New Feature Requests for Existing Game Elements

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • New Feature Requests for Existing Game Elements

      New Feature Requests for Existing Game Elements

      ****************************************************************************************************

      I have started this new thread specifically for new feature requests for the game: for units, for maps, for Gold, or for the High Command, etc. Basically, if you have an idea for some new feature you'd like to add to an existing part of the game, then post it here.

      If you have an idea for adding a new building, please post that in the New Buildings thread.

      If you have an idea for adding a new unit, please post that in the New Units thread (is there one?).

      If you have a criticism, or some other type of suggestion, please go back to the Suggestions/Criticisms forum to find another thread in which to post or create your own.

      ****************************************************************************************************
      Please organize your thoughts and keep replies to other people's suggestions brief and to the point while avoiding "hurrays/boos" and avoiding "I like/hate your idea" kinds of posts. If you like an idea, click on the like button. Please follow the basic formatting of the next post following this one. Thank you.

      I will update this list of feature requests as new ideas are added. If the list gets lengthy, I will remove ideas that were soundly rejected or have since been added in by Bytro's development team.

      ****************************************************************************************************

      List of ideas for new features to existing game elements:

      • One-way Aircraft Scouting Patrols with Waypoints
      • Player Reputation System (PRS)
      • Chance of Premature Detonation of Damaged or Destroyed Rockets and Nukes


      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Diabolical ().

    • One-way Aircraft Scouting Patrols with Waypoints

      I have heard complaints before about the usefulness of naval bombers. When employed according to their strengths, they can be quite powerful. The only real problem is that most folks won't research them or research them much. And, once researched, most won't build more than a token few because of their lack of understanding of their gifts. But, I've come up with this idea to improve the selling point on Naval Bombers as well as a new feature for all aircraft.

      The rest of this post is pretty much copied from an idea I posted elsewhere.

      My idea is to add a form of long distance patrol feature to Naval Bombers. Since a naval bomber would typically have pontoons, it would stand to reason that one could give them long range fuel tanks along with spare fuel tanks. Then, instead of a normal patrol, they would have the special option to do a one-way-only "hopping" scouting patrol between two airbases/carriers.

      Thus, instead of a radial patrol area where Naval Bombers would sit and wait for other craft to approach it's radius, they'd have an elongated -- pill-shaped -- one-time-viewed patrol area connecting their start and end points with no waiting. Along the way, they can have way-point destinations on water route intersections (i.e., up to 3 water spots) between the start and end of their flight. That would represent water landings to rest a bit while waiting between segments for equipment checks, pilot naps, refueling from spare tanks, etc. Each water landing would require a 10 minute rest.

      And, maybe the level of the bomber would determine the number of water hops it can take. Thus, level 1 has 0 hops (no one way patrols). A level 2 would have 1 hop, thus it would enable a one-way patrol with a start and a destination (though not on a water route intersection).

      A level 3 would have 2 hops, thus it would enable a one-way patrol with a start, a destination, and 1 waypoint (which can be on a water route intersection or at an airbase). A level 4 would have 3 hops, thus it would enable a one-way patrol with a start, a destination, and [upto] 2 waypoints. Levels 5 and 6 would each add one more waypoint per level thus having a maxed out Naval Bomber being able to have up to 4 waypoints between it's start and destination.

      Level ... one-way mission enabled? ... max number of waypoints
      1 ........ N ................................ n/a
      2 ........ Y ................................ 0
      3 ........ Y ................................ 1
      4 ........ Y ................................ 2
      5 ........ Y ................................ 3
      6 ........ Y ................................ 4





      To further sweeten the deal with Naval Bombers, don't decrease the flight range bonuses for the higher levels. Thus, with a higher level Naval Bomber, it could perform a One-Way mission across larger expanses of ocean between continents or island hopping across the Pacific. Therefore, a Naval bomber could cross the Pacific from Japan to Guam to Hawaii to Los Angeles without carriers or convoying and in the time it takes to fly that distance while stopping at each waypoint and airbase for rest between segments of the flight.

      The width of a patrol is fairly wide for aircraft and very wide for Naval Bombers. Perhaps the width of the pill-shaped scout patrol should be reduced a lot to simulate a one-pass-through view (as opposed to circling throughout an area).

      One more thing: Because the waypoint idea is for at-sea flights, the mission would only act like a level 2 bomber in hops between missions from one airbase to another. In other words, the one-way mission would need to be endless hops over land. The water waypoints are for Naval Bombers exclusively.

      However, the idea of a one-way patrol should also be allowed for other aircraft between two or more airbases and/or carriers (if they can land on a carrier). Except for not being able to land on the water, all the other rules of One-way scouting patrols should apply.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Not be a downer but doesn't this all fall under the Comprehensive Suggestion List?
      Ah, you might think so...but, there is like a gazillion posts in the Comprehensive Suggestion List.

      Whomever decided that they should make that list a sticky didn't foresee that one giant thread for everything under the sun would become far too unmanageable. And, without setting standards for the posts (as I do in a couple of my threads) allows for people to just fill it up with nonconstructive comments and other riff-raff nonsensical stuff that takes away from the collection of creative ideas.

      This thread is one of a couple lists that I would like to make sticky for an easy review by the users as well as the developers (or their representatives). I think the comprehensive suggestion list is far too long and way to messy for a quick review. Even the first post list of ideas is morphing in strange ways.

      Nah, this list is better for this specific section.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Diabolical wrote:

      Whomever decided that they should make that list a sticky didn't foresee that one giant thread for everything under the sun would become far too unmanageable. And, without setting standards for the posts (as I do in a couple of my threads) allows for people to just fill it up with nonconstructive comments and other riff-raff nonsensical stuff that takes away from the collection of creative ideas.

      This thread is one of a couple lists that I would like to make sticky for an easy review by the users as well as the developers (or their representatives). I think the comprehensive suggestion list is far too long and way to messy for a quick review. Even the first post list of ideas is morphing in strange ways.

      Nah, this list is better for this specific section.
      How do you know the same won't happen here? Also, 3+ threads are harder to keep track of.

      On top of this, how do you know this thread will simply not be forgotten or filled with riff-raff? Maybe if a new Comp. Sug. List was made by a hyper-active user, e.g. me.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • oceanhawk wrote:

      you know we can already at target to aircraft right?
      I only read a few line to be fair..
      Well, to be fair, I don't mean the "Add Target" feature, I mean something like "Add Waypoint" which would be limited in scope and number of jumps (based on the level of the aircraft) and gives you a live-view (spy-style) dynamic scouting of the territory along the way (not like the regular reveal where you only get current positions). In other words, the units viewed will also show their last known vector (like military spies), not just there last known position.

      This feature might make more sense if your forces get a "don't shoot back" aspect. They are flying straight through for scouting purposes, not to fight. So it might make sense to cut their air-defense in half and their ground offense to zero while on this mission.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Diabolical wrote:

      Whomever decided that they should make that list a sticky didn't foresee that one giant thread for everything under the sun would become far too unmanageable. And, without setting standards for the posts (as I do in a couple of my threads) allows for people to just fill it up with nonconstructive comments and other riff-raff nonsensical stuff that takes away from the collection of creative ideas.

      This thread is one of a couple lists that I would like to make sticky for an easy review by the users as well as the developers (or their representatives). I think the comprehensive suggestion list is far too long and way to messy for a quick review. Even the first post list of ideas is morphing in strange ways.

      Nah, this list is better for this specific section.
      How do you know the same won't happen here? Also, 3+ threads are harder to keep track of.
      On top of this, how do you know this thread will simply not be forgotten or filled with riff-raff? Maybe if a new Comp. Sug. List was made by a hyper-active user, e.g. me.
      Ah, but here's where it gets smarter. The list owner (there ought to be such a special thing, but there isn't, so it would have to be a dedicated moderator) would need to screen through the messages once in a while and just warn the users while deleting the unnecessary and un-detailed posts. The idea isn't to spur a lot of conversations, but rather to spur creativity. I would even go as far as to -- as the moderator/thread owner -- suggest that other users self-regulate themselves even if it means they voluntarily (by prompting) delete their own post(s) that are irrelevant to the thread.

      It's an attempt to avoid the problems learned from the other list. Also, one of the reasons why I think this (and a few other similarly styled lists) would work is to divide the participation into groups by topic. If people are passionate and need regulating about new building types, maybe they won't be as passionate about new unit types, thus the other thread isn't overpopulated with posts (or the other way around) which would make it easier to go through the polluted list to clean it up (judiciously, of course).

      Learning from the mistakes of the past would be a good way to go.

      And I would be willing to volunteer to act as a moderator to take the load off of others who might not want to volunteer to do this task on these lists that I'm starting / have started.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Player Reputation System


      Rather than cut and paste it here, because it had a lot of responses already and a heated argument between some folks who were at odds over this option, I'm just going to post a link to the discussion. But this was a lengthy post (in two parts) about an idea to reduce the burden of dealing with nasty players. It is a fairly comprehensive feature request to -- temporarily -- avoid certain players.

      Please review the details here:

      Heated comments are welcome in the other thread, but only constructive comments are encouraged in this thread.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Diabolical wrote:

      oceanhawk wrote:

      you know we can already at target to aircraft right?
      I only read a few line to be fair..
      Well, to be fair, I don't mean the "Add Target" feature, I mean something like "Add Waypoint" which would be limited in scope and number of jumps (based on the level of the aircraft) and gives you a live-view (spy-style) dynamic scouting of the territory along the way (not like the regular reveal where you only get current positions). In other words, the units viewed will also show their last known vector (like military spies), not just there last known position.
      This feature might make more sense if your forces get a "don't shoot back" aspect. They are flying straight through for scouting purposes, not to fight. So it might make sense to cut their air-defense in half and their ground offense to zero while on this mission.
      I made a unit, that does this, Early warning aircraft, it gathers intel, and can tel you move about the troops movements..
      but I dont think this is the way to go, I will read it again, as Im just up and need coffee

      but I like the idea your at... more aircraft haha



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • Diabolical wrote:

      Ah, but here's where it gets smarter. The list owner (there ought to be such a special thing, but there isn't, so it would have to be a dedicated moderator) would need to screen through the messages once in a while and just warn the users while deleting the unnecessary and un-detailed posts. The idea isn't to spur a lot of conversations, but rather to spur creativity. I would even go as far as to -- as the moderator/thread owner -- suggest that other users self-regulate themselves even if it means they voluntarily (by prompting) delete their own post(s) that are irrelevant to the thread.
      So just make a hyper-active user a mod then.

      Diabolical wrote:

      It's an attempt to avoid the problems learned from the other list. Also, one of the reasons why I think this (and a few other similarly styled lists) would work is to divide the participation into groups by topic. If people are passionate and need regulating about new building types, maybe they won't be as passionate about new unit types, thus the other thread isn't overpopulated with posts (or the other way around) which would make it easier to go through the polluted list to clean it up (judiciously, of course).
      That actually sounds good.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • I think there should be a new category, and every new unit idea is posted there, so you can scroll up and down looking at the ideas

      I dont think that current thread is great..



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • Some ideas from this thread should be implemented.


      "I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.


      "Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.

    • Explosive one-time-use units should have a
      chance to blow up when destroyed on the ground

      The title pretty much sums it up. But it makes sense that if you attack a rocket on the ground, it should have a chance at blowing up and causing damage around it (like as if it targeted it's own position). Now, perhaps that would only make sense if it's sitting on the launchpad (i.e., fueled and ready to fly), so a convoy or "fueling" rocket would not explode when destroyed.

      Since bombs can blow up when damaged, the logic follows that it is reasonable to expect that behavior in the game. Of course, bombs don't always blow up when they are damaged or destroyed....depending on the type of bomb. A bomb with a trigger that is active can be easily blown up if the trigger is prematurely activated, so it makes sense then to assume that a fueled-and-ready-to-go rocket on the launchpad would have a higher chance of blowing up than one in which the trigger is not active (i.e., being fueled or in that convoy mode mentioned earlier).

      Because some types of bombs are deliberately designed so as to be more difficult to trigger prematurely, it makes sense to have a rocket's percentage chance at premature detonation from being attacked go down as the technology level of the rocket goes up. Thus a higher-level rocket will be less likely to explode on the ground when destroyed. The same is true for nuclear technology.

      Additionally, the level 1 rocket, which can be intercepted, along with all levels of nuclear bombers, should have a chance at detonation when intercepted. Consequently, were a rocket or nuclear bomber destroyed in flight, their destructive power should be spent in the vicinity of their then-current location.

      Also, a bomb need not be totally destroyed before it goes off prematurely. If a bomb is unsettled in the wrong way, it could detonate even with only minor damage. Therefore, I think that a damaged rocket or nuke should also have to face the chance of explosion even if it hasn't been destroyed as of yet, and even after the battle is over, until it is fully repaired.

      If a nuke or a level 1 rocket is attacked in the air it would have it's chance of detonation stay the same until it either lands or hits its target. However, while on the ground, a damaged explosive unit's chance of detonation would needfully go down after a few hours to simulate on-the-spot repairs ("Carefully put the pin-deflection plate over the trigger but don't let it touch the electronic bypass relay.")

      Any remaining percentage chance for premature detonation of a damaged explosive unit would be retained once such a unit is launched. So, whether nuclear bomber or rocket, any damaged explosive unit that takes to the air stops having it's chance of premature detonation get reduced until it either lands [again] or hits its target.


      Unit Type
      Detonation

      Chance {%}
      (destroyed
      on ground)
      Detonation
      Chance {%}
      (destroyed
      in flight)
      Initial
      Detonation
      Chance {%}
      (per {20%}
      of damage)
      (on ground)
      Initial
      Detonation
      Chance {%}
      (per {20%}
      of damage)
      (in flight)
      Hourly
      Detonation
      Reduction {%}
      (on ground)
      Notes:
      Rocket L1
      33%
      42%
      7%
      %13%
      %5

      Rocket L2
      29%
      n/a
      6%
      n/a
      %7
      Rocket L3
      24%
      n/a
      5%
      n/a
      %9
      Rocket L4
      16%
      n/a
      3%
      n/a
      %15
      Nuclear Bomber L1
      18%
      26%
      6%
      %9
      %16
      Nuclear Bomber L2
      13%
      21%
      4%
      %6
      %22
      Nuclear Bomber L3
      9%
      17%
      2%
      %4
      %30
      Nuclear Missile
      11%
      n/a
      3%
      n/a
      %33
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Diabolical wrote:

      Explosive one-time-use units should have a

      chance to blow up when destroyed on the ground

      The title pretty much sums it up. But it makes sense that if you attack a rocket on the ground, it should have a chance at blowing up and causing damage around it (like as if it targeted it's own position). Now, perhaps that would only make sense if it's sitting on the launchpad (i.e., fueled and ready to fly), so a convoy or "fueling" rocket would not explode when destroyed.

      Since bombs can blow up when damaged, the logic follows that it is reasonable to expect that behavior in the game. Of course, bombs don't always blow up when they are damaged or destroyed....depending on the type of bomb. A bomb with a trigger that is active can be easily blown up if the trigger is prematurely activated, so it makes sense then to assume that a fueled-and-ready-to-go rocket on the launchpad would have a higher chance of blowing up than one in which the trigger is not active (i.e., being fueled or in that convoy mode mentioned earlier).

      Because some types of bombs are deliberately designed so as to be more difficult to trigger prematurely, it makes sense to have a rocket's percentage chance at premature detonation from being attacked go down as the technology level of the rocket goes up. Thus a higher-level rocket will be less likely to explode on the ground when destroyed. The same is true for nuclear technology.

      Additionally, the level 1 rocket, which can be intercepted, along with all levels of nuclear bombers, should have a chance at detonation when intercepted. Consequently, were a rocket or nuclear bomber destroyed in flight, their destructive power should be spent in the vicinity of their then-current location.

      Also, a bomb need not be totally destroyed before it goes off prematurely. If a bomb is unsettled in the wrong way, it could detonate even with only minor damage. Therefore, I think that a damaged rocket or nuke should also have to face the chance of explosion even if it hasn't been destroyed as of yet, and even after the battle is over, until it is fully repaired.

      If a nuke or a level 1 rocket is attacked in the air it would have it's chance of detonation stay the same until it either lands or hits its target. However, while on the ground, a damaged explosive unit's chance of detonation would needfully go down after a few hours to simulate on-the-spot repairs ("Carefully put the pin-deflection plate over the trigger but don't let it touch the electronic bypass relay.")

      Any remaining percentage chance for premature detonation of a damaged explosive unit would be retained once such a unit is launched. So, whether nuclear bomber or rocket, any damaged explosive unit that takes to the air stops having it's chance of premature detonation get reduced until it either lands [again] or hits its target.


      Unit Type
      Detonation
      Chance {%}

      (destroyed

      on ground)


      Detonation
      Chance {%}

      (destroyed

      in flight)

      Initial
      Detonation

      Chance {%}

      (per {20%}

      of damage)

      (on ground)


      Initial
      Detonation

      Chance {%}

      (per {20%}

      of damage)

      (in flight)

      Hourly
      Detonation

      Reduction {%}

      (on ground)

      Notes:
      Rocket L1

      33%
      42%
      7%
      %13%
      %5


      Rocket L2
      29%
      n/a
      6%
      n/a
      %7
      Rocket L3
      24%
      n/a
      5%
      n/a
      %9
      Rocket L4
      16%
      n/a
      3%
      n/a
      %15
      Nuclear Bomber L1
      18%
      26%
      6%
      %9
      %16
      Nuclear Bomber L2
      13%
      21%
      4%
      %6
      %22
      Nuclear Bomber L3
      9%
      17%
      2%
      %4
      %30
      Nuclear Missile
      11%
      n/a
      3%
      n/a
      %33


      You put a lot of thought into this. I always liked that about you.
      Pax Romana Communications Officer