It is currently Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:07 am

All times are UTC + 9:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Failure Guide
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 341
Location: Seven
Failure Guide
For the Making of a Good and True Custom Wars

When in the Course of the development of Custom Wars, it becomes necessary for one group of posters to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with the same bad ideas time and time again, and to assume among the powers of the mods, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Deoxy entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of the nubs requires that they should declare the factors which make those ideas bad so that repeats of those same mistakes can be avoided in the future.

The word: No matter how hard you try, you will not get any units or terrain into Custom Wars. Stop trying.

In short: Despite all efforts, there has been little ( if any ) end to the ceaseless amount of “new” units and terrains which we all know will fail: Pipebashers, Md. Copters, Snipers, Mortars, T. Crafts, and their ilk.

I even like some of these ideas, but I know that they cannot succeed, and thus I would like to spare myself and these boards time and get them out of the way now.

Rather than directing nubs to the various threads of lore, from now on you can just direct them to this thread. For example, in such a situation: “Lol, wudnt it be l33t if their was an ranged Infantry in CW?” -> “*points to the Failure Guide*”. Problem solved. It’s just an idea I had. Lets see how it pans out, eh?

For newcomers: The opinions represented in this thread, though compiled by me, were at some point expressed by one or more of the most enlightened and respected members of this community, and so if you post a unit and are directed to this thread, it may be wise to heed the advice within it.

Rules of Thumb

--try not to post custom Foot Soldiers ( units which can capture, like the Infantry and the Mech ). They have never succeeded and they probably never will.
--do not post units which obsolete other units ( “a more powerful Artillery!” ).
--do not post indirect units which can move and attack in the same turn. This is not FE.
--try not to post units which drastically alter the core gameplay mechanics of Advance Wars. They might be good ideas, but we are making an AW fangame, after all. No need to fix what ain’t broken, after all.
--Oozium-like units will generally fail, as the original was never very popular. Pipe-based units and Hovercrafts will not fair particularly well either, as the Custom Wars community is even now divided on whether or not they approve of what we already have in those categories.

Units

The Sniper
( ie, an infantry unit which can attack from far away )

Snipers are the cancer which is killing CW. Luckily, they have not shown up in quite a while, a result of the diligence of Silifi and Xaif. Still, there will certainly be more in the future, and we must be prepared.
Interestingly enough, I was unable to find a good solid explanation of exactly why a Sniper fails, but you can be assured that it does. A decent portion of our community approves of such an idea, and everyone from Andy to Urusan has taken a crack at the indirect infantry. But nobody has succeeded. In most cases, the unit is too weak, and it would not be preferable over an Artillery given its price. Sometimes its too strong and ruins the Artillery. Most of the time its too expensive to be used, and it always ends up obsoleting Infantries and Mechs. And nobody likes new Infantry-type units in the first place. Still, a nice Xaif-esque explanation of why this fails couldn’t hurt ( its been a while since one was given, I see ).

The Medic
( ie, a land unit which heals other units )

At first even I was convinced that this could work, but the Xaif-man proved me wrong with flawless logic. Ground units with repair mechanisms, though often seen as a counter to CO powers with mass damage, will almost certainly fail. They either heal too much ( +2 HP ) or too little ( +1 HP ), and in the end they usually end up rendering cities useless. According to the sages of Custom Wars, the Black Boat was added to AWDS because naval battles ( and air battles over water ) were tiresome and fuel-consuming: even if your unit won, it probably wouldn’t be able to return to port with enough fuel. On land, there are cities and APCS to solve this problem ( plus land units don’t die when they go dry ), but on the seas, there are only ports, which are usually few and far apart. To remedy this, the good folks at IS added a “swimming city” of sorts: this is the function that the Black Boat serves. But the thing is, on land, we don’t need swimming cities. Because we have regular cities. Medic units will either render cities useless or be rendered useless by those very cities, and thus they cannot be balanced.

The Tank Destroyer
( ie, a tank unit with a special attack bonus against other tanks )

In real world combat, Tank Destroyers are among the most crucial units in a frontal assault. They rank up there among tanks and artillery in prominence. It would only make sense that a Tank Destroyer would fit into CW, then, right? The thing is, we thought of that. Or rather, Xaif did. The Battlecraft, although it may mislead with its hovering gimmick and generic name, happens to serve most of the functions of a Tank Destroyer in the real world. So unless the B. Craft gets axed, a Tank Destroyer would just be redundant.

The Pipebasher
( ie, a direct-attack piperunner unit – a tank on a pipe )

Pipes have transport units and ranged units, so it should only make sense that they would have standard combat units, right? But unlike the ground, the sky, and the sea, pipes are 2-dimensional. They are, by their very nature, chokepoints. And to have a unit which can easily clear up those chokepoints would discourage all players from building anything on the pipes at all. In addition, it would set up a 1-space barrier around the pipe that no enemy would want to approach ( for fear of being pummeled by the Pipebasher ), which is just kinda lame in general. Trust me on this one, as the original was, alas, my idea: it’s a no-go.

The T. Craft
( ie, a transport hover )

If it transports soldiers, its going to be outclassed by the T. Copter, the APC, and the Black Boat. If it transports all units, its going to be outclassed by the Lander and by the land units themselves, who, with the exception of their inability to cross rivers, will be faster in most any situation. Essentially, see the complaints listed under the “Cargo Plane” unit for further reference. Also, we just don’t like hovers >_<.

The Nuclear Submarine
( ie, a ranged sub )

Hey wait. What was wrong with this again? I never saw it disproved, the threads just die out. Many say they would not use it, but few people use Missiles frequently. There wouldn’t seem to be many balance issues, and we have the sprites. Hmmm…
I think I’m gonna need someone to tell me why this is a bad idea so I can in turn tell the nubs why it’s a bad idea XD.

The Md. Copter
( ie, a more powerful copter unit )

Units like these are always either too strong, in which case a Bomber will always be the better option, or too weak, in which case a regular B. Copter will do. The proper middle ground can never be found. Some argue that Bombers cannot attack Copters, while the Md. Copter could. It has also been proposed that an Md. Copter would benefit from its ability to hide within a Cruiser. However, with weakened strength, weakened movement, and weakened defense, along with its vulnerability to attacks by normal ground units, the Md. Copter is still, despite its advantages, not preferable to a Bomber.

The Cargo Plane
( ie, a flying transport which carries ground units )

Yes, they have these in real life, I know. But in AW, they don’t fit in so well.
As Frosty eloquently explained, Cargo Planes will have one of two purposes:

1 ) to transport land units over land quickly:
In most cases, however, it would be faster for the units to move from point A to point B on their own ( they all have the movement for it, after all ). Exceptions do exist, for foot soldiers and for crap units like the Missiles. But soldiers will always have APCs and there would be little purpose to add a new unit solely to transport Missiles. And in cases when the Cargo Plane WOULD be useful, it would only be because it breaks the maps, allowing Tanks, for example, to cross mountains or rivers that they were not originally meant to cross. So the Cargo Plane, in this first situation, would be either incredibly broken or incredibly useless.

or 2 ) to transport land units over seas:
This is a valid function. But we already have the Lander to do this, and there ain’t room enough in this town for both of them. Either the Lander would be made obsolete or the Cargo Plane would, and either way we all lose.

Trains
( ie, a new type of unit which travels on rails )

Trains, they’re a sweet idea, sure ( they’d be tough to sprite, though ). And they would make sense: they exist in real life and were used militarily ( sig heil ). Plus, it’d be neat to add a new unit type, and there would be all sorts of options: Indirect trains, combat trains, cargo trains, and traditional transport trains! Woops all around! However, the thing is, pipes already serve all of the functions that trains would have served ( particularly now that we have Piperails ) – sure, it makes less sense, to have pipes serve as railroads. But IS decided that that’s the way it’s gonna be, and we are trying to add to what they’ve done, not dismantle it ( well, to refrain from dismantling it as much as we can ^_^ ). Sorry.

Terrain

Terrain is a whole ‘nother story, but I’m not even gonna get into that yet. For starters, though, despite the fact that nobody can ever find a real flaw with standard terrain types, they never seem to get in. Naturalistic terrains which have slightly varied stats and which serve to enhance aesthetics ( like hills, tundras, jungle, rapids, and canyons ) just can’t garner enough approval, and properties ( cities and bases ) only have a shot if they are subtle variants of the Com. Tower ( tiny enhancements all around, like a funds multiplier or something ). Even if they are approved of, they’ll rarely be used. Your best bet, if you wish to be a terrain maker, is to make a new Black Hole invention, because they are campaign-only and thus cannot be complained about too much. Just make sure they can fit into the campaigns we have, ok?
P.S.: helipads, skyscrapers, or any buildings which repair air units will fail.
P.P.S.: watchtowers, buildings with vision, and buildings which attack will fail.

Conclusion

To all those out there who dream: don't take this as a sign that you need to give up hope. Miracles happen. Just take these factors into consideration, and try to refrain from posting units of these types unless you truly believe it to be a good idea.

The cold hard truth: no new units or terrains are going to get into CW. We've pretty much done all that we though needed doing, and even then we're not sure: some of our accepted terrains have been axed and two of our Custom Units are under reconsideration. At this stage, you've got little to no chance of getting anything in from this board.

A light in the darkness: no matter what we say, the flood of new Custom properties and units will not stop. So to those people who cause such things to happen, I say this. If you really REALLY think your idea is a good one, and you think it would greatly benefit the game, despite what we say, take a hint from the chiefs and learn some programming. Then you can mod your own unit into Custom Wars and playtest it. Maybe, when faced with the physical reality of your idea, people will be convinced, and you'd succeed. At the very least you could entertain yourself with that Custom unit / property ^_^.

Anyway...
Good luck to all and I hope this helps, at least a little bit.

Rock on…

[ peace and kudos ]


Last edited by HochDeutsch on Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:53 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 1290
Location: Back at college. ^_^
I'd like to offer a less eloquent, slightly ruder reason that these units will always fail:

We're struggling to meet a deadline. We're already up to our monocles in unbalanced COs and units. The last thing we need is even more.

_________________
Image
I'm not going to confront anybody. I was raised right--I talk about people behind their backs. It's called "manners." ~ Kathy Griffin
According to Kosheh, life is just another MMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:01 pm
Posts: 911
Location: Texas
Quote:
--do not post units which can move and attack in the same turn. This is not FE.


I'm pretty sure you meant ranged units there...

_________________
Deoxy Knight wrote:
I've had one guy say, "Yay one month anniversary"
I was like, "What are you, gay?"

Rifton wrote:
Now now, Minus, This is CW. Everything is an argument here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:13 pm
Posts: 435
Maleous wrote:
Quote:
--do not post units which can move and attack in the same turn. This is not FE.


I'm pretty sure you meant ranged units there...


No he's right. A 7000G tank moving and being able to attack in the same turn would just completely break the game.

_________________
Image

Made by kosheh. Cause I was too lazy to make my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:08 am
Posts: 11049
Location: I'd put something clever here, but you'd expect that
lol @ smurf being the one writing this

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 pm
Posts: 3761
Location: Tennessee
Tank Destroyers and Md. Copters are in AW:DoR


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 pm
Posts: 3761
Location: Tennessee
Also, you should mention mod-making in your conclusion. If someone really thinks that one of them is a really good idea, then they can make a single-unit mod and try it out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:35 am
Posts: 2787
your guide fails and is worse than juigi's awbw broken guide

_________________
CoconutTank wrote:
We should equip the Landers with catapults. That way the Landers can throw their loaded units to a nearby open space or to another Lander within 5 range.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:20 pm
Posts: 3211
What was the reason for re-opening the Custom Unit forum again?

_________________
Image
Image
CCO Brains
CCO Kaori & Kaoru
Motoko siggie stolen from sylvia liu ^^


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 pm
Posts: 3761
Location: Tennessee
monkymeet wrote:
What was the reason for re-opening the Custom Unit forum again?
Putting the inevitable threads that will pop up about new unit ideas anyway in one easy to ignore forum instead of having them clog up a more useful forum like features?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:08 am
Posts: 11049
Location: I'd put something clever here, but you'd expect that
please edit smurf's post so it says the following:

"You will not get in a unit or a terrain."
"Do not try."

feel free to add "the current custom units are wonky and lame too" if you like

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 341
Location: Seven
Well I did say that in the "cold hard truth" part...
And like urusan said, we can just ignore this forum.
I tend not to because I still hold out hope..............
*cough*

[ and the current Custom Units are kind of wonky :( ]

Edit*
I added the Deoxy Clause and offered some hope a la urusan by proposing a user-mod ( of course, they'd have to learn the programming and make the sprites, but its something to hope for... ).

[[ now we'll have 50 or 60 Sniper mods though v_v ]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:01 pm
Posts: 911
Location: Texas
HochDeutsch wrote:
Well I did say that in the "cold hard truth" part...
And like urusan said, we can just ignore this forum.
I tend not to because I still hold out hope..............
*cough*

[ and the current Custom Units are kind of wonky :( ]

Edit*
I added the Deoxy Clause and offered some hope a la urusan by proposing a user-mod ( of course, they'd have to learn the programming and make the sprites, but its something to hope for... ).

[[ now we'll have 50 or 60 Sniper mods though v_v ]


There's nothing wrong with the destroyer...

_________________
Deoxy Knight wrote:
I've had one guy say, "Yay one month anniversary"
I was like, "What are you, gay?"

Rifton wrote:
Now now, Minus, This is CW. Everything is an argument here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 341
Location: Seven
Hmmm...
I guess that is one of our better ones.
But there was that whole controversy with the stolen sprite and...
Eh.
No, no, you're correct. That was a decent addition overall.

And the Tank Destroyer aspect of the Battlecraft isn't bad.

[ and I would argue for the Shuttlerunner 8) XD ]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:14 am
Posts: 2228
Location: DE
HochDeutsch wrote:
[[ now we'll have 50 or 60 Sniper mods though v_v ]

I think most people would give up when they find out they need to write code and use a compiler.

_________________
urusan wrote:
Do what Fugue said


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group