MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Tactical Combat System (Closed)Digital LEGO
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Your comment has been added to the conversation.
Conversation »
Improvements & Suggestions
Join to comment
 Group admin 
Have an idea on how the game can be improved? post it here! There's no bad ideas here (unless its something like turds that drop lazercatbombs and fly thru the air on rainbows. Nothing ridiculous like that and were good)
Permalink
| May 18, 2011, 12:02 am
Posted this in the Elite Mechaniers before I found this group so I'll copy paste it here.

You missed AA Weapons ability, you forced it for AA units in the unit values sheet.

ED's list of ability ideas!

Passive:
AI - Minus two CR cost, minimum CR cost one (no 'free' units)
Armour plating - Immunity to Splash, Virus and AP Rounds abilities, half damage of Terminate ability

Active:
Splash - Damage around target, every unit within six studs of target gets four damage including friendlies - 3 recharge
Virus - For five turns target takes 1 damage, can pile (eg. if hit twice takes 2 damage for five turns) - four recharge
Teleport - Move 15 spaces, cannot attack - 7 recharge
Terminate - All units within ten studs take full attack damage of unit - No Recharge because kills unit
Burrow - Unit becomes invisible, movement reduced to 2, ends when unit attacks - 5 Recharge
Permalink
| May 18, 2011, 5:58 am
Sorry about the double post, but if the page gets too long you can just lock and make a V2.

To all those who oppose Artemis. (Chunk and Bio have done one, so I'll do one too.)

"I am Alpha of the Pack and I speak on behalf of my group. We are Artemis. We are the Hunter. If you give us reason we will hunt you down and blow you up. If you don't give us reason we might still hunt you down and blow you up. I hope you understand what we are and what we do. If you don't, then you won't know that we will be hunting you down and blowing you up. Thank you for listening and that is all, good day."
(That is what Artemis and Alpha are like, not me, I am far less likely to give warning before I hunt you down and blow you up) ;)

And also,
I think that there should be Battle Group abilities as well as unit abilities. I think you might have already thought of this, but I'll say it anyway.
Here are some ideas:
Napalm - blocks some spaces from use (enter and die)
Sub-commanders - More CR limit
Nuke - All units (including friendlies) take damage
Mortar/Air Strike - chosen units take damage
Permalink
| May 18, 2011, 6:20 am
 Group admin 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Sorry about the double post, but if the page gets too long you can just lock and make a V2.

To all those who oppose Artemis. (Chunk and Bio have done one, so I'll do one too.)

"I am Alpha of the Pack and I speak on behalf of my group. We are Artemis. We are the Hunter. If you give us reason we will hunt you down and blow you up. If you don't give us reason we might still hunt you down and blow you up. I hope you understand what we are and what we do. If you don't, then you won't know that we will be hunting you down and blowing you up. Thank you for listening and that is all, good day."
(That is what Artemis and Alpha are like, not me, I am far less likely to give warning before I hunt you down and blow you up) ;)

And also,
I think that there should be Battle Group abilities as well as unit abilities. I think you might have already thought of this, but I'll say it anyway.
Here are some ideas:
Napalm - blocks some spaces from use (enter and die)
Sub-commanders - More CR limit
Nuke - All units (including friendlies) take damage
Mortar/Air Strike - chosen units take damage

Yes "battlegroup abbilities" (I refer to them as Support Powers) will be braught in during the next update after some testing of the new content I just braught in. I don't think we'll have nukes, but airstrikes and such are all viable ones.
Permalink
| May 18, 2011, 9:34 am
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
Yes "battlegroup abbilities" (I refer to them as Support Powers) will be braught in during the next update after some testing of the new content I just braught in. I don't think we'll have nukes, but airstrikes and such are all viable ones.
another support power should be "Daisy-Cutter" If a unit is in close proximity to a large number of enemy-controlled structures/units (or maybe if said unit is surrounded) everything within X distance of said unit (not including said unit and/or other frendlies) is destroyed when this ability is enacted. Ofcource, certain other conditions must also exist for the Daisy-cutter to even be available.
Permalink
| May 18, 2011, 4:47 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Richie "Richie2571" Collins
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
Yes "battlegroup abbilities" (I refer to them as Support Powers) will be braught in during the next update after some testing of the new content I just braught in. I don't think we'll have nukes, but airstrikes and such are all viable ones.
another support power should be "Daisy-Cutter" If a unit is in close proximity to a large number of enemy-controlled structures/units (or maybe if said unit is surrounded) everything within X distance of said unit (not including said unit and/or other frendlies) is destroyed when this ability is enacted. Ofcource, certain other conditions must also exist for the Daisy-cutter to even be available.

I donno man that sounds a bit too complicated. Support powers are going to act more like larger scale abilities- You use them, they do something, and it recharges and you use it again. But we'll save the talk about support powers for later until we actually get there.
Permalink
| May 18, 2011, 9:47 pm
 Group admin 
Chunk, I'm going to be very bold here and say that I am opposed to usage of Ultra units. The reason being that many of my maps can't hold them, and also they seem to give to much of an advantage to either side. Plus, their range can be so high that they take out all units before they even leave the spawn point. I'll watch the battle between Bryce and ED using Ultras, but I won't be donating a map to them.
Permalink
| May 22, 2011, 1:27 pm
Quoting Andrew (bioengineerer9179)
Chunk, I'm going to be very bold here and say that I am opposed to usage of Ultra units. The reason being that many of my maps can't hold them, and also they seem to give to much of an advantage to either side. Plus, their range can be so high that they take out all units before they even leave the spawn point. I'll watch the battle between Bryce and ED using Ultras, but I won't be donating a map to them.

I don't know if my computer can hold a big enough map too hold a ultra unit and I kind of agree with bio too, my ultra can shoot 120 studs away And I dont know if any one has made a map that big.
Permalink
| May 22, 2011, 1:50 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bryce Klein. (Brickbrycebrick
I don't know if my computer can hold a big enough map too hold a ultra unit and I kind of agree with bio too, my ultra can shoot 120 studs away And I dont know if any one has made a map that big.

I see your point men, however remember that an ultra is a ground unit and doesn't have access to the AA weapons ability, making it vulnerable to air attack. Also, My ultra is designed purely for open spaces and almost perfectly flat maps, however I do plan on having an ability that would allow larger mechanical-based units to ignore terrain effects (besides water) and climb up and over plateaus. These unit types will really have their bonuses and faults shown when we start strategic testing, however until then we will hold from using ultras. I would still suggest everyone make one, just for the creative experience and so that you can become familiar with setting up more than one weapon system on a unit.
Permalink
| May 22, 2011, 4:08 pm
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
I see your point men, however remember that an ultra is a ground unit and doesn't have access to the AA weapons ability, making it vulnerable to air attack. Also, My ultra is designed purely for open spaces and almost perfectly flat maps, however I do plan on having an ability that would allow larger mechanical-based units to ignore terrain effects (besides water) and climb up and over plateaus. These unit types will really have their bonuses and faults shown when we start strategic testing, however until then we will hold from using ultras. I would still suggest everyone make one, just for the creative experience and so that you can become familiar with setting up more than one weapon system on a unit.

I already added a ultra unit to my battle group I guess I am going to have too redo mu battle group if they are not allowed.
Permalink
| May 22, 2011, 8:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bryce Klein. (Brickbrycebrick
I already added a ultra unit to my battle group I guess I am going to have too redo mu battle group if they are not allowed.

Sorry bryce, but I think for now yes your going to have to remove him. I'm afraid you and I are probly the only ones who like the idea of supermassive tanks with giganormous gunz at this point. But I promise you we will get a battle in with some ultras!
Permalink
| May 22, 2011, 8:32 pm
Ultras are okay, but I think they need a downsizing. I think you should combine them with the Special class. Eg, get rid of both and make a new class that can have two Abilties, three weapons systems and be limited to one per BG. Probably should lower the max points too.
Permalink
| May 23, 2011, 4:36 am
 Group admin 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Ultras are okay, but I think they need a downsizing. I think you should combine them with the Special class. Eg, get rid of both and make a new class that can have two Abilties, three weapons systems and be limited to one per BG. Probably should lower the max points too.

Lowering the max points is definitely something I'd consider, and technically we really could have Ultras removed alltogether, seeing as Specials have virtually no limit and you could create a unit of equal size and strength (Personaly I think 'Ultra' Sounds more sick than 'Special' though). What do you guys think? should we get rid of Ultras or just nerf them?
Permalink
| May 23, 2011, 12:27 pm
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
Lowering the max points is definitely something I'd consider, and technically we really could have Ultras removed alltogether, seeing as Specials have virtually no limit and you could create a unit of equal size and strength (Personaly I think 'Ultra' Sounds more sick than 'Special' though). What do you guys think? should we get rid of Ultras or just nerf them?

Hmmm...? Toy guns? :)
I think re-name Specials Ultras and get rid of the original Ultra class.
Permalink
| May 24, 2011, 4:23 am
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Hmmm...? Toy guns? :)
I think re-name Specials Ultras and get rid of the original Ultra class.

I like that idea, but the specials need to be a little bigger then SH units at least.
Permalink
| May 24, 2011, 10:11 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bryce Klein. (Brickbrycebrick
I like that idea, but the specials need to be a little bigger then SH units at least.

The idea behind specials is that they can be big or small, and fill any role you feel hasn't been filled by the standard unit classes. That and the addition of a second ability makes them very versatile, at the cost of 1 extra CR. so, lets say you want a good producible unit that is slightly stronger than a light unit, but less than a heavy? A special unit can fill that niche. Lets say you want a gunship that is a little tougher than the standard gunship class by giving it reactive armor? A special can do that. You want to make some sort of amphibious sniper tank? A special can do that. Thats just some of the things specials can do.
I'm also considering changing the name of specials to "Unique" units, as they really help your faction stand out from the others. What you fellas think?
Permalink
| May 24, 2011, 3:28 pm
 Group admin 
Sounds alright. Though, in RL terms, whenever someone calls you 'unique', its the nice way of saying your weird. :]
Permalink
| May 24, 2011, 3:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Andrew (bioengineerer9179)
Sounds alright. Though, in RL terms, whenever someone calls you 'unique', its the nice way of saying your weird. :]

yeah alright enough comments from the peanut gallery XD SO thats a no from andrew.
Permalink
| May 24, 2011, 4:00 pm
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
The idea behind specials is that they can be big or small, and fill any role you feel hasn't been filled by the standard unit classes. That and the addition of a second ability makes them very versatile, at the cost of 1 extra CR. so, lets say you want a good producible unit that is slightly stronger than a light unit, but less than a heavy? A special unit can fill that niche. Lets say you want a gunship that is a little tougher than the standard gunship class by giving it reactive armor? A special can do that. You want to make some sort of amphibious sniper tank? A special can do that. Thats just some of the things specials can do.
I'm also considering changing the name of specials to "Unique" units, as they really help your faction stand out from the others. What you fellas think?

But then why use normal units? Why not have a BG of all specials?
Permalink
| May 25, 2011, 4:30 am
 Group admin 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
But then why use normal units? Why not have a BG of all specials?

thats a good question, and I'm afraid that's something I havn't worked out yet. That's why I've been reluctant to introduce them, I originally intended to have them available to you by now, but they may end up being too powerful. Anyone got any suggestions on how I could ballance these units? I'm thinking of maybe adding +2 CR to their cost, originally it was only +1
Permalink
| May 25, 2011, 6:33 am
I just had a few ideas about ultras and mega wars. First off about mega wars, it is where at least 3 people all go to war with each other at once The maps will have too be very big but I think that would be fun and that opens a way we can bring in ultra units, I mean think if there are 3 people that should be a hard enough position to bring in big units like ultras (then it gets real tactical)just an idea think about it.
Permalink
| May 25, 2011, 7:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bryce Klein. (Brickbrycebrick
I just had a few ideas about ultras and mega wars. First off about mega wars, it is where at least 3 people all go to war with each other at once The maps will have too be very big but I think that would be fun and that opens a way we can bring in ultra units, I mean think if there are 3 people that should be a hard enough position to bring in big units like ultras (then it gets real tactical)just an idea think about it.

That would be pretty cool, the problem with that though is that its unlikely that with 3 players worth of units on a larger than normal map that everyone will be able to even load the map. Ultras will be a part of the game, and when the strategic aspect of the game is introduced, I believe their usefulness as well as limitations will become apparent.
Permalink
| May 25, 2011, 7:44 pm
 Group admin 
Gentlemen, I'm pleased to announce that so far, the performance changes made to the map and battlegroup sheet definitely seam to be making a huge difference. I can load the new map with all bryce's units on it on full graphics settings! This is something I couldn't accomplish in a million years on the Battle of Grassy Pass! If this continues, I say we up the map size to 15X15 tiles again, as long as everyone can support it. I'll make a new map at 15X15 tiles fully loaded with 2 battlegroups just to simulate the full stress you would get from a battle that size, and if everyone can load it then we're goin back to 15X15!
Permalink
| May 25, 2011, 11:09 pm
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
Gentlemen, I'm pleased to announce that so far, the performance changes made to the map and battlegroup sheet definitely seam to be making a huge difference. I can load the new map with all bryce's units on it on full graphics settings! This is something I couldn't accomplish in a million years on the Battle of Grassy Pass! If this continues, I say we up the map size to 15X15 tiles again, as long as everyone can support it. I'll make a new map at 15X15 tiles fully loaded with 2 battlegroups just to simulate the full stress you would get from a battle that size, and if everyone can load it then we're goin back to 15X15!
Cool a bigger map.

Permalink
| May 25, 2011, 11:28 pm
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
That would be pretty cool, the problem with that though is that its unlikely that with 3 players worth of units on a larger than normal map that everyone will be able to even load the map. Ultras will be a part of the game, and when the strategic aspect of the game is introduced, I believe their usefulness as well as limitations will become apparent.

I know how a Mega Battle could work: make four teams but halve each team's CR limit. Even more fun would be two on two. (Eg; Me and Chunk take on Andrew and Bryce)
Permalink
| May 26, 2011, 3:18 am
 Group admin 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
I know how a Mega Battle could work: make four teams but halve each team's CR limit. Even more fun would be two on two. (Eg; Me and Chunk take on Andrew and Bryce)

now THAT would work! it'd be pretty sick too! but before that I want to work on some support abilities like being able to give buffs to an allied unit, that'd really add to the teamwork aspect. What you guys think about a 2v2?
Permalink
| May 26, 2011, 4:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
now THAT would work! it'd be pretty sick too! but before that I want to work on some support abilities like being able to give buffs to an allied unit, that'd really add to the teamwork aspect. What you guys think about a 2v2?
Eventually it might be fun, but not now. For now, I'm happy just simple testing.

Permalink
| May 26, 2011, 4:56 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Andrew (bioengineerer9179)
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
now THAT would work! it'd be pretty sick too! but before that I want to work on some support abilities like being able to give buffs to an allied unit, that'd really add to the teamwork aspect. What you guys think about a 2v2?
Eventually it might be fun, but not now. For now, I'm happy just simple testing.

We probly won't test it till we get all the basics worked out, so not the next update but probly the one after, then we'll be ready
Permalink
| May 26, 2011, 5:03 pm
 Group admin 
About my victory pins thing, I meant that I was shuffling around my units from the first battle, and I wanted to add some new units. The victory pins were applied to the units that survived, but I swapped out those units, so what happens to the victory pins?
Permalink
| May 26, 2011, 5:59 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Andrew (bioengineerer9179)
About my victory pins thing, I meant that I was shuffling around my units from the first battle, and I wanted to add some new units. The victory pins were applied to the units that survived, but I swapped out those units, so what happens to the victory pins?

If ur going to trade out all the units, it'd be better to just make another battlegroup, and keep the other units from your fight with me in their own battlegroup.
Permalink
| May 26, 2011, 8:42 pm
Quoting CBMC Chunkblaster
If ur going to trade out all the units, it'd be better to just make another battlegroup, and keep the other units from your fight with me in their own battlegroup.

I have a question, are we allowed to build multiple battle groups and switch them out every time we fight???
Permalink
| May 26, 2011, 8:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bryce Klein. (Brickbrycebrick
I have a question, are we allowed to build multiple battle groups and switch them out every time we fight???

Ofcourse! you can have as many battlegroups as you want!
Permalink
| May 26, 2011, 9:58 pm
Chunk, I would like to post an official complaint. When i posted my units i included the battle cards, but for the sake of simplicity i did not even bother to make profile cards. Andrew said i was breaking the rules, and was probably right. However, i must protest. The profile cards are complicated, redundant, and dificult to use. In my own, previous, words they are "A big, fat, glorified, waste of time!" it is my suggestion that, for the sake of simplicity, use of the profile cards be completely discontinued in favor of the battle cards.
Andrew, Unless you can point out another, more rellavent error in my battle cards i will not be editing my post unless the elimination of profile cards is decided against.
--"Some day, all of THIS will come out!"
-Maj. Frank Burns
Permalink
| June 19, 2011, 6:08 pm
Quoting Richie "Richie2571" Collins
Chunk, I would like to post an official complaint. When i posted my units i included the battle cards, but for the sake of simplicity i did not even bother to make profile cards. Andrew said i was breaking the rules, and was probably right. However, i must protest. The profile cards are complicated, redundant, and dificult to use. In my own, previous, words they are "A big, fat, glorified, waste of time!" it is my suggestion that, for the sake of simplicity, use of the profile cards be completely discontinued in favor of the battle cards.
Andrew, Unless you can point out another, more rellavent error in my battle cards i will not be editing my post unless the elimination of profile cards is decided against.
--"Some day, all of THIS will come out!"
-Maj. Frank Burns
The profile cards are needed to show of your units exact stats and after you post them (one time if you get them right) you will not have to do any thing with them again and just use the battle cards.

Permalink
| June 19, 2011, 7:54 pm
 Group admin 
Richie, to quote chunk on your creation:

"Profile cards represent the raw points applied to a unit, and are designed to represent that unit class as a hole (all units you have of that specific type). Battlecards however are designed to represent a specific unit. Some stats have multipliers to their base value (movement has a 2:1 point ratio, health has a 2:1 ratio and range has 4:1) and the battle card shows what the stats are after the multipliers are applied. You only need to use the profile card once, and it helps to make sure you have the correct values on your battle cards."

That just about sums it up. Also, everyone else made profile cards and used the ratios to make the battle cards, and those ratios would be messed up if you used your current cards. It's more a matter of practicality than whether or not it's efficient. BTW, if you keep complaining about this, you're kinda ruining it for everyone else. Just buckle down and do the profile cards.
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 9:22 am
Quoting Andrew (bioengineerer9179)
Richie, to quote chunk on your creation:

"Profile cards represent the raw points applied to a unit, and are designed to represent that unit class as a hole (all units you have of that specific type). Battlecards however are designed to represent a specific unit. Some stats have multipliers to their base value (movement has a 2:1 point ratio, health has a 2:1 ratio and range has 4:1) and the battle card shows what the stats are after the multipliers are applied. You only need to use the profile card once, and it helps to make sure you have the correct values on your battle cards."

That just about sums it up. Also, everyone else made profile cards and used the ratios to make the battle cards, and those ratios would be messed up if you used your current cards. It's more a matter of practicality than whether or not it's efficient. BTW, if you keep complaining about this, you're kinda ruining it for everyone else. Just buckle down and do the profile cards.


Wait a second. So, to make a battle card, do we take the stats on the profile card and multiply them by said ratios (2 per point for movement and health, and 4 per point for range)? Just a little confused on this, since I haven't seen anything about how you change profile stats to battle card stats. Sorry if I'm being a complete noob.
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 12:33 pm
Quoting Andrew (bioengineerer9179)
Richie, to quote chunk on your creation:

"Profile cards represent the raw points applied to a unit, and are designed to represent that unit class as a hole (all units you have of that specific type). Battlecards however are designed to represent a specific unit. Some stats have multipliers to their base value (movement has a 2:1 point ratio, health has a 2:1 ratio and range has 4:1) and the battle card shows what the stats are after the multipliers are applied. You only need to use the profile card once, and it helps to make sure you have the correct values on your battle cards."

That just about sums it up. Also, everyone else made profile cards and used the ratios to make the battle cards, and those ratios would be messed up if you used your current cards. It's more a matter of practicality than whether or not it's efficient. BTW, if you keep complaining about this, you're kinda ruining it for everyone else. Just buckle down and do the profile cards.

I didn't ask YOU, i asked CHUNKBASTER. And this is completely aside from my point: What im saying is that the system could really be streamlind if the profile cards are done away with all together. for all pratical purposes they aren't actually "used" at all. They are redundant and, as i said, a big, fat, glorified, waste of time! Furthermore i dont CARE about all the precious time everyone else WASTED with their profile cards; im doing this to make the TCS easier for FUTURE members. If the TCS cant be improved then it, in itsd entirety will become a big, fat, glorified, waste of MY time. Some day, all of THIS will come out!
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 2:02 pm
Quoting Richie "Richie2571" Collins
I didn't ask YOU, i asked CHUNKBASTER. And this is completely aside from my point: What im saying is that the system could really be streamlind if the profile cards are done away with all together. for all pratical purposes they aren't actually "used" at all. They are redundant and, as i said, a big, fat, glorified, waste of time! Furthermore i dont CARE about all the precious time everyone else WASTED with their profile cards; im doing this to make the TCS easier for FUTURE members. If the TCS cant be improved then it, in itsd entirety will become a big, fat, glorified, waste of MY time. Some day, all of THIS will come out!
Richie, go too your creation and look at what chunkblaster said. I don`t get what the big deal is, once you spend a little less then an hour making the profile cards they are done forever unless you do it wrong or decide to change it and you will never have to deal with them again.

Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 2:25 pm
 Group admin 
Richie, I am considering a new "Three strikes, you're out" rule for this group. You've got two strikes already. How about you stop griping about how awful this all is and make the profile and battle cards correctly.

BTW, the TCS will have updates, but we just implemented one and haven't had a battle to test it out in yet. This might be resolved later, but for now, please just follow the rules without an argument, or you WILL be removed.

And as to you saying you asked chunk, not me, incase you hadn't noticed, I'm helping him develop the game now, so I think it's okay if I answer questions.
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 3:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting JakTheMad JTM Wait a second. So, to make a battle card, do we take the stats on the profile card and multiply them by said ratios (2 per point for movement and health, and 4 per point for range)? Just a little confused on this, since I haven't seen anything about how you change profile stats to battle card stats. Sorry if I'm being a complete noob.
All of the conversion ratios are in the TCS values sheet. But essentially, you've got it right.
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 3:11 pm
Quoting JakTheMad JTM

Wait a second. So, to make a battle card, do we take the stats on the profile card and multiply them by said ratios (2 per point for movement and health, and 4 per point for range)? Just a little confused on this, since I haven't seen anything about how you change profile stats to battle card stats. Sorry if I'm being a complete noob.

I did not see it at first ether till chunkblaster helped me out, but yes you have to multiply it by the ratio.
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 3:20 pm
Quoting Andrew (bioengineerer9179)
Richie, I am considering a new "Three strikes, you're out" rule for this group. You've got two strikes already. How about you stop griping about how awful this all is and make the profile and battle cards correctly.

BTW, the TCS will have updates, but we just implemented one and haven't had a battle to test it out in yet. This might be resolved later, but for now, please just follow the rules without an argument, or you WILL be removed.

And as to you saying you asked chunk, not me, incase you hadn't noticed, I'm helping him develop the game now, so I think it's okay if I answer questions.

All i ask is for chunk to come in and give me a simple "Yes" or "No". All this would be a lot easier if you and bryce would get off my back and let the guy who made the rules make the desicion wether or not to change them. Thank you.
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 3:35 pm
By the way we are ALL helping develop the game.
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 3:37 pm
 Group admin 
Chunk already gave you his answer: he asked you politely to make profile cards.

And by the way, if you weren't so rude, maybe everything would go a bit smoother.

@ the above comment: As far as I understand it, this is CHUNK'S game. Think of it like this: Notch develops Minecraft, people can't complain and say that he's not letting them help develop the it, since it's HIS game and HE owns it.
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 3:52 pm
Some day, all of THIS will com out!
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 4:06 pm
 Group admin 
You're also talking like you're being forced to do something. Think of it like this: you GET to play this game. You don't HAVE to, you GET to. If you're not happy with it, then by all means you can leave.

EDIT: Richie, you're really trying my patience. Why do you feel a need to troll us with all your comments about how awful this system is and how "some day, all of this will come out"? I'm going to let chunk know about this, and he'll deal with you however he wants. You've really angered me, and I just don't know how to deal with this anymore.

EDIT2: You're turning this into a bigger deal than it needs to be. If you just played by the rules, everything would go smoother.
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 4:06 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Richie "Richie2571" Collins
By the way we are ALL helping develop the game.

EDIT: seeing as mocpages doesnt seam to like it when i make a long, formal post about something for some reason, I will just put a new one here. Richie, you basicly daired me to ban you from CBMC/XT and our 2 groups we run (TCS and LDD Elite Mecheniers) and i want to see if you'd say the same if i really did so. You are herby banned from the above mentioned groups due to your rediculous behavior of late. If you wish to have this ban repealed send me an E-Mail at chunksallot@aim.com and we can talk about it.

Andrew, you handled this very well and I appreciate you doing so in my absence. I have reviewed everything that has been said, and have posted something about it on the LDD Elite Mechaniers group (hopefully the post goes thru) if it does I'll also repost it here.
Permalink
| June 20, 2011, 6:02 pm
This is note about what I think Richie was thinking...

Recently Andrew, you have been the one calling the shots. Or at least, that is how it appears if you don't know that Chunk is working away in the background and communicating with you directly via email.
Also, you have a slightly harsher way of saying things than Chunk.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT taking Richie's side. I am simply acting as a diplomat, explaining where I think Richie is coming from.
Permalink
| June 21, 2011, 5:31 am
 Group admin 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
This is note about what I think Richie was thinking...

Recently Andrew, you have been the one calling the shots. Or at least, that is how it appears if you don't know that Chunk is working away in the background and communicating with you directly via email.
Also, you have a slightly harsher way of saying things than Chunk.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT taking Richie's side. I am simply acting as a diplomat, explaining where I think Richie is coming from.
I hear you. I know that I do tend to have a 'grunt'harsh'grunt' way of saying things. And about the whole "taking the shots" stuff, I can understand how you would see that, but really, all I'm trying to do is keep this group running smoothly when chunk is not immediately around. And I'm also not trying to boss you guys around. NOTE: I'm not being defensive, I'm just telling you what I think. Thanks for the input, ED.
Permalink
| June 21, 2011, 3:08 pm
Back on the topic of improvements...

I would like my next battle to try a game type other than the deathmatch format so far used. I would like to propose either KotH or Defendence. I'll now explain what these are:
KotH is King of the Hill and to win a faction must control an area of land, the 'hill', for a certain number of turns.
Defendence is a less common format. It is involves three teams with CR limits of 45, 45 and 70 (this still equals 160 as in Deathamtches). The two 45CR factions work together to take down the 70CR.
Whichever you guys want to try (or I'll just do a deathamtch if neither) I would like to battle Chunk's Terran Federation. I would also request Chunk + Me vs. Andrew (who appears to be the best player in so far) in a Defendence scenario.
Permalink
| June 27, 2011, 6:27 am
After the battle with ED I want to be in another battle right after that and if ED is going to do what he said I dont know who I can fight. But just to let everyone know I will battle them without thinking about it and the minute someone wants to fight me I will have a battle group up in twenty minutes!!
Permalink
| June 27, 2011, 10:14 am
Hi guys. I've been thinking and I think the Gunship and Heavy Gunship classes are a bit overpowered. The give the unit invulnerability from most other units, can travel on any terrain and HGs can have as many stat points as some SHs. (I think this may be my downfall in my current battle, my SHs are 10CR and Bryce's HGs are 10 CR too.) I would like to suggest an extra CR cost on HGs and Gs, or making them vulnerable to all attacks, but AA does extra damage.

Also, I think we need a limiter on range; units such as Bryce's Iron Bull, and to a lesser degree Andrew's Basilisk, could take down most of BG before the opponent can fire back. This could turn the TCS into turret vs turret warfare.

Thirdly, I think that the Artillery class is underpowered. I think that the long-range ability should be combined with the vantage point or my splash ability.
Permalink
| July 7, 2011, 6:57 am
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Hi guys. I've been thinking and I think the Gunship and Heavy Gunship classes are a bit overpowered. The give the unit invulnerability from most other units, can travel on any terrain and HGs can have as many stat points as some SHs. (I think this may be my downfall in my current battle, my SHs are 10CR and Bryce's HGs are 10 CR too.) I would like to suggest an extra CR cost on HGs and Gs, or making them vulnerable to all attacks, but AA does extra damage.

Also, I think we need a limiter on range; units such as Bryce's Iron Bull, and to a lesser degree Andrew's Basilisk, could take down most of BG before the opponent can fire back. This could turn the TCS into turret vs turret warfare.

Thirdly, I think that the Artillery class is underpowered. I think that the long-range ability should be combined with the vantage point or my splash ability.
I agree with most of it but the gunships and heavy gunships, I think that maybe we could have another invasion force almost with the gunships so that both side could have a good amount of gunships and a good amount of ground forces. Any way I don`t know if this is a good idea or not, just something to think about.

Permalink
| July 7, 2011, 11:15 am
Hey guys I was thinking that most games have achievements. Like for example; say you took out all then enemy forces in a certain amount of moves then you would unlock something for completing it. What do you guys think?
Permalink
| August 31, 2011, 12:32 am
I have an idea for a support 'ability' for light units: Engineering suites. Basically, the main gun is permanently replaced with a 'medic gun', which can heal either A)the healing unit's attack value per turn, or B)up to the max health of the unit being healed. IN laman's terms,

Healing unit has an attack value of three.

The unit being healed has 2 hitpoints out of a total of 7. [|][|][][][][][]

This unit is healed for three hitpoints, as this is the attack velue of the healer unit.
[|][|][|][|][|][][]

Now, let's say this unit is to be healed again in the next turn. It would only be healed 2 hitpoints, because that would bring it's hitpoints back to 7, it's maximum health.
[|][|][|][|][|][|][|]

Also, some things to be implimented in the full game:

-A trade system
-Resources
-Construction of structures
-Factories for the production of units

Whadya think?
Permalink
| August 31, 2011, 1:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Alpha AI
I have an idea for a support 'ability' for light units: Engineering suites. Basically, the main gun is permanently replaced with a 'medic gun', which can heal either A)the healing unit's attack value per turn, or B)up to the max health of the unit being healed. IN laman's terms,

Healing unit has an attack value of three.

The unit being healed has 2 hitpoints out of a total of 7. [|][|][][][][][]

This unit is healed for three hitpoints, as this is the attack velue of the healer unit.
[|][|][|][|][|][][]

Now, let's say this unit is to be healed again in the next turn. It would only be healed 2 hitpoints, because that would bring it's hitpoints back to 7, it's maximum health.
[|][|][|][|][|][|][|]

Also, some things to be implimented in the full game:

-A trade system
-Resources
-Construction of structures
-Factories for the production of units

Whadya think?

I've considered adding all these things you mentioned, and as much as i want to theres several roadblocks in the way, mostly designing a way to represent production on the strategic map as well as income and the location of battlegroups. Also, the grid system i had before i'm not as excited about as i was originally as this would mean that even if 2 battle groups are in range to fire at eachother, they cant if they aren't in the same grid.
The strategic aspect is going to take allot of work on the part of each individual player, thats why i've held of working on it.
Permalink
| September 8, 2011, 1:36 pm
Yeah....but what do you think about the engineering ability? If it would help, I could 'field-test' it in my upcoming battle with Brick.
Permalink
| September 8, 2011, 2:10 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Alpha AI
Yeah....but what do you think about the engineering ability? If it would help, I could 'field-test' it in my upcoming battle with Brick.

Engineers is definitely a unit class worth exploring. I'll see about setting up the specifics for it in a few days. Aint really up for it tonight aint fealin so hot.
Permalink
| September 8, 2011, 8:12 pm
OK. ThAnks for considering :D
Permalink
| September 8, 2011, 10:55 pm
Guys there is a major problem that I just found out about Light Units; In the Unit value sheet a light unit can have 2-4 CR, well what if it had 2 CR and had the A.L. ability and took away 2 CR. That would mean it would have no CR, you could have unlimited Light Units!!
Permalink
| September 16, 2011, 7:41 pm
Quoting Bryce (Brickbrycebrick)
Guys there is a major problem that I just found out about Light Units; In the Unit value sheet a light unit can have 2-4 CR, well what if it had 2 CR and had the A.L. ability and took away 2 CR. That would mean it would have no CR, you could have unlimited Light Units!!

When I first posted the AI idea I did say that the minimum CR was 1. And even if it isn't mentioned in the abilities sheet I assume it still holds.
Permalink
| September 17, 2011, 1:13 am
 Group admin 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
When I first posted the AI idea I did say that the minimum CR was 1. And even if it isn't mentioned in the abilities sheet I assume it still holds.

Yes it does, minimum 1 CR per unit even with the AI ability. SO if you plan on using it I suggest you take full advantage of it by making your unit worth 3CR so after the AI ability is applied its worth 1.
Permalink
| September 17, 2011, 2:41 pm
 Group admin 
Alright, so while thinking about bringing this whole thing back, I've come to the conclusion that some aspect needs to be made simpler. So, I've come up with a couple options I'd like everyone to choose from.

I can either:

A) Make default mini-units with the option for you to customize them with colors and add your own stat values.

OR

B) Make some different stat/battle card configurations, and let you apply your mini-units to those values.

TC;DU (too complicated, didn't understand), I can make units or stats for you.
Permalink
| February 10, 2012, 9:55 pm
Quoting BiO.Andrew (APMS-1 Series in progress!)
Alright, so while thinking about bringing this whole thing back, I've come to the conclusion that some aspect needs to be made simpler. So, I've come up with a couple options I'd like everyone to choose from.

I can either:

A) Make default mini-units with the option for you to customize them with colors and add your own stat values.

OR

B) Make some different stat/battle card configurations, and let you apply your mini-units to those values.

TC;DU (too complicated, didn't understand), I can make units or stats for you.

I don't really think complexity was too much of an issue, as long as you and Chunk moderate units before use.

The main problems (IMHO) were:
1. Gameplay was too slow
2. Not engaging enough

My solutions:
1. Simplify battle rules (however keep unit customisation)
2. Make a 'map' and give each player some territory (don't dis it cause it sounds like WW), then encourage them to build MOCs of the capitol city or other areas to try to make them attached to the faction they have created

But if I had to choose from the two above B would win because it retains more customisation, and therefore more depth and attachment to one's faction.

EDIT: And before we have any battles: we need to nerf gunships and heavy gunships! My suggestion is to make all units able to fire on them, but AA gets a damage bonus or something, because currently there is no advantage to using anything but HGs.
Permalink
| February 11, 2012, 2:04 am
 Group admin 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
I don't really think complexity was too much of an issue, as long as you and Chunk moderate units before use.

The main problems (IMHO) were:
1. Gameplay was too slow
2. Not engaging enough

My solutions:
1. Simplify battle rules (however keep unit customisation)
2. Make a 'map' and give each player some territory (don't dis it cause it sounds like WW), then encourage them to build MOCs of the capitol city or other areas to try to make them attached to the faction they have created

But if I had to choose from the two above B would win because it retains more customisation, and therefore more depth and attachment to one's faction.

EDIT: And before we have any battles: we need to nerf gunships and heavy gunships! My suggestion is to make all units able to fire on them, but AA gets a damage bonus or something, because currently there is no advantage to using anything but HGs.
While you've got some valid points, I've got to say you're asking a bit much. What I would like to do for a while is test the very simplest of concepts, meaning we would probably only be using four classes of units (Light, Light Artillery, Heavy, Heavy Artillery), so for your solutions, I've already solved one.

The issue with your second "solution" is that it would require introduction to a system that both chunk and myself have agreed to refrain introducing until we have a solid system for the more basic elements. There will be a larger scale strategic "map" aspect in the future, but for where we are at the moment, it just isn't practical. Besides, letting people build their own buildings would lead to discussions and arguments about health for those buildings, something that neither chunk or myself have thought of yet.

As for gunships, I heard the pleas back when the Battle of Hoven Gorge and the Battle of Majoris Ravine were in full swing, and I'm coming up with a few ideas about how to combat this. Most likely I'll give AA a damage boost for aerial units, but I'll also allow Artillery to damage them, using a sort of "aerial scattershot" ability tacked on to the "Long Range" ability. Also, when we introduce Special units (units with the possibility of having two ability badges), it will be possible to have a Superheavy unit with the AA ability. Though that may still be possible without the Special class...

Anyways, have I answered all your questions/complaints? I'm sure I could write another essay if you need me to. :P
Permalink
| February 11, 2012, 10:58 am
Just some things I'd like to clear up. I didn't mean for the cities to be used in the game, I just meant for them to be built for the fun of building, isn't that why MOCpages exists?

I also didn't mean to bring in all these changes now, I was meaning to do it over however long it takes before the games leaves alpha (or maybe beta).
Permalink
| February 11, 2012, 3:32 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting ED Eroomdivad
Just some things I'd like to clear up. I didn't mean for the cities to be used in the game, I just meant for them to be built for the fun of building, isn't that why MOCpages exists?

I also didn't mean to bring in all these changes now, I was meaning to do it over however long it takes before the games leaves alpha (or maybe beta).
Hmm, well within the context of MOCpages, building for fun is perfectly fine, but one would expect a rational explanation for building a city, as well as a way to destroy it. At this point, we need to start simple and perfect the small aspects of the game to a place where larger-scale combat will work.

In other news, I've come up with a way to condense the profile cards and battle cards into one package. Using it in combat may be a bit overwhelming at first, so I'm going to try it out on myself and see what works. I'll be compiling some basic TCS information and posting a new "Guide to the TCS" MOC, that will entail the rules as well as strategies for setting up units and operating the numbers on a stat card.
Permalink
| February 11, 2012, 4:03 pm
Hey guys. I've read some of the solutions to the TCS's problems, and I don't like them. So before we get back into full swing I would like to propose my solution to the problems.

Initially, I wanted to get rid of the Profile Cards but now I realize they were not the problem (although I still believe they should have numbers instead of bars). Instead, I have now discovered that the Battle Cards were the cause of the unnecessary complexity.

In TCS 2.0, the Battle Card Data will be recorded on the units themselves, in the form of various-colored decal bricks (I was thinking blue for health, green for speed, yellow for weapon range, and firepower will be pre-determined depending on the type and number of the weapons themselves) There will be predetermined ratios for (speed-battlefield distance) and (range-battlefield distance) and both will be measured from the unit's marker tile.

One Firepower point will equal the ability to remove one decal brick of any color, thereby damaging or debuffing the target. If a decal brick connecting one section or component of the unit to another is removed, the unit is affected appropriately (e.g. if the units mid-section consists of a single decal and that decal is hit, the unit will be considered snapped in half and completely dysfunctional)

Each faction will be tasked with developing a variety of standardized, interchangeable, weapons, each with its own profile card which can be copy-and-pasted into each unit's profile cards. There's so much more to tell and I plan to have a demo MOC up sometime… …Soon.
Permalink
| April 30, 2012, 5:25 pm
 Group admin 
Okay Richie, a few things.

1. Wall of text = I won't read or understand.

2. From what I did read, you're referring to your ideas as what WILL be happening to the TCS. What you've got there is not a definite, and in all likelihood it will not be implemented at all, as most people seemed to have lost interest in the TCS idea altogether, including myself.

I'm trying very hard not to take offense at how you wrote that message, so I'll just say that you should very seriously reconsider how you write messages in the future. You came off as controlling and elitist, and I've noticed many similar elitist tones in a fair portion of your comments. Try to present your opinions and ideas as possibilities rather than guarantees or even as the truth, and try apply this wherever else possible.
Permalink
| April 30, 2012, 7:50 pm
Quoting BiO.Andrew (Join the Elite Mechanier Official Forum!)
Okay Richie, a few things.

1. Wall of text = I won't read or understand.

2. From what I did read, you're referring to your ideas as what WILL be happening to the TCS. What you've got there is not a definite, and in all likelihood it will not be implemented at all, as most people seemed to have lost interest in the TCS idea altogether, including myself.

I'm trying very hard not to take offense at how you wrote that message, so I'll just say that you should very seriously reconsider how you write messages in the future. You came off as controlling and elitist, and I've noticed many similar elitist tones in a fair portion of your comments. Try to present your opinions and ideas as possibilities rather than guarantees or even as the truth, and try apply this wherever else possible.

Ok, so maybe i did present my proposal as if it were guaranteed to play out, but the least you could do is take a second look tell me what you think of the IDEAS rather than just the PRESENTATION. I'll try not to sound too "controlling" as you said it, but for the sake of remaining friends, lets try not to be harsh with eachother, and focus on content more than style. Cheers!
EDIT: i edited my comment to make it easier to read (pertaining to isssue numero uno)
Permalink
| May 1, 2012, 10:56 am
Other topics
« Improvements & Suggestions
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Tactical Combat System (Closed)Digital LEGO


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use