For simplicity, weapons and their relevant countermeasures should be unlocked at roughly the same threshold (e.g. grenade and trapper), so teams equal in strength and progress are able to counter each others attacks. However, higher level firepower should become increasingly more powerful than the relevant defense, to the point where no appropriate countermeasure exists.
2.2.1.2 Base size/strength relation wrote:
In relation to the number of buildables, big bases are easier to destroy than small ones, which is accomplished through the behaviour of weapons and defense structures:
Some weapons come with an area of effect and can do more damage when used against a number of close structures. Weapons that are unlocked later in the game have a higher affinity for this feature.
Effects that slow down enemies or reduce their ability to fight in a similiar way don't stack.
Healing effects and buffs provided by structures to either friendly players or structures don't stack.
Ishq wrote:
I generally agree with all of these. Firepower and countermeasures having similar costs makes sense. As for base size with respect to strength, I think we are generally want strong, small bases, and then have other small outposts for different periods of time. A large base generally implied turtling, which can easily make every game boring.
I don't think firepower should reach the point where you can't possibly defend a base against it, or at the very least, not the firepower of a single person. It's not very fun to go out on a rush and come back to discover that your base has been taken out by a single guy that exploited some map flaw or found a way to stand just outside of your base and annihilate it without getting touched. Instead, I would rather see it made easier for groups of people to take out bases. Perhaps by, say, having one guy carry a demolition charge with him while his teammates escort him to the alien base. Or, giving the aliens some capability to knock a structure out of function temporarily so that teammates can help take it out. In both cases you have to operate as a group. If you make it really easy to take things out all by yourself, that isn't very fun.
kharnov, this looks like a new design rule to me and it seems to support the relevant goal of stability. From my experience in the summer tournament, even the destructive power of an organized group is far from being proportional to its size. (Unrelated to stability: As long as a single attacker can do a lot of harm, there is also not much that keeps a team from putting more players on defense.)
Since I can imagine a number of actual changes that would support a team action over a lone attacker, I'd rather formulate this as an issue to a new core gameplay goal of "Teamplay". I'll try to put it in my next iteration over the design document.
