The Energon Pub

Scantron wrote:Similar to Psychout's question, will missions have any indirect bearing on the campaign outcome? For instance, missions wouldn't change control of territory, but could allow the winning faction to acquire some useful resource; like the missions we had in the past to acquire armor materials.

Yeah, the missions give you xp too. That makes your mech stronger and ready for more warmap action

It depends on how constant the battle for the map is.

Chaoslock wrote::shock:
Talk about scratching the surface...
As it looks, HMW V1 will be to V2 as if we had compared the Colosseum to the Roman Empire...

Indeed! but that's the beauty of it, right?

If the missions dont count towards the campaign score, will they still be able to use campaign-earned resouces, such as minicons, im missions?
Im hoping not.

Psychout wrote:If the missions dont count towards the campaign score, will they still be able to use campaign-earned resouces, such as minicons, im missions?
Im hoping not.

The thing is though, what if someone likes a bit of a break from the campaign and spends just one day a week in missions and spends the other six in campaigns?

Perhaps a "tax" on any energon earned in areas OTHER than campaigns? That tax going straight to the faction's coffers.

Omega Sentinel wrote:

Waylander wrote:so tell me if i am wong,but you are saying being next door and allies,with all of the small areas around them they can hold them areas and move troops threw each others areas and be stronger just because they are next door,and have small areas around them for a buffer so to speek,taking said areas would be hard to due with the deployment zones of the con's and Preds,while holding what they have.

sorry it must be the 7 years of small unit combat tactics i learned in the Rangers(small unit tactics are far more complex than large scale tactics),in my military days,but sticking to this the BOT/MAXIs being allies would be very hard to counter,historical reference WW2,if germany and japan were closer(next DOOR) the war would have been much stonger and the outcome wouldn't have been set in stone the day the US joined the fight. lets face it, bots always out # cons,and the preds are the smallest faction.

not that i don't like the idea behind the rest of the topic,but without some miracle in tactics and luck the outcome is set in stone before it starts.

What you are saying assumes there will be certain alliances. Certainly the map will look different on a daily basis. The starting point of the factions probably won't matter as much as what the factions decide to do with themselves. It's like I've been saying all along, balance won't be as much of an issue as strategy.

o.k. with the placement of starting positions as of now,when shields get into place the autobot,maxi's can cut off the cons from Antihex,and the Preds can be cut off from Nova Cronum in the same manor,while the CONs/Preds have no chance of cuting off any area from one faction,being they are on the outside of the map. and the biggest % of areas on the map are small areas around the BOT's /Maxi's starting point,or the areas which they can cut off from one faction. and being next door to each other, both factions will come to a agreement from the start,or battle each other while the evil factions take other areas,then focus on them.
fact,the starting points are not = for deployment options.
having said that it will only be a amount of time before they(bot-max)can cut off,flank,and section off areas from the con/preds, in less time and they have more #'s at the same time,so it's like the old AXIS and ALLIES game if you don't take out germany in 10 rounds,might as well give up the game,because placement is everything when areas that are worth more to hold can be cut off from others,and 3 small areas are next to two factions which are next to each other,which holding give them a buffer to attack the hard to reach areas on the map for one of the other two factions, in less time and with more #'s.
thus with the map set-up the placement is not = by any means for deployment options and tactics for the amount of time to deploy units,which by it's self is a huge advantage.

Burn wrote:
The thing is though, what if someone likes a bit of a break from the campaign and spends just one day a week in missions and spends the other six in campaigns?

Perhaps a "tax" on any energon earned in areas OTHER than campaigns? That tax going straight to the faction's coffers.

I like that idea. The faction government can make it law that all other extra non campaign activities must atleast contribute to the war effort. Not sure on exact percentage maybe around 10% that varies on activity and maybe level.

Well, the campaigns sound like the basic, front line combat, so wouldn't the missions be kind of like special ops missions? It seems to me that the missions should grant side benefits, like getting a few weapons from raiding a supply depot (gained much the way we currently get minicons from the Quints) or other minor benefits... Extra energon, extra minicons, maybe making it so that a shield temporarily doesn't work like a sabotage mission. The possibilities are endless and that way missions serve just as much of a purpose as the front-line battles in campaign.

sector resources; how is this going to work, do we get a finite lump of resource for each time we win a sector in the faction stockpile, or will it basically be infinite supply aslong as we hold a sector, but if the sector is lost only what individual players have is kept?

the latter seems fairer and if combined with small player caps on minicons, armour, weapons, whatever, a sort of "run for the hills you can only take what you can carry!" thing, and stops say two factions farming resources by constantly exchanging a territory between, until they have suffiecent resources from that sector to never bother conquering it again.

Omega Sentinel wrote:Deploying Troops:
To deploy a troop to a different area it will take on average 45 minutes to move one space on the planet. You cannot deploy a troop to an area an enemy controls BUT you can move troops THROUGH enemy areas if they do not have force fields equipped on their territories.

1 Questions on this.

1) What's the most amount of 'spaces' it takes to get anywhere?

ill stay with missions
campaign sounds too damn confusing
so 4x the amount of territories is the total number of players that play at one time?

Man, all of this looks confundling and awesome at the same time Can't wait to try it out!

steve2275 wrote:ill stay with missions
campaign sounds too damn confusing
so 4x the amount of territories is the total number of players that play at one time?

And there you have it folks, Mr Unreliable now has declared he's going to be less reliable in the future!

For shame steve, for shame.

steve2275 wrote:ill stay with missions
campaign sounds too damn confusing
so 4x the amount of territories is the total number of players that play at one time?

that brings up a good question. Is the 4 active battles per territory an overall limit then. Say in a neutral territory the bots attack the cons 4 times, then a maximal comes along wanting to make an attack in that territory...are they not allowed to do it b/c there are already 4 attacks in that territory in progress?

Though it would be at least 4*num territories (15) * # players per campaign (I'm guessing this will be in the 6-10 range) * 2 (for each side).

assuming 6, that would be 720 active transformers
10 would be 1200 active transformers

If the 4 active limit is per faction then it's twice as many (1440-2400). If it's per faction against a specific faction then it's 6 times as many less the non-neutral territories since you can only fight one faction there (4320-7200).

If it's the lower limit, then we can expect size of the faction to not matter as much (and people to be forced into doing other things like missions & arena b/c there won't be empty room in the campaigns...of course these numbers mean every territory would be being fought over all the time...which clearly isn't what's desired. Honestly, I can't see it being this one, it just doesn't make sense...if the cons get on quick and create 4 fights in every territory then the rest of the factions would be unable to create fights themselves...just doesn't seem right.

I'm personally hoping it's the last one. As obviously we won't have anywhere near that number available, but it will be more of a pick and choose where to attack.

Bring it on! The wait is driving me NUTTY!

So will you be able to see who and how many people are move in and around your the areas? An example would be if you hold a territory, would you be able to see who is moving through you taken territory? Would you be able to see who is massing in adjacent territories? It would be helpful if you could see things like that so you can expect an attack on your territory. Maybe being able to buy and upgrade sensors could be impelmented later to beable to sense thing farther, see who and how many are coming.

Sorry if it has already been answered, but what happens if a faction takes all of the areas on the map, how will the other factions be able to respond with no area to attack from?

It seems to me there needs to be a way to move in case one faction does in fact take and force field all the territories. How about you can move for free to any area where you are not blocked by forcefields, or you can pay a set amount of Energon to utilize an orbital bounce to get to any territory you want?

I'm guessing that's what the quintessions/guardians are for. A way to reset the map without resetting the game kind of thing.

I'd like to know about how we can gather info, such as who's massing armies on our borders and who's marching through our territories.

Starlock wrote:

Burn wrote:
The thing is though, what if someone likes a bit of a break from the campaign and spends just one day a week in missions and spends the other six in campaigns?

Perhaps a "tax" on any energon earned in areas OTHER than campaigns? That tax going straight to the faction's coffers.

I like that idea. The faction government can make it law that all other extra non campaign activities must atleast contribute to the war effort. Not sure on exact percentage maybe around 10% that varies on activity and maybe level.

Seconded.

I think that's a great idea Burny-boy

Vanguard wrote:

Starlock wrote:

Burn wrote:
The thing is though, what if someone likes a bit of a break from the campaign and spends just one day a week in missions and spends the other six in campaigns?

Perhaps a "tax" on any energon earned in areas OTHER than campaigns? That tax going straight to the faction's coffers.

I like that idea. The faction government can make it law that all other extra non campaign activities must atleast contribute to the war effort. Not sure on exact percentage maybe around 10% that varies on activity and maybe level.

Seconded.

I think that's a great idea Burny-boy

Thirded. Make the mindless clickers pay for not having any team spirit.

Uncrazzimatic wrote:

Vanguard wrote:

Starlock wrote:

Burn wrote:
The thing is though, what if someone likes a bit of a break from the campaign and spends just one day a week in missions and spends the other six in campaigns?

Perhaps a "tax" on any energon earned in areas OTHER than campaigns? That tax going straight to the faction's coffers.

I like that idea. The faction government can make it law that all other extra non campaign activities must atleast contribute to the war effort. Not sure on exact percentage maybe around 10% that varies on activity and maybe level.

Seconded.

I think that's a great idea Burny-boy

Thirded. Make the mindless clickers pay for not having any team spirit.

No. This is a bad idea.

This is catastrophic for the Maximals and Predacons who wont have the invisible masses just sitting in the misisons building up the money.

The Missions game should either be totally seperate, or it should be both a gain and drain on faction resources.

Otherwise is will just become a huge energon generator that will benefit the Bots and Cons who have the silent players, but not the Preds and Maximals who wont have any such advantage.

I want the cons to win this war, but not simply by walking over the opposition using resources earned in another part of the game. I at least want it to be a challenge...

Psychout wrote:This is catastrophic for the Maximals and Predacons who wont have the invisible masses just sitting in the misisons building up the money.

And you're basing this on ....

Current recruitment trends and general interest in Preds/Maximals in comparison to Decepticons/Autobots.

The bulk of the results in V1 (especially at the lower levels) are dictated by non-posting members; Those who just play HMW as a time filler and dont care about the overall results. As the current numbers will show you, the default is Autobot.
Should this repeat in V2 (and the chances are that it will) it leaves the Organics royally screwed as the bots and cons will be able to just sit there and allow the unwitting millions in the missions to fill their bank account, handing the advanatge to the established factions.

As I said, I want the cons to win and will fight for it, but I want to win this properly, not using a ghost player advantage to boost my energon right from the start.

Therefore, IF this is implemented (and, again, I am against it) then there must be a negative to balance it out, such as loss of minicons/or armour stocks if relevant, but overall I'd prefer to see the missions completly seperated from the campaign game so that the ghost players give no advantange to any one 'pop-culture' faction.

Tammuz wrote:i like the idea that if you hold a certain sector, you get free minicons from that sector( until you lose the sector but if the minicon is destroyed anywhere BUT the campaigns you pay for it

maybe even make it a hierachy where faction commander can improve the minicon resoucre in an area by using the factions energon supply, sorta natural resouce is Jogger type, but for a million energon they can upgrade it to hopper type.

how about this as a solution?