Rasq'uire'laskar:

Um... no.

Buildable walls are one story high, with Bunkers that can be placed on the corners. Units can walk around on the ramparts, but they get much better cover from the bunkers.

Helms Deep Walls are in a special gametype, and cannot be built. 

So are there ramparts on the weaker one story walls?

P.S- Don't try to stop the idea of stronger walls 'cause you're trying to protect stupid people. (not you Rasq)  

James T.:

    Alright, well then. How would you see in to the bunker?

it could have a glass roof, but that would be ridiculous. I would hate to see only an outline of my soldiers the entire time they are in these elevated bunkers. 

What was NT's old name? 

Generally, if the bunkers are at all like the blast bunkers on Standoff, they would have windows to shoot out of, so generally, I'd look for where the fire is coming from. OTher than that, I'd prefer no indicator as in real life, you can't tell which bunkers have people in them, you just have to kill them all.

Possibly have infantry when "attacking" the bunkers, instead infiltrate.

James T.:

Where'd you come from!

That reply was just annoying to read because of how it just attacked me as opposed to help the idea, or effect the idea in any way. I suggest that you make your posts relevant from now on.

It's hardly an attack, just pointing out the fact it takes maturity to except criticism.  And my second post was entirely relevant.

Wolfhound:

well you wont need thick walls at all. Plasma is splash damage, not as much penitration (spelling).

Actually, plasma burns through surfaces. To properly make good anti-plasma walls, you'd have to make the entire area of the wall thick, made from many pieces of metal or any semi-dense material spaced apart.

So yes, plasma has lots of penetration, but can't expand beyond the contact surface.

Rasq'uire'laskar:

As for the bunkers, it could be you can only station one squad in there at a time. So, a max of five guys. But if you store a damaged, three man squad in there, and then try and send in a five-man squad, they swap places.

To show that a bunker is occupied, a simple light inside could turn on, and the doors would close.

Much like WiC.

But I disagree with the idea of displaying occupation aside from the possibilty of units shooting from within it's confines.

James T.:

    Let me just make sure that we're on the same page. I want for the helms deep walls to be put into HW, with a bunker stretching over the top of the entire wall. The bunker/wall would act like normal land. You could walk around inside of it, go to the edge and shoot out of it. Is that what we're talking about, then that would be a logical compromise. if not, we'll keep working things out.

That's hardly a compromise as it still makes absolutely no sense in a modern war effort. Even far less in an Futuristic war setting.

By Fire and Flood,
KristallNacht



I can lead a country with a microphone

    Kristall, you talk about maturity, but you're not helping at all. You're just stupidly bashing all of our ideas. Aside from the occasional fact, or suggestion, it's just a mess of put-downs.

    Disregard how plasma burns through surfaces, that's where fun has to take over. Just let the bunkers blow up after a certain amount of damage has been dealt to it. Don't consider plasma boiling through parts of it.

    You can't not have an indication of what units are in the bunkers. you can't just look for little lights inside each bunker. This isn't an FPS where you can see in the bunkers, it's an RTS where you get a birds eye view (Although it would be cool if you could go eye level with your troops). You have to put an indicator to make the game more playable and make bunkers less of a hassle.

Don't bring up infiltrating bunkers, thats just too realistic. It could be a side option, but you should just be able to blow it up if a marine fires at it for long enough.

BTW- Sorry for all of the insults I pack in to my responses, but you really need to put your replies nicely. It gets on peoples nerves real quick. 

continue fighting and you'll get the moose

*clearing throat*

krystall brings up good points, it should be more realistic to simulate a real battle

not 1 shot of plasma = 2% damage on a building, but several shots from several units to equal that

since plasma does burn through surfaces

Don Corleone:

sorry but everything that he said was true.and it merely says that some ideas won't work and others may be changed.

Wait, whose right?

BTW- But that moose away! It's dangerous! 

durty sturty:

*clearing throat*

krystall brings up good points, it should be more realistic to simulate a real battle

not 1 shot of plasma = 2% damage on a building, but several shots from several units to equal that

since plasma does burn through surfaces

So you're proposing that covenant units should be more effective against buildings. 

James T.:

Don Corleone:

sorry but everything that he said was true.and it merely says that some ideas won't work and others may be changed.

Wait, whose right?

BTW- But that moose away! It's dangerous! 

as long as you guys come to a agreement

(be careful this moose eats black holes for breakfast!) 

James T.:

durty sturty:

*clearing throat*

krystall brings up good points, it should be more realistic to simulate a real battle

not 1 shot of plasma = 2% damage on a building, but several shots from several units to equal that

since plasma does burn through surfaces

So you're proposing that covenant units should be more effective against buildings. 

yes, UNSC small arms bullets really have no effect on buildings

but covenant arms are plasma based and can burn through the metal 

    I suppose that the trade off should be that the covies aren't as good against infantry.

I do believe that this topic has developed itself rather thoroughly. I am glad to see that the first part of this thread has made progress on this idea. We have even witnessed a black hole eating moose join our debate and threaten to kill us all, but we kept going. This topic may still be discussed, but I would like to throw a new one in the mix.

In the demo, the warthogs couldn't shoot and move. Is this because it was early in development, or does ES not like the idea? 

Post your thoughts on either the wall or the warthog, make it clear which debate your talking about. 

James T.:

    I suppose that the trade off should be that the covies aren't as good against infantry.

 

I do believe that this topic has developed itself rather thoroughly. I am glad to see that the first part of this thread has made progress on this idea. We have even witnessed a black hole eating moose join our debate and threaten to kill us all, but we kept going. This topic may still be discussed, but I would like to throw a new one in the mix.

In the demo, the warthogs couldn't shoot and move. Is this because it was early in development, or does ES not like the idea? 

Post your thoughts on either the wall or the warthog, make it clear which debate your talking about. 

early development

and BTW the moose's name is Billy 

the covenant are way more powerful, so the only thing we have is our tactics and numbers

so be it if 300 marines have to die to take out 200 covenant

but the marines do hold there own on the ground so...