbical Goliath was hit between eyes with a rock. That's how he died.
So, you say that this Goliath will have it easier to kill lots of ground enemies, but harder to hit (and kill) any flying unit? Sounds fair.
I hope there'll be more flying units in OpenMachines (but not thousands of'em, it would feel weird). -
This was an open field tactic of course, but that's the basic idea. There are many tactics that could be implemented, but hit and run would be the main role of the Goliath, as well as support.
Also, @Judas posted something about a dream that involved the use of the camera (if I understood correctly), having a mayor role in the gameplay. This advantage would give the player the "upper hand" (again, Homeworld and Tom Clancy's Endwar are good examples of this). I tried to implement this in my last upload but the tactic was too simple to portray this properly. I will try to focus on this next time.
Also I have some suggestions: what if you could select units and tell them to follow another unit so that you can select this unit as their leader and control it in first person mode (it is often called the "vanguard" unit in real-world tactics)? You could flank the enemy more easily.
Or you could "draw" a path like in Pixel Legions (look for it, it's quite good).
And maybe, in multiplayer, there could be a cooperative mode in which there could be a strategist and a tactical expert. One takes care of the general resourse administration aspects, organization, squad formation, etc. and the other one takes care of the fighting?
And finally, a metropolis like in Age of Empires III (Eden 4 obviously). -
@Pisarz You actually can make units follow other units in original game.
Simply click "move" task button and click any unit you want the selected unit to follow. Easy!
I remember I've asked about that a few years ago!
Drawing paths? I'd rather say: waypoints. Simply, hold X button and click, and the units will go through the waypoints.
Cooperative mode? I've had a nice idea, too. You could have a few players in one team (max. 3), each player would have his own smelter, one player (the leader) owns a seeding pod. The leader can control his "teammates" units, but his "teammates" can't because they don't own his units. Your idea sounds good, too.
Metropolis... I've had an idea for this one map called The Bridge (4P). Each player has one base located at the edge of the map. The map is a giant, floating bridge... hell, I'd better show what I mean (1337 p31n7 5k1ll5).
Yeah, ik, it's ugly.
Legend (or something):
- MIN - Minerals located at the base
- MINE - Minerals located outside all four bases
- MASS MINERALS - Huge amount of minerals
- Red, green, blue, yellow ellipses - bases (Seeding Pods)
- Round rectangles filled with green colour - Places at high altitudes
-
@Pisarz
On my phone so I can't make a lengthy response, and I read fast so bear with me:About first person changes, I had some ideas to rework the campaign into first person exclusive missions and rts exclusive missions. For example, if we were to replace the commandant with a buffed leader unit, it could bring some interesting game play concepts. Imagine that the mission to get into the Com station stays rts, but turns into a tactical first person squadron style game. You would be able to use keyboard controls to choose which machines in your squadron go where etc. Something similar to what I'm thinking of is in Tom Clancy's rainbow six. I'll give more details later when I'm at my computer.
@Encrypted
Drawing a path is not the same thing as setting waypoints. -
@bilal
Exactly! So, you could be in first-person mode and, for example, if you encounter some enemies, you could press a key (for example, a number) and your squad switches from the current formation to a "claw formation". Maybe we should dedicate a whole topic to this. -
@Pisarz
Yeah, I realized I was getting a bit off topic after posting, haha. -
