#Money makers should be buffed
55 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
Maybe they're intended for survival
Irrelevant they could have a different version for PvP
They could just make the ultimate money maker the standard one for PvP
But money makers should be high risk high reward right now they are high risk low reward
I don't think they can mess around with systems like that so easily
I said the same thing about airmechs having stat bonuses like wastelands but not in pvp but they said they couldnt do it
Then just buff them it may make survival way easier but still
Fair enough. Because there's a credit cap of 1 mil or something it becomes a non-issue after a while and survival only really gets harder if you're in later waves
Yeah
You missing one big thing, money makers making money for all players in team
and for realy hight risk reward u can use vault, if u recycling it after 5 mins u taking 60000 credits
Oh right yeah I would have thought the amount would be split
Ohhh I see so in multiplayer it's great?
idk
in 2v2 in good team Always one flanker
that mean when u see neo/striker/saucer u just not building it
btw discuss about money makers was yet, check forum-balance old
I'm of the opinion they should pay for themselves In about 1 minute due to being targetable
Or like a minute 30
2 minutes 20 seconds to start to profit is bad
This is true, moneymaker is mostly good in team games and not in 1v1. In 1v1, it can deliver results but only if the player is extremely good at offense and keeps them alive, otherwise they become a detriment that could have been put into other units early game. Buffing moneymakers too much runs the risk of giving them a snowball effect which in turn would make them obnoxious and take no skill to utilize.
A good player will not need to compensate more units towards a battle because he/she knows how to juggle unit HP, ranges and targeting aggro efficiently, and can keep the opponents attention for the entire duration that the Moneymakers are trying to make up their value.
Some maps also have more total socket slots which allow them to be viable for moneymaker spam, especially in a 2v2 if you have one player contribute to that and the other player worry more about immediate forces. Chasm for example... has a lot of slots on your nearby bases. But more moneymakers also means more chances they'll get harassed.
A small buff would be welcome, but for the most part Moneymakers are as it is medium-risk, medium-reward
You also have to account for the fact that, yes, they make up their worth within 140 seconds, but you have to also think about the next increments of 140 seconds after that. Two minutes go by really quickly in battles, so theoretically you're investing in them to try to gain a long-term advantage.
Again why they are better in 2v2 than 1v1, because both players can protect them much easier AND the money is given to both players, increasing total resources more than what one player only provides.
Reducing the build cost could do it?
I think having it be like twice as fast would be fair
Or yeah half the build cost that actually seems better
Since they would scale less while being less investment
Bot spawners single handedly won me a super long game against my cousin but I don't think money makers are nearly as good as bot spawners
no point
maybe small bonus like 5 or 10%
but twice as fast just encourages people to make moneymakers instead of actually play the game
moneymaker is a noob tool
not a point in making it competitively viable outside of niche scenarios
To be honest I'm kinda over it as theirs no way to comfortably control units anyways so I just miss airmech strike
Not to be rude or can
You do make a good point for balance
have you actually used a stop watch to time this? money makers also give an additional money income every X amount of time on top of the boost to the main income
Not to argue the other points but Strike definitely did not have more people ingame. In PvP maybe, because they were forced into it, but Survival and Coop have been very popular since they were brought back.
As for balance, as long as it doesn't hurt PvE there's nothing off limits. Most things are argued about by the balance council and come to a standstill. Maybe we just need to have a rotating balance Czar who has more authority to change things, but they have a limited time with that power.
It was, but the player count overall tanked, no one bought Wastelands (people said they'd pay for PvE and campaign, but extremely few did). Almost killed the company, and made us switch to contract work instead of focusing on games.
But yes there were more people playing PvP because they had no choice, just overall players were down, and retention of new players tanked.
I mean yeah getting StarCraft 2 or Call of Duty on sale is a much better deal. For an indie game team it's what we could do. I know I've paid more for a lot less, it is what it is.
Not really cool, and not our own work. But it's reliable income.
Depends what someone values. Plenty of games have unlimited play. AirMech's key feature is it's unique, probably very difficult to replicate the feel in a non-custom engine. But RTS is inherently a niche genre. And mechs are less popular than fantasy. It's not a wise choice for a game to make because of the relatively small addressable userbase, but it's a passion project of mine because of my childhood love of Herzog Zwei.