Then it's basically a slightly different version of CP. This idea is as a whole is already pretty close to CP, but your take on it makes it almost identical.

Or better yet: add water PASS that runs out and you have to buy it over and over B)

Just a little pointless but interesting discussion I wanted to have after hearing the same thing being discussed in a Youtube video. If you don't get the question (I had to compress it a bit), let me explain: Imagine one day all humans of some certain age and older disappeared (for example, everyone above 10 years old). There's no disaster, no damage to our world and infrastructure - just these humans suddenly disappearing, leaving the young population behind. What do you think is the lowest age that remaining population could be in order to survive on their own, educate themselves, grow up, and continue our civilisation? If you think about it, some crazy low age like 3 is too low, since a bunch of toddlers all over the world will just get confused and succumb once they run out of readily available food and/or water. On the other hand, a lot of children in their late teens are already fully capable of supporting themselves and others, so that wouldn't even be worth discussing. But what about 14 years old? 11? 9? 6? I reckon a "borderline" age limit would be 8 years old. Of course, the vast majority of children at that age, especially in more developed communities, are unlikely to survive for long. However, in less developed countries where it's normal for children to start helping their parents with work in rural areas, some children will have just enough practical skills and knowledge to enable them to take over their parents' duties and set up a simple rudimentary means of survival based on agriculture and scavenging. Perhaps even children in more developed countries will be fine, since while they may not have the practical skills, they will have access to a much greater amount of initial resources and infrastructure, which will be able to sustain them for the initial critical period during which they need to become self-sustaining. After that it's just a question of growing up and repopulating, while at the same time re-learning all which humanity lost. I'm probably way overthinking this, but it's an interesting topic ?

36

You didn't consider the consequenses of destroying the enemy team. If the objective is to charge the laser multiple times every round, then let's say blue team charges the laser, scores a point and destroys the red team. Then, while the red team is still respawning, Blue will start to charge the laser again, giving them an initial advantage and making it hard (i.e. almost impossible) for Red to make a comeback. You need to rethink how this will work in order to be balanced.

So, the objective of the game is to charge the laser in order to make it destroy all the enemy players once? And then repeat the process? Is this basically like TDM (team with most kills wins) but with an additional mechanic of these "death lasers" as a secondary objective? If you want to make the lasers a primary objective, you could make it so that the winner is either the team with most laser activations, or most laser kills. But to be honest, a lot more factors need to be addressed in order to make this idea viable.

Topic merged No point adding something that can only be used by event helpers. Why do that, when instead devs could implement a fully usable feature that allows all players to manage their own private battles. If battles are private, the feature cannot be abused.

But wait, there's more! *yeets outta here*

Agreed. And it is indeed a minor issue. Will most likely be fixed in the interface update.

There won't be a whole new map copy added just because of that one house.

Considering how powerful the ability is, I don't think it needs any buffs. I agree that the recharge time is too long, but if it's reduced, I think either the duration or the fire rate/damage bonus should be reduced.

Yeah, didn't get to it yet.

If your idea is labelled as "Valid", then it means that the idea follows all rules and has potential to be implemented. The topic itself will never be archived, unless the status changes to "Completed" or "Declined". However, keep in mind that developers have very little room for new ideas, so what you suggested might be implemented years from now (or not at all). Or you may get lucky and it will be just a few weeks. This is from the Guide for posting ideas. I recommend you check it out :)

Perhaps you're right, but we can't predict which value would work without being game devs and having access to their analytics. But if you take into account that Thunder shoots faster, has splash damage (which is way more useful than shooting through tanks) and a few other minor advantages, I think dealing 0 damage at long range won't be much of a problem. After all, the alt is specifically made to turn Thunder into a close range turret, so you shouldn't be using it long range at all. The only issue is that dealing 0 damage would look weird since the explosion would still be there and remain the same size. People are likely to think it's a bug.

I came up with this idea a few months ago and proposed it to Hazel - he agreed, saying that this nerf would have been better and more fitting to the purpose of that alteration, which is to turn Thunder into a close range Hammer-like turret. So it's possible we'll see something like this be done in a future balance update.

Valid

Topic merged

Valid Similar idea: Add more keyboard shortcuts

Topic merged

Topic merged

I feel like this was obvious as soon as the drone was released -_-

It's one of Riddler's favourite hulls. I was talking about his profile.

What?

Topic merged