View Full Version : 2 land or not 2 land that is the question....
11-30-2003, 07:00 AM
Transports just dropped there cargo in SWGB should it still work that way or should they land and undeploy?
I think landing and undeploying is the more better option giving ground forces a chance to knock it down before it has totally deployed its load.
Also if units are given the oportunity to fire at aircraft and not making much damage would that damage increase while they get closer to the ground since accuracy would be alot better.....
11-30-2003, 07:45 AM
I'd like to see things work this way, though I know Sith is violently opposed to it, and I can understand his point. Still I think vulnerability when landing transports is an important part of warfare, which is why in Star Wars armies always land out of range then advance. The exception is of course the Gunship, though I think since it is heavily armed it might be okay to use as a mid-battle lander.
11-30-2003, 01:22 PM
Yep, he is violently opposed to it. I'd like to see it happen, but only graphically, and have it not take very long so it doesnt mess with the gameplay.
11-30-2003, 04:03 PM
Well it's not supposed to take a long time anyway. If you're unloading troopers it should just take you a sec.
I think there should be a different unload time(if the transport lands) for different units. Unloading an AT-AT and a few troopers is a different situation. The exception would be the Republic Dropship that can easily unload an AT-TE.
12-01-2003, 04:32 AM
Well, i agree with Vostok here. In warfare, transports are vulnerable when offloading their contents onto a battlefield, and this needs to be shown. It also makes the game more interesting by making players think more about where they are putting their transports, because you dont want to lose a transport just as it starts offloading, so players will target transports more (to kill the inside units) and also land further away, like in Ep2.
With the transports of different civ's, the only different one i see in the Republic. (In my idea) the Republic's transports carry a lot less than other civ's, but their Dropship drops its cargo and leaves more quickly, and of course the gunship can hold its own on the battlefield.
12-01-2003, 06:05 AM
Right. I never thought I'd live to see the day I agree with Windu, but here it is. ;)
12-01-2003, 09:15 AM
I love those drop ships in Episode 2 that drop off the walkers into battle. They had ships like that in Dune 2000
12-01-2003, 10:07 AM
Well it wouldn't be vulnerable if your had fighters backing it up........
12-03-2003, 01:52 AM
Too bad Windu that this is a game, not real life, cause I'd agree that you were right if this were real life. Sadly, however, SW doesnt exist, not any more than Santa Claus or the bogeyman, and games are not real life. And you know the saying about what reigns over realism, so I wont repeat it (its in my sig).
12-03-2003, 05:09 AM
First of all, Santa does exist, so be nice...
Anyway, so sithy, you are saying that in SW transports are immune to any damage? That sounds GREAT for gameplay and realism...
12-03-2003, 10:55 AM
Well I say landing is the best thing if your dumb enough to land inside a army that your bad luck of course the transports would have some armor and take a fair few trooper and mechs shots And shields would add to that.
12-04-2003, 01:57 AM
Exactly Frozted. Actually I take back what I said before, I don't understand Sith's point of view.
Which makes better gameplay, Sith:
:atat: Use a transport to fly into a base and drop off all whole bunch of troops.
:atat: Use a transport to land your force in a strategic position, then use actual skills to progress from that position into the enemy base. Once a stronger position has been established, reinforcements can be transported in without the danger of enemy attacks.
Quite obviously this is good for Gameplay and Realism.
12-04-2003, 03:22 AM
The first scenerio by far.
What do you do then on small asteroids or islands, or when you need to send in reinforcements into a busy fight? Or saving dieing ones? Or picking up a cornered Jedi? Or doing just about anything that requires that enemy troops and transports be in range of each other? I oppose it because I feel that it is superfluous realism. Do we need to have transports be vurnable to land units while doing their little stunt? Has there been a problem with transports being able to land unassailed by land troops? No.
12-04-2003, 03:27 AM
Well nothing is stopping you from sending armies into a busy fight just land the transports further back and walk into battle not that hard....
And if your jedi was cornered any good player would kill it on the spot before you got a transport to pick it up.
12-04-2003, 03:28 AM
Hmm....unless you have mucho bounties, I doubt you are gonna kill a jedi "on the spot".
12-04-2003, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
What do you do then on small asteroids or islands, or when you need to send in reinforcements into a busy fight? Or saving dieing ones? Or picking up a cornered Jedi? Or doing just about anything that requires that enemy troops and transports be in range of each other?
Well, you may have to use *gasp* a strategy such as one they would use in a similar situation in the real world. But there is an issue that hasn't been addressed that I feel may set Sith's mind at ease.
The question is: should transports land to offload troops and if so should they become vulnerable to ground fire whilst doing so? Well something we haven't thought about is when a landed transport is destroyed what becomes of its cargo? Most RTS games in the past (including SWGB, I believe) has the troops disembark as soon as the transport is destroyed, or even when it is severely damaged. I think a similar option is viable for these transports: when an Air transport is killed on the ground, the passengers will immediately disembark, and maybe take a little damage from the blast. They will not be killed instantly as though they were airborne.
This way things don't really change from the way they were before. You can still use them to pummel drop, for example, but the transport most likely won't survive whereas the pummels would. So it encourages you to use tranports realistically (setting passengers down away from battle) but still can be used in emergency cases where troops need transportation to or from the heat of battle.
12-04-2003, 05:00 AM
I agree with Vostok here. I would like to see Transports destroyed while flying to have their contents blown up too, but if landed then have the contents exit still, a little worse for wear.
12-05-2003, 01:31 AM
I think that I could concede to Vostok's idea in the face of all this opposition, but I still think that a quick graphical demonstration is the way to go.
Vostok, changing strategies/tactics doesnt necessarily make them better. For example, I could say that all ranged units have 1 minimum range, give a perfectly valid realism explination, and claim that it is both gameplay and realism, because it has you change tactics and strategy. In fact, that idea addresses something that any of the realism freaks ever do: a current balance quirk. Ranged units are much better than melee ones ATM. But it still is not a good idea, and still represents meddling with gameplay in the name of realsim.
12-07-2003, 02:08 AM
What exactly do you have against realism, Sith? What we're proposing improves realism, and while gameplay may be different I certainly don't think it's any worse. How can that be a bad thing?
12-07-2003, 02:29 AM
Sith does have a good point you can't just make everthing in the game realistic which is what most of you want (which can never happen for balance issues). For me gameplay rules over realism you have to draw the line between the two you can't have full realism or full gameplay for a star wars rts to work.
12-07-2003, 08:12 AM
I realise that, but I don't see why you can't have more realism when gameplay, though different, isn't worse.
12-07-2003, 08:51 AM
SWGB 1 had heaps of realism just not all the units were in the movies. And the gameplay was excellent
12-08-2003, 12:54 PM
Cause, Vostok, typically it is worse, because when you delve furhter into realism, you are adding the limitations and endless variations that are applicable to real life. When you add these limitations or other added layers of needless crap like "well technically troopers could shoot at airplanes" and "technically a trooper could destroy a AT AT with a lucky shot" and then the game turns out crap, cause you have too many rules and limitations and quirks and special cases, and everything is complicated cause realism is complicated.
12-08-2003, 10:17 PM
I would not say "typically". It can be worse, but doesn't have to be. In my experience realism is just as much reverred by critics and gamers alike as gameplay is.
But as I said before I don't want to turn this into a realism debate.
12-09-2003, 12:28 AM
But do the gamers/critics prefer a game with realism over a one with good gameplay. No. They like realism (mostly with FPS's, though), but not if it impedes with gameplay. In fact, in RTS's, most reviewers look negativley on games that include more realism than the typical RTS, and much of the gaming community has little regard for realism. Thats why games like War Craft are popular while Empire Earth sits in the discout bin.
12-09-2003, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
They like realism (mostly with FPS's, though), but not if it impedes with gameplay.
I agree with this statement entirely, but I believe some realism doesn't necessarily have to make bad gameplay, whereas you believe realism always makes bad gameplay.
Getting back on topic, do you accept the proposed model of reality-based transport usage? That is:
:atat: Air transports need to land whilst unloading cargo, and while they are landed they are vulnerable to ground attacks that would otherwise be able to shoot Aircraft.
:atat: If the transport is destroyed while in the air, everything on board the transport dies. If the transport is destroyed while on the ground, everything on board the transport bails out just in time, but takes a small amount of damage.
Here's another transport-based reality question: should units disembark all at the same time (like SWGB and AoM) or should they file out one at a time like in the real world (like C&C:Generals)?
12-09-2003, 05:49 AM
Well if any unit is inside while it is destroyed they die non of this bailing out in time but crap once it blows up they all die.
12-09-2003, 06:42 AM
But therein lies one of Sith's biggest objections, and I agree with him in part. If your cargo can still die while the transport is on the ground and vulnerable to enemy fire, transports will be less useful.
12-10-2003, 02:36 AM
Well you don't land your aircraft if your not planning on deploying your cargo.
12-10-2003, 09:25 PM
All at a time. One at a time is very useless realism.
12-10-2003, 10:48 PM
It isn't useless, again it encourages strategy because you can't just dump units in the middle of a battlezone, you actually have to think about where you land.
However I think for Star Wars one-at-a-time filing out is rarely the case. Perhaps disembarking would be different for each transport? Complicated but it means more uniquness and that different transports warrant different strategies. Let's look at a few of the major transports:
Republic Gunship: Units would instantly deploy from the Gunship, but that's an advantage you get from the open bay design, which makes it weaker and less survivable.
Rebel Medium Transport: This has a big bay door, so you could probably deploy five or more at a time. It is a bit slower but the added armour balances it out.
MTT: Ideally it would be awesome to at least have some eye candy of a droid rack extending out. I think maybe when you give the deploy order, there will be a delay (which is the droid rack extending) then all the battle droids will instantly deploy. Perhaps for other units being transported (Sith, Droidekas, Bounty Hunters) they could file out two at a time. Although deployment is slow from the MTT it makes up for it by being extremely tough with great armour.
AT-AT: I believe Stormtroopers deploy from AT-ATs via ropes. Perhaps deploying four at a time would be good.
I think having different deployent methods is more fun that every transport being the same. I would also help balance the heavier armoured transports with the lighter ones. If it's more fun, that to me is better gameplay.
12-11-2003, 01:41 AM
It has little strategic impact on gameplay, and would just be annoying. Also, if we go with your first idea too, then transports will be very vurnable ships.
12-11-2003, 01:43 AM
Well that's kind of true but transports are supposed to be vulnerable ships anyway.
12-11-2003, 02:19 AM
Sith, I suggest you expand your tunnel vision a bit. Play Command and Conquer Generals and see some other ways Transports can be used in a realistic and fun way.
12-11-2003, 03:05 AM
Well Vostok, although that would be nice, it seems rather complex. Instead i would go for a different system.
In my template, there are 6 categories of ground units which are-
2. Other Infantry
3. Light Mechs (Droideka)
4. Medium Mechs (AAT)
5. Heavy Mechs (AT-AT)
6. Super Heavy Mechs (SPHA-T)
All i think should happen is that each class of unit, rather than the type of transport, deploys at a different speed. By this, i mean that Light Mechs deploy faster than Heavy Mechs, and Troopers deploy faster than Light Mechs.
This would be less complex and easier to implement as it would be a universal system.
12-11-2003, 12:06 PM
Jeez soon noone will be using transports since you guys are stripping the gameplay outta it. Again you guys are putting realism before gameplay and to be honest its pissing me off.
12-11-2003, 03:16 PM
I prefer the CnC: Generals way of transports. The soldiers take up one slot, the tanks took up 2 or 3. Pretty Simple. And the Transports were vulnerable all the time. Wether they were landing for unloading or loading, repairing, or just hovering there, bu I believe only missile troopers and AA weapons could shoot at them.
12-11-2003, 08:14 PM
Somehow I have to partially agree with Frozted here.
The concept of different landing time for different unit is too complicated.
There's a difference between landing transports and this.
12-11-2003, 10:45 PM
Well different disembarking times wasn't too complicated for C&C:Generals, and I doubt anyone would call that a complicated game. I'll admit my idea probably is too complicated, but I would like to see some transports with single-file disembarking while other have all at once disembarking. Of course if the transport is destroyed while on the ground everyone bails out instantly.
Let me illustrate the dimension it can bring to the game by using C&C:Generals. The GLA Technical can transport 5 infantry units, and when they disembark they all jump out at the same time. This is because the Technical is a very fast but very lightly armoured vehicle. On the other hand the Chinese APC carries eight infantry who disembark one at a time. However the APC is relatively slow, but has thick armour. This emphasises the fact that there are two types of transport: those for mobility, which are fast and can deploy passengers quickly, and those for protection, which are tough but slower to move and deploy.
I retract my previous complicated example (though I still want droid rack eye candy) and suggest instead that some transports deploy instantly while others do it one at a time.
12-11-2003, 10:58 PM
Phreak-I agree that different units should cost different transpot slots, and that transports should always be vurnable to AA.
Vostok-It's not me with tunnel vision, its you. Just because one game does something realistically, and everything turned out (somewhat) ok, in comparison to other games in that series, doesn't mean it will be that way with other games. Hell, not even Blizzard makes units come out one at a time. It will make transports, especially when coupled with the "vurnable when landing" crap, essentially useless when they aren't absolutely required (like in non-space maps), and horribly underpowered when they are absolutely needed, swinging the balance of the game tremendously in favor of the defender, so that space games become stagnant staring contests, like in pre-AC SWGB. You can't just keep spitting up realism ideas, especially when their stolen from other games, just because it would be "cool" or "tactical" to have them, without the faintest concern for balance, specifically MP balance. It is the MP balance that gives a game a good or bad rep, it is the MP balance and fun factor that decides whether a game is a one hit wonder, or a continuing success. EE was an ok game SP, but, thanks to balance problems and poor MP support, it was transformed into a pitiful one.
12-11-2003, 11:32 PM
Blizzard doesn't do it 'cause the only game that used air transport was StarCraft and that was some time ago(unless WC3 used some too I can't remember but I don't think so...)
This actually all depends of the strength of the transport. If the transport is heavily armored enough then it shouldn't pose much of a problem. If they're weak, then it's a problem.
Besides, You have to clean up an area before you unload your troops or send in cannon fodder units first to avoid putting your troop carrying transport in harm's way. So whether or not we have landing transports, you'll still have to use some kind of strategy.
12-11-2003, 11:37 PM
Sith has got you there vostok Sith has been open minded into the realism ideas but you go to overboard about it. He is right about it but you do shut off if it isn't all based about realism we listen to your ideas start listening to ours.
12-12-2003, 02:15 AM
Frozted: I strongly resent that. Look through the comment boxes of my SWGB2 design and you'll see just how much realism I've dropped for Gameplay. Also count the heaps of different suggestions from the forum I've incorporated into my design after posting it for revision. I hardly think I'm immovable on any issues. Have a look at Windu and how he hasn't changed a single word of his design despite continual criticism from forumites, and then tell me I don't listen to people.
Sith: Like Luke's Dad said, it all depends on the relative strength and speed of the transport in question. Surely you're not suggesting every transport be the same like in SWGB1? I know games have to be balanced properly to be decent in MP games, but I don't see how adding these changes, accompanied by balancing other units, will totally throw off the whole game balance. I have faith and believe realism additions can be balanced in, you seem to think that because it would be unbalanced if added to SWGB1 then it will be unbalanced in SWGB2. They are different games that will (hopefully) operate differently, and SWGB2 will be balanced properly independent of SWGB1.
Or will they just re-release an existing game with unbalanced additions?
12-12-2003, 04:51 AM
Vostok - I strongly resent that. How dare you accuse me of ignoring the concerns of other forum members when you have obviously not read my template, and then go and do the same thing with ideas like Troopers shooting aircraft? Through discussions with other members, i have dropped a number of ideas what were objected to, such as the Republic having the only Jedi, the APT being good against Infantry and others.
Sith, Vostok - you both have tunnel vision. Vostok seems to want the most complicated way to do things humanly possible so it goes with realism, while Sith cant accept that some realism ideas are also good for gameplay.
Frozted - gotta agree with Vostok on that point, he has listed (although not as well as he should have) to you and other forum members regarding his ideas. No need to throw a tantrum about it.
12-12-2003, 05:18 AM
Sorry Windu, I was unnecessarily harsh on you. I was just pissed off at Frozted.
Maybe I do have a bit of tunnel vision, but I just can't see why people don't believe games designers are good enough to make a game that is both realistic and has good gameply. Am I too optimistic to think it can be done?
12-12-2003, 08:22 AM
Yea vostok I didn't get pissed when you said I think everyone plays the game **** cause they don't get on the zone. If your not prepared to get things thrown back at you when you dish when thats your problem.
12-12-2003, 11:16 AM
Perhaps with clearer grammar, I would be able to understand what the hell you just said.
As for the transports, I'm pretty much siding with Vostok. His ideas arn't that complicated. Maybe it's CnC thing. And if LEC doesn't make SWG2, I can always wait til the Imperial Assault Mod (http://dynamic6.gamespy.com/~imperialassault/) comes out.
12-14-2003, 03:33 AM
Luke-warcraft had transports to hire
Frosted-you don't have to flame to get you point across.
Vostok-Lemme get this straight. You want to add the "vurnable when landing" and "one at a time" stuff to only certain transports? I'm all for uniqueness (I started the unique unit and building set movement), but not at the sake of balance. People will just go for the ones with out the crappy realism gimmicks. Thats like saying we'll make the empire have the worst units in the game, because that will make them very unique. It doesnt matter if they are never played, as long they get inhibiting realism factors, we'll be jumping for joy. If its gonna be done to one, its gotta be done to all. The only way I could see the "vurnability" one working is if it has massive stats boost to counteract the fact that it cant drop off or pick up troops near enemy units. The one by one thing is a lost cause.
Windu-I'm not any where as near as secular as you guys are. I represent the multiplayer community of the game, essentially the mainstream people that game makers court with patches and multiplayer balance. I am one of the only people here who has to make sure your ideas stay in-check with what would be acceptable in a game with MP support. I dont want to see a game made chalk full of your realism ideas only for them to be patched out in a month. I am one of the only people here who still thinks that changes should be made based on balance problems, not realism disputes. Thats the essence of the gameplay>realism idea that you guys throw around without understanding it. Its not "Let's think of a realisyic idea and mold it so it fits" but "Let's find a problem with the current build, and make a solution that fixes the problem, doesnt cause other problems, and stays as realistic as possible without jepordizing the first 2 points".
Is there currently a screw with transports? No. Is it a problem that they can pick up and drop off in hostile territory? Not in the leats bit, its a lot more helpful and less burdensome that way. Do troops unload so mindbogglingly fast that it frys slower comps, or makes it harder to comprehend whats gonig on? Not that I know of. Are people abusing the "prowess" of the transport's transporting abilities? Are there "nerf the transport threads flooding the forums? No and no. So are short-sighted changes to transports in the name of realism necessary? Hell no.
Thats how a game designer's mind works, and thats how some one who wants their game to succeed should think. That, my friends, is gameplay>realism.
12-14-2003, 05:43 AM
That was so moving, i had tears running down my cheeks near the end...
Getting back to reality, Sith, you cannot claim to represent the online community any more than i can claim to speak for every Australian.
What we're trying to do here is not destroy balance or gameplay, but to alter that gameplay to make the game more realistic. So long as gameplay isnt negatively affected, im really not seeing a problem here.
12-14-2003, 06:22 AM
Sith: It would appear you're looking at it from the angle of "Let's take the current game and only change the stuff that's not that great". I'm looking at it from the angle of "let's make a completely different game".
As for vulnerability, I'm not saying only a few transports are vulnerable when landed, they all abide by that rule. The difference between transports, making each unique, is their unloading time.
We all want unique unit sets. But if each transport takes exactly the same time to unload when they all differ in speed, armour, hit points, shields, line of sight and capacity, how can gameplay balance be achieved? You seem to at least be indifferent towards the vulnerable-while-on-the-ground idea, so let me go from there. A Republic Gunship is a relatively fast transport, with a small capacity, with low armour and hit points and no shields. A Rebel Medium Transport on the other hand is slower, but has greater capacity, strong armour, average hit points and is shielded. If they both take equal time to drop their cargo, surly the Gunship is disadvantaged? As a way to balance these, it just makes sense to me to have the Gunship's passengers all jump out at once (as they can in the movies), while the Medium transport takes longer to unload, perhaps not one at a time but certainly not all in one go. Is my reasoning faulty?
12-14-2003, 08:12 AM
Well, as i've said, i prefer my own model for unloading. But anyway, the problems with your example Vostok, are that-
- the Medium Transport is too big to be a tactical transport
- Medium transport would get hit far more frequently than a Gunship
- the Gunship is more agile
- the Gunship has strong armour, infantry weapons cannot penetrate
12-14-2003, 06:45 PM
I agree that gameplay must come first but we must take time to innovate too. If we stuck to the same old same old all the time, we stop going forward and we stay behind. SWGB had a major problem where a lot of people claimed it didn't do anything new, it was the same old RTS as everyone knew and the only real reason people would buy it was for the Star wars name.
If we go down the same road, people will also say this. It's same thing as other games, it didn't do anything new.
However, landing to unload is one thing but different unload times is another.
I think they should just land and unload, that's it that's all. No single line unload or different unload times. That's a bit too much.
12-14-2003, 09:55 PM
I love how you guys are saying that we have to innovate, and not do as other games have done, and then, in the same thought, go around stealing things blatantly from other games.
A Republic Gunship is a relatively fast transport, with a small capacity, with low armour and hit points and no shields. A Rebel Medium Transport on the other hand is slower, but has greater capacity, strong armour, average hit points and is shielded. If they both take equal time to drop their cargo, surly the Gunship is disadvantaged?
Thats where the magic of balance comes in. You see, games aren't equalized by adding realism gimmicks and limits, if that were so, then the game would suck. The gunship will probably be cheaper, or faster to make, or take less pop, or *gasp* have an attack (but now we're going down a road we've been through many times). No stupid "gunship pops everyone out at once" complications and limitations needed.
That was so moving, i had tears running down my cheeks near the end...
I'm glad you can get so emotional over posts on a gaming forum
Sith, you cannot claim to represent the online community any more than i can claim to speak for every Australian.
There are only like 300 people in the online community (less if you count scenerio players as half a person), while like 100 million people in Australia. Also, there is a general consensus in the gaming community over balancing mechanics and prevalence, and also on what things are/anre't balanced (to a certain extent), so I think that I can represent the multiplayer community much better than you can Australia.
12-14-2003, 10:07 PM
And is SWGB really a unique RTS or a very well made mod of AoK?
Is a landing transport a rip-off of any kind?
Oh god that trooper uses a gun, let's try to innovate and give him a wooden stick because all the other games are using guns for troopers...
There's a difference in stealing and simply getting an idea from another game. If so then all games should be banned and considered rip-offs because they steal stuff from another. Oh god, this FPS also uses guns, oh god this car game also uses car...
If one game has landing transport can it really be considered stealing if another game has them too?
12-14-2003, 10:30 PM
Firstly, let me just clear up that Australia only just hit the 20 million mark the other day. But it's an acceptable mistake considering you were educated in the USA, Sith :D.
The Medium Transport is too big to be a tactical transportExactly! That is why it will have a slow unload time to discourage it's use as a tactical transport. the Gunship has strong armour, infantry weapons cannot penetrateStrong armour? Just because infantry weapons can't penetrate it doesn't make it strong. It only took a couple of shots from a Geonosian Fighter to kill one. And comparing it to the Medium Transport, as I was doing, it does not have strong armour at all.
Windu's other points agree with what I said so I'm not sure why he noted them as counting against me.
But, since there is overwhelming opposition I am willing to concede my point. I think different unload times is a great way to add more uniqueness while at the same time becoming even more faithful to the movies this game is meant to emulate, while at the same time not screwing up balance. You said it yourself, Sith, that balance is found through cost and build time. I've always believed the same and as such believed anything can be balanced into the game this way. But if everyone thinks otherwise I'll give up.
12-15-2003, 02:25 AM
I am glad we all agree *group hug*
About the Australia thing, I was certain that it was lower than that, but I didnt want to insult the many Aussies on these boards.
Oh, and build time means the time taken to construct a unit, not the time it takes to do stuff
12-15-2003, 02:42 AM
Yeah I know that's what build time means. I think most things that aren't rediculously over or under powered can be adequately balanced through build time and cost, and surely different unloading times falls into this category.
Note I'm not still pushing for acceptance of my idea, I can leave it behind, but instead I pose a new question: can differences between units (such as unload time) be balanced through build time and cost?
12-15-2003, 04:31 AM
Well, i would think that instead of being balanced against build time and cost, unloading time would be balanced against armour and firepower, which in turn would be balanced against cost and build time.
12-16-2003, 12:40 AM
Depends on the differences. It is better that the differences are a plus not a minus (i.e. some unit is really expensive/weak, but can do something really cool vs something cheap and strong but has some frustrating limitations). If we are talknig about positive differences, then I could see it happening, or even certain negative differences. The key is whether people will pay whatever the price/weakness for the uniqueness, or, conversely, are the limitations low enough that people wouldnt mind the cheaper unit. For example, in AoM, Medusas are some of the most expensive units in the game, have low stats, but people build them because they can insta kill units. An example of a negative difference that works would be the minimum range of assualt mechs.
vBulletin®, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.