The Energon Pub

Because if we increase the character slot by 6 every four years it'll take 40 years to bring the ranks up to 72.

Thus making Caelus the grand old age of 23.

Caelus wrote:

Dragonslayer wrote:I would go with 18. That way we could have 3 groups of 6, so the number of active Transformers could stay the same.

Da.

:crosses fingers:

2 da

Like the idea of earning character slots. Way I would see it make different requirements for each slot. So we start with 12 and there be a page where it shows our progress on the next 6 unlockable slots. Requirements could be like

Reach X number of XP on one character to unlock one slot.
Get team combine XP to x.
Win x number of missions.
Enter so many missions.
Win so many missions in a row.
Get top score on one character x number of times.
etc
Obviously I need to know more about the new features of V2 to make better examples so each slot requirement would give more purpose to use certain features. Some players just got to unlock everything.

Of course first 6 would be easier to unlock then the next 6 to make it 24. The latter 6 can only be started worked on once first 6 are done and also would have much harder to do requirements that take more time. So say someone plays like 5 hours a day, first 6 would take like an estimate of 2-3 months. The last 6 would be like aiming for year plus.

Add a bit of background story for why like that is due to your team's reputation growing and importance in the war are given permission to recruit more.

Deadboy, just becuase you can have up to 12 or 18, or a billion bots, doesn't mean you have to play 12 or 18 or a billion bots, it's not forcing you to expand your team, Skits has played with 6 bots, in this version, and i think sharpwing doesn't play with a full deck.

yes it slows down individual character advancement, but then from a team point of view having 2 characters at level 1 (scoring base xp consistantly) is the same as having one character at 2 scoring (scoring base xp consistantly), so it doesn't really affect teams until you start having a massive spread of levels, but if that happens you're already not playing all your characters fairly.

however this is moot if the ratio of active members to team size stays the same.

I don't mind it staying the same. I don't mind it changing. I'm-a sit back and see what happens.

I'm going with my roommate Dtreet Viper 2 on this one give us 24 to 36

Me, Grimlock! wrote:I don't mind it staying the same. I don't mind it changing. I'm-a sit back and see what happens.

More slots = more Ineptibots...

Caelus wrote:

Waylander wrote:as for the XP unlocking them idea,i for one do not like it.
everyone should be on the same LVL when it comes to the amount of TFs you can have,or have active at one time.

Well, the plus side is that the veteran players would continue to have a vested interest in the lower levels, and might therefore be more willing to aid/communicate with less experienced allies.

HOW about getting more over time,instead of XP,that way players that have limited time to play can have just as many as others as long as they have been active for the set time.3-6 months or something,that way they can due what you said,even more when most get a extra slot about the same time.

the idea of the plasma energy chamber being on the map, but having no strategic importance but the ability to increase slots, maybe 1 per month at an exponential energon charge.

Burn wrote:I like it just how it is.

I agree.

but how does it negatively affect you?

Tammuz wrote:but how does it negatively affect you?

It probably does not. I, however, don't see the need for it to change and I feel that it's fine the way it is.

Of the few things that have worked in V1, the 12 slot max is one of them.

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

Burn wrote:Of the few things that have worked in V1, the 12 slot max is one of them.

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

This is also true. By creating more character slots you might also create unforseen new problems. Why take that risk?

Well not quite what I meant. I can't see more slots producing any problems. Server strain won't be an issue if you still can only have 6 active.

Burn wrote:Well not quite what I meant.

Might be so. It is what I meant though.

why have V2 then? why not keep v1? why bother with any new thing at all? we should go back to having only 4 characters active and the bots not having strafe, and people crashing the server becuase we have no time limits on missions.

with the reset coing up does it really matter AT ALL what we do now? we have the freedom to try things out without fear of **** happening, becuase we know that the worst that could happen is going to happen no matter what.


we know having more than 12 character slots doesn't produce problems unless they are on seperate sides from past expierience,

we've already upped the active character roster from 4 to 6 already, if server strain is too much surely we can drop active character roster back to four?, or extend the various time s things take.

74

shockticus wrote:74

42!

Tammuz, I think comparing additional bots to having v2 at all is a little absurd. Improving the game is good, improving it with little regard to whether something actually needs to be improved is not. Hence the ol' "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." There's plenty in HMW that's broke and needs fixing. I don't think the number of bots is one of them.

So the real question is, what is so good about more than 12 bots or bad about only having 12 bots that it needs to be changed? I think 12 is fairly ideal. Enough so that you feel like you have a good number yet not so many you have a hard time keeping everything straight. You're only taking up 12 names, you only have 12 bots consuming server and game resources (remember more bots means each player will also be using more weapons and whatever other resource is available in v2).

I still fail to see a reason for more than 12 other than the old "more is better" mentality.

Deadboy wrote: Improving the game is good, improving it with little regard to whether something actually needs to be improved is not. Hence the ol' "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Just because something isn't broke doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't be improved, horses and carts weren't 'broke', but how many people kept them after the invention of the car?

Deadboy wrote:Tammuz, I think comparing additional bots to having v2 at all is a little absurd. Improving the game is good, improving it with little regard to whether something actually needs to be improved is not. Hence the ol' "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." There's plenty in HMW that's broke and needs fixing. I don't think the number of bots is one of them.

So the real question is, what is so good about more than 12 bots or bad about only having 12 bots that it needs to be changed? I think 12 is fairly ideal. Enough so that you feel like you have a good number yet not so many you have a hard time keeping everything straight. You're only taking up 12 names, you only have 12 bots consuming server and game resources (remember more bots means each player will also be using more weapons and whatever other resource is available in v2).

I still fail to see a reason for more than 12 other than the old "more is better" mentality.

you know, i renamed 8 of my bots on wednesday, and i didn't have a single problem with names already in use.

i was quite easily able to keep my team with 1% of each others xp until OS handed out the xp to make up for the whoops, it really wasn't that hard to keep them straight, you have a problem keeping more 12 straight? DON'T CREATE more than 12.

server resources aren't a problem; we've got loads of inactive teams, if they where a problem we'd have started deleting dead accounts along time ago, Like we do with mission logs...

as to comparing it to v2

why do we need a map >>> becuase people want it
Masters >>> becuase people want it
Triple changers >>> becuase people want it
Minicons >>> becuase people want it
alt roation >>> becuase people want it

saying if it aint broke don't fix it is absurd when what you are talking about is an arbitary value.

changing it doesn't hurt the game, it doesn't hurt the players, the only thing leaving it as it is does is restrict players creative freedom.

we have had in the past players with more than 12 TFs, and the only disadvatage they had was their ability to put more than one bot in a mission.

Yeah, some us of might be forced to GR it, and that's never good.

I'd be content with 18. That way you could have 3 shifts of 6 or 2 shifts of 9. Preferably the latter, since 3 different groups would probably make development mighty slow going as others have pointed out.

I really don't think adding an extra six TF's to a team or expanding the number active to 9 will completely buttscrew the server, but hey, we'll never know... until we try it, of course.

As Mkall duly pointed out, the Quintesson team has 16 members...