Injuries on Disabled units?

[nopjes]

It's realistic, and it would give some route's more use!
hooligans will need a nerf if thats gonna happen but,
ranged disablers will also have more use in alliance fights then.

any toughts?

 

[f0xx]

Interesting, the idea can be developped quite further into a new route even.

 

[Azzer]

Hehe, I've seen the idea thrown around a while back that perhaps "disabled" units, to be different from "distract", should be disable for 2 or 3 ticks (ie for the course of a whole battle). But it'd have to be a whole new unit type, rather than simply replace all of the NLT and disable units currently in the game.

 

[nopjes]

or just give them a varying injury percentage, to temporarily disable a part of somebody's army

 

[f0xx]

Yes azzman, I think you are making things too complicated.

I was thinking about a route, something like the PoM route but a bit weaker with a 50% injury rate.

 

[Davis]

So is this basically saying that if i were to get my units Disabled (and why not also Stunned? or even Distracted) i would get insurance as if they were killed? so My 20m CWs all get disabled, and thus none die, but i get a lot of insurance from this and buy more and rape rinse repeat? i mean it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Turnip2k]

That wouldnt really make alot of sense Davis - I think the idea is that if say 10m of your CW get disabled, some of them will take x ticks to come back into play.

So they will effectively be 'killed' but with a 100% injury rate and probably shorter time to come back.

 

[Davis]

ohhh see now that makes much more sense i kind of like that idea unless i'm getting disabled haha and would it only be disabled i mean why cant units that get distracted be distracted a few extra ticks and same with stunned i mean units that stun could be buffed to say, Siren stuns for 8 ticks while other stun for less and what not.

would be interesting

 

[Matt]

i dont think anything should be Disabled/Stunned/Distracted for more than 3 ticks.

Any longer than this and it would have no effect unless you put the amount of time disabled up above 8 ticks.

for example

10m cw get disabled on Range they have 7 ticks untill there home so for it to have any effect other than the R/M/C in battle you would have to extend it to like 8+.

 

[nopjes]

i dont think anything should be Disabled/Stunned/Distracted for more than 3 ticks.

Any longer than this and it would have no effect unless you put the amount of time disabled up above 8 ticks.

for example

10m cw get disabled on Range they have 7 ticks untill there home so for it to have any effect other than the R/M/C in battle you would have to extend it to like 8+.

that was my suggestion maybe even longer

 

[f0xx]

A lot of people are either quite thick or simply don't read. We are not talking about disabling the units for a certain amount of ticks. We are talking about injuries.

You attack with 10 mln CWs, 3 mln get disabled, 1.5 of them get injured. For next tick of battle you have 8.5 mln CWs.

 

[Azzer]

f0xx - no, I'm sure nopjes was asking for disable ability to cause injury, so they were "out of play" for more than the current BR. It's you that's chimed in with giving kill units the ability to disable as well as injure, which is a different idea altogether

 

[f0xx]

f0xx - no, I'm sure nopjes was asking for disable ability to cause injury, so they were "out of play" for more than the current BR. It's you that's chimed in with giving kill units the ability to disable as well as injure, which is a different idea altogether

Now you got me confused big time

Yes, nopjes is asking for NLT units to be able to cause injuries so the injured units are out of play for more than the current round. We both agree on that, aye?

Now where the hell did I even mention LET units being able to disable and injure at the same time lol? My example with CWs was when a CW player attacks a Holligan player for example. Hools will be able to cause injuries to the disabled units (CWs in the case).

Jeez...

 

[Cheese]

The fact you guys can't even explain the idea to yourselves correctly kinda hints that it won't be that good for the game.
Way too complicated.

 

[Alcibiades]

The fact you guys can't even explain the idea to yourselves correctly kinda hints that it won't be that good for the game.
Way too complicated.

Lol agreed.

The only way i would see it working is as a form of injury like f0xx states but being the conservative fellow that i am, i'm not wildly enthused about such an idea however if it could be implemented easily with a minimum of fuss, i wouldn't really object either.

 

[nopjes]

The fact you guys can't even explain the idea to yourselves correctly kinda hints that it won't be that good for the game.
Way too complicated.

It's just 'NON-LETHAL-THUGS' that cause unjuries.
Now there are 2 variables wich i wanted to discuss about.

1 howmuch % of what they disable gets injured
2 how long these injuries last

I hope that clears it up

 

[Cheese]

The fact you guys can't even explain the idea to yourselves correctly kinda hints that it won't be that good for the game.
Way too complicated.

It's just 'NON-LETHAL-THUGS' that cause unjuries.
Now there are 2 variables wich i wanted to discuss about.

1 howmuch % of what they disable gets injured
2 how long these injuries last

I hope that clears it up

Oh I understood what you were on about, I was just pointing out that if the 'elite' bush members and the game admin can't explain the idea then the average playerbase aint going to stand a chance of understanding it.
I'm sorry but I've had many ideas knocked aside because they were 'too complicated' and this in my opinion falls under that catergory (I'm really stoned and that word is too complicated to spell itself)

 

[timtadams]

lol, i found it incredibly simply

Disabled units remained disabled/injured for x amount of ticks...

I think the idea was very simple, its just that some people misinterpreted the original post and made it more complicated than it needed to be.