NOTA 1.82 - Page 62

NOTA 1.82

Moderators: smartie, Thor, PepeAmpere, Moderators, Content Developer

User avatar
Thor
NOTA Developer
Posts: 291
Joined: 05 Mar 2006, 10:26

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by Thor »

The thing I like about arty is it gives players a choice in late t1 when the front lines have begun to lock up, of whether to continue to invest in t1 and try to gain an advantage in the short term, or to tech up. Mobile arty gets outmoded by t2 quite easily, it can only advance slowly, it can be countered by guardians, unlike say thud spam, and it's also quite risky in the long term. They aren't self sufficient and it's easy to get in a bad situation and lose them all. That said it is true enough that they are boring to use.
thelawenforcer
Posts: 106
Joined: 20 Nov 2008, 18:00

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by thelawenforcer »

the thing is that it takes forever to get to t2 in nota. it means that alot of the time, front lines turn into veh arty battles which is really a shame... because of their range, it also removes the aspect that i love about nota, the battle tactics and the manouevering your armies into good positions.

if i was a nota dev, here is what i would do... 1. change the econ system into something where metal income is dependant on energy income. the more energy you produce, the more metal you produce. kind of like the CA/ZK system but simplified. it would allow players to tech more organically rather than having to completely cut almost all production for 8 or so minutes before they even have the beginnings of a t2 econ and unit production.
2. i would remove the massively ranged static land units and defenses. they just ruin everything i love about nota, which is all about movements of your armies on a large scale.


of course this is just me, but the best games of nota i've played have been the games where there is a distinct lack of such units, where its all been about pushes, position, unit compositions in certain places, big breakthroughs, and flanks, all things that nota is probably the only mod that can really allow for such battlefield tactics. the worst games have been when they ultra high range units have been prevalent. the game becomes static and active battleground tactics become largely irrelevant...
nightcold
Posts: 179
Joined: 03 Dec 2009, 05:47

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by nightcold »

i am not cool with the mm economy that law is proposing...a player's income should be reflected in the amount of territory he controls(seeing that he needs more metal to hold it)....mm economy will kill off alot of the tactics in nota....if nota turns into ba/grts i wil prob drop it

kbot fights are usually very decisive, without static def games can be over quite fast...and since law is perpahs the best at kbot fights...he will prob win everyone

also, t2 in nota is not that significant....thuds and arty can already hold thier own to t2 very well...i dont think t2 justifies how good arty is right now..if i was nota dev i would increase cost/less hp/less splash

i personally think games should be more about compositions... imo thuds being the only backbone units rlly ruins that...peewee should do better on the front lines (more hp/less splash dmg when they die)....shorter ranged units can't even hold thier own when they actually reach longer ranged units....they are useless...thuds dont have to even try to manuver away from peewees cause they can hardly hurt them

and yes, nota is be best game/mod i have played when it comes to battel field tactics
User avatar
Thor
NOTA Developer
Posts: 291
Joined: 05 Mar 2006, 10:26

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by Thor »

I like the simplicity of the current economy, it's fairly easy to estimate an opponent's income based on the amount of territory they hold.

Good point about artillery limiting tactical choices, I think that's true. We've made some experimental balance changes for the next version, which we could probably release today. Artillery armor piercing is lowered quite a bit. Medium tanks have higher area of effect, accuracy and range, but with a little lower speed and armor piercing, the idea being that they stack more effectively in larger scale battles with kbots.
thelawenforcer
Posts: 106
Joined: 20 Nov 2008, 18:00

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by thelawenforcer »

i dont think its the guessing size of someones economy that is the problem, but more the fact that the bridge between t1 and t2 econ is massive, takes loads of time, and is expensive as hell. I think it would be better to see something a bit more progressive, so that instead of having to cut all production for almost 10 mins to be able to get a t2 econ up (t2 tower, t2 con, mexes, energy and labs).

what i like about ZK (more energy = more metal income) is that it forces you to keep your macro up. In nota atm, there seems to come a stage when you have the energy income you need for t1, and then u just stop building stuff, until you decide to tech, when you have to build everything all of a sudden.

as for the vehicles change, sounds interesting, could have done with the same speed though, they arent really that fast at the moment anyway.
Godde
Posts: 268
Joined: 29 Mar 2010, 17:54

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by Godde »

thelawenforcer wrote:if i was a nota dev, here is what i would do... 1. change the econ system into something where metal income is dependant on energy income. the more energy you produce, the more metal you produce. kind of like the CA/ZK system but simplified. it would allow players to tech more organically rather than having to completely cut almost all production for 8 or so minutes before they even have the beginnings of a t2 econ and unit production.
Gameplay wise, how is that any different from using metal makers? Is your suggestion to buff the metal maker economy so that it is easier to transition into tech 2?
thelawenforcer wrote:2. i would remove the massively ranged static land units and defenses. they just ruin everything i love about nota, which is all about movements of your armies on a large scale.
That would leave arm vehicles completly bummed againt rockos and storms. The core got the Leveler but a combination of air and ground units cuts through a leveler force like a knife through butter.
nightcold wrote:kbot fights are usually very decisive, without static def games can be over quite fast...and since law is perpahs the best at kbot fights...he will prob win everyone
I consider defence as a buffer which I only use if I got my army elsewhere and the enemy is close to my base. If you are pushed back to your base you are generally behind and will usually lose the game in a 1v1. Defences are in my opinion only worth building on highground. On flat ground it's to risky that they are gonna get overrun, avoided or outranged.
I use guardians mostly as anti-artillery or area denial. A guardian can't usually justify it's cost against kbots and vehicles unless you place it on a hill and if you have something else to hold the enemy units off but then the enemy might just attack your ally instead of attacking against your defences.
nightcold wrote:also, t2 in nota is not that significant....thuds and arty can already hold thier own to t2 very well...i dont think t2 justifies how good arty is right now..if i was nota dev i would increase cost/less hp/less splash
T2 assets are usually more compact and have better mobility. For example dominator, oddity, maverick, fido, raptor, indian, HAK, warrior, greyhound. If their advantage of mobility is neglected they aren't much better than thuds and artillery unless you use jammers with them. The heavy stuff, like goliaths, bulldogs, crabes, sumos and cans, are very slow and have to wade through lines of rockos and hammers before they can reach the artillery meaning that the artillery should have time to pull back.
Artillery does like 141 damage to heavy armor but it does like 220 damage to heavy tanks if they hit them from the top so moving slowly against a larger mass of artillery usually hurts quite abit.
nightcold wrote:i personally think games should be more about compositions... imo thuds being the only backbone units rlly ruins that...peewee should do better on the front lines (more hp/less splash dmg when they die)....shorter ranged units can't even hold thier own when they actually reach longer ranged units....they are useless...thuds dont have to even try to manouver away from peewees cause they can hardly hurt them

and yes, nota is be best game/mod i have played when it comes to battel field tactics
NOTA is usually alot about unit compositions. Having the right unit combination at the right time in the right terrain can make a huge difference. Now thuds are one of the most versatile early game units that are hugely benefited by having the highground. Spamming just thuds are rarely is a good option as there are unit combinations that beat pure thud spam.
I use peewees and AKs early in combination with my thuds and hammers early if I wanna take a hill position. I use the AKs to draw fire and dodge it while my thuds do the damage and the faster speed of AKs and Peewees means that ill have more stuff than my enemy spamming hammers only. If the enemy is making peewees I can use my thuds as shields so they take most of the damage while my low HP AKs can hit the fast moving peewees much more reliably.
Although against larger numbers of thuds, peewees don't stack well at all and have a really hard time getting to the hammers and the high build time means that you'll need an extra lab in order to keep up with the production.
Thor wrote:I like the simplicity of the current economy, it's fairly easy to estimate an opponent's income based on the amount of territory they hold.

Good point about artillery limiting tactical choices, I think that's true. We've made some experimental balance changes for the next version, which we could probably release today. Artillery armor piercing is lowered quite a bit. Medium tanks have higher area of effect, accuracy and range, but with a little lower speed and armor piercing, the idea being that they stack more effectively in larger scale battles with kbots.
Less artillery piercing sounds interesting. I think that peewees and AKs could need some extra HP while perhaps getting a little slower speed. Flash and Instigators would still kill them easily with a little micro.
nightcold
Posts: 179
Joined: 03 Dec 2009, 05:47

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by nightcold »

@Godde

about t2...in late game the battel field is just soo cramed that the mobility t2 has is rarely effective.... also, a squad of well microed maverick literally clears out thuds and other t1 kbots like a LAWnmower(:P)

thuds are more than just versatile, they dominate....they only become ineffective late late game(when the game becomes all about superwepons and ultra heavy units)....only early composition that can somewhat stand up 2 thuds are ones that include arty and/or air, all other none-arty ground units are basicly useless

IMO peewee/ak need double the hp and scaled up a bit more

at law, lets plz not make t2 any more accessible than it already is....you can play ba if you want a tec fest (u can just camp in game all game and win, actually if you dont camp in base you can not win)
thelawenforcer
Posts: 106
Joined: 20 Nov 2008, 18:00

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by thelawenforcer »

Image

this is a problem imo, and its the same in BA. in the early game to late mid game, players only macro to a certain point, beyond which its no longer required. there for when you do decide to tech (which costs butt loads of metal) your forced to a)cut your production to be able to afford the t2 tower and moho con and then b) have to spend loads of metal on energy to for the build power for the mexes and labs.

i think a more gradual and steady income curve could be better, as long as u keep macroing.

rather than a straight energy->metal conversion, what about energy providing a certain multiplier to your mexes, that way, having more mexes is always better. this way, macroing throughout the game is important, allowing you a)to build up the energy supply you need to tech, and b) giving you additional income to tech with or make more units with.
User avatar
PicassoCT
Journeywar Developer & Mapper
Posts: 10450
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 21:12

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by PicassoCT »

Suicidal fleabomb running for my thuds?
nightcold
Posts: 179
Joined: 03 Dec 2009, 05:47

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by nightcold »

thelawenforcer wrote:Image

this is a problem imo, and its the same in BA. in the early game to late mid game, players only macro to a certain point, beyond which its no longer required. there for when you do decide to tech (which costs butt loads of metal) your forced to a)cut your production to be able to afford the t2 tower and moho con and then b) have to spend loads of metal on energy to for the build power for the mexes and labs.

i think a more gradual and steady income curve could be better, as long as u keep macroing.

rather than a straight energy->metal conversion, what about energy providing a certain multiplier to your mexes, that way, having more mexes is always better. this way, macroing throughout the game is important, allowing you a)to build up the energy supply you need to tech, and b) giving you additional income to tech with or make more units with.
tec-ing should be a risk.....not an organic and costless part of the game....

tecing should put u at a huge advantage on the short term.....also, this keeps tecing something that is hard to reach even in big team games...
User avatar
Thor
NOTA Developer
Posts: 291
Joined: 05 Mar 2006, 10:26

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by Thor »

Godde wrote: I think that peewees and AKs could need some extra HP while perhaps getting a little slower speed. Flash and Instigators would still kill them easily with a little micro.
This seems like a good idea to me. I tried giving 20% more hp (comes out to 367 hp on an ak I think) with a small speed reduction and tested them vs thuds. They do a little better. I didn't try them vs rocket kbots, I wonder if they can survive two rocket hits now. When the thud spam reaches a certain critical mass I don't think the extra hp really makes much of a difference as there is so much overkill going on. What do you think about toning down the firepower on thuds/hammers? I've been playing around with the idea of a 5-10% increase in reload time.
thelawenforcer wrote:Image

this is a problem imo, and its the same in BA. in the early game to late mid game, players only macro to a certain point, beyond which its no longer required. there for when you do decide to tech (which costs butt loads of metal) your forced to a)cut your production to be able to afford the t2 tower and moho con and then b) have to spend loads of metal on energy to for the build power for the mexes and labs.

i think a more gradual and steady income curve could be better, as long as u keep macroing.

rather than a straight energy->metal conversion, what about energy providing a certain multiplier to your mexes, that way, having more mexes is always better. this way, macroing throughout the game is important, allowing you a)to build up the energy supply you need to tech, and b) giving you additional income to tech with or make more units with.
I see what you're getting at, but like Nightcold said, should teching really be organic? What's wrong with it being risky? Is it that you feel the pace of the game slows too much because of all the resources being spent on teching?
Godde
Posts: 268
Joined: 29 Mar 2010, 17:54

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by Godde »

nightcold wrote:tecing should put u at a huge advantage on the short term.....also, this keeps tecing something that is hard to reach even in big team games...
You meant long term right? T2 is obviously better in the long term having more manouvarable and/or more compact units and the moho mexes. But it takes quite a while before t2 can make up for the 4000-8000 metal spent on t2 units and/or moho mexes.
I'd say that the advantage of teching is based on maps and what strategies the players play. When on Moon Quartet remake(i mean the big 20x20 moon map) teching is usually ill advised as the same amount of metal spent on units can easily win you a few mexes. I feel that it generally is time to tech when the positions start to get locked and that metal spent on attacking units isn't necessarily gonna make a big difference. I use it when I am in the lead to get even more ahead. I use when I am behind when I think I can defend and outtech/outeco my enemy.
nightcold wrote:@Godde

about t2...in late game the battel field is just soo cramed that the mobility t2 has is rarely effective.... also, a squad of well microed maverick literally clears out thuds and other t1 kbots like a LAWnmower(:P)
Sure. If you pull them away once they are too damaged so that they can autoregenarate their health they can be worth it but mavericks are rather fragile so air can pick them off pretty easily. Thats why I prefer raptors instead. They got alot more health and are faster.
Look at emain macha. You basically wanna get mohos and t2 as fast possible as you can get away with as going upwards against thuds and artillery are really disadvantageous.
nightcold wrote:IMO peewee/ak need double the hp and scaled up a bit more
Scale their price up aswell? That will just make them like gator/flash except with good slope tolerance.
Thor wrote:What do you think about toning down the firepower on thuds/hammers? I've been playing around with the idea of a 5-10% increase in reload time.
5-10% propably makes the early game a little bit more dynamic. Hammers and thuds will be profiled more for bumpy and hilly terrain and in combination with stronger peewees and medium tanks you should have more options in the start of the game where you can choose to take an hill with AKs/Peewees while they can't really benefit from it like thuds and hammers do. So obviously you wanna get thuds and hammers on the hills as usual while they generally are abit worse on even footing.
thelawenforcer
Posts: 106
Joined: 20 Nov 2008, 18:00

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by thelawenforcer »

Thor wrote: I see what you're getting at, but like Nightcold said, should teching really be organic? What's wrong with it being risky? Is it that you feel the pace of the game slows too much because of all the resources being spent on teching?
its not that it slows down, but that it almost stops. you can no longer afford to push because you cant replace lost units, and teching takes ages.

your sinking atleast 10k into getting a t2 econ going, t2 tower, moho con, mexes, energy and labs. now that i think about it, 15k would be a more reasonable estimate. this is a huge amount when having a +20m metal income is the norm.

the reason i think what i suggest is a decent idea is because a)it adds a skill and thing you have to focus on -> continuing to expand your energy production. This also helps reduce the costs when you do decide to tech.

teching will remain risky, because the energy multiplier system just gives you more metal, which you can then spend on more units if you want...
nightcold
Posts: 179
Joined: 03 Dec 2009, 05:47

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by nightcold »

i mean to say, "tecing should put u at a huge disadvantage on the short term"
thelawenforcer wrote:
Thor wrote: I see what you're getting at, but like Nightcold said, should teching really be organic? What's wrong with it being risky? Is it that you feel the pace of the game slows too much because of all the resources being spent on teching?
its not that it slows down, but that it almost stops. you can no longer afford to push because you cant replace lost units, and teching takes ages.

your sinking atleast 10k into getting a t2 econ going, t2 tower, moho con, mexes, energy and labs. now that i think about it, 15k would be a more reasonable estimate. this is a huge amount when having a +20m metal income is the norm.

the reason i think what i suggest is a decent idea is because a)it adds a skill and thing you have to focus on -> continuing to expand your energy production. This also helps reduce the costs when you do decide to tech.

teching will remain risky, because the energy multiplier system just gives you more metal, which you can then spend on more units if you want...
i'am gana be honest.....some of the stuff here dose not make sense...i just dont buy your arguemnts man....

i dont see what this has to do with skill.....also, nota is already a very very complicated game(soo complicated that even the best players have not fully mastered the t2/late game stuff). we dont need to add anymore "skill related things"

what ur are proposing is more or less by definition asking to making tec-ing much more easier/more cost effective/faster/orgainc

if you have a problem with how tecing is as of now in the game....change up ur tactics a bit....what i do instead of just purly cutting off prodution is.....make the tower when i get some spare metal or win a mojor battel.....then i dont tuch the tower, and i keep producing units for a while....then when i win another battel/or get extra metal i make the moho maker...after that i start makeing moho and i will start to assiting him/if if i get spair metal or i have enough moho-mines already up


i would personly not bother with the flash vs peewee thing....rarly happens in game(and when it dose it is super early game, hence makes no diffrence in game)....and chances are flash can still rape peewee even with the extra hp....if it is a problem then we make flashes even faster...peewee speed is fine as is(imo)...

makeing reload speed for hammer sounds brilliant

another aternative to thuds might be reapers, just give them a bit more range hp and dmg.....

i would also like to see adv-inf to get more range to battel thuds a but better

imo, the mobile com's dgun need more range....cant rlly hit anything with how short it is now, seeing how much E it costs......
User avatar
Thor
NOTA Developer
Posts: 291
Joined: 05 Mar 2006, 10:26

Re: NOTA 1.64

Post by Thor »

thelawenforcer wrote: its not that it slows down, but that it almost stops. you can no longer afford to push because you cant replace lost units, and teching takes ages.

your sinking atleast 10k into getting a t2 econ going, t2 tower, moho con, mexes, energy and labs. now that i think about it, 15k would be a more reasonable estimate. this is a huge amount when having a +20m metal income is the norm.

the reason i think what i suggest is a decent idea is because a)it adds a skill and thing you have to focus on -> continuing to expand your energy production. This also helps reduce the costs when you do decide to tech.

teching will remain risky, because the energy multiplier system just gives you more metal, which you can then spend on more units if you want...
I do know what you mean about the pace of the game stopping when both players decide to tech in an evenly matched game. 15 K seems a little high to me though. If you're talking about the cost of upgrading all your mines to mohos then that might be about right. I'd put the minimum investment to tech at around 7-8K. 1600 for tower, 2000 for moho builder, 1400 for energy, and then 850 per moho mine. If you immediately want a t2 lab, add another 1200.

That said, I'm not trying to deny that it is very expensive to tech. It seems to me it should be that way, with how mohos are such a massive improvement. They have to be hard to access or territory will hardly be worth fighting over in a lot of team games.

I think the balance changes we're working on are going to make the game less static. I think the prevalence of arty in the current version lends itself to the sort of passive standoff that results in both sides cutting unit production in order to tech.
nightcold wrote:i would personly not bother with the flash vs peewee thing....rarly happens in game(and when it dose it is super early game, hence makes no diffrence in game)....and chances are flash can still rape peewee even with the extra hp....if it is a problem then we make flashes even faster...peewee speed is fine as is(imo)...

makeing reload speed for hammer sounds brilliant

another aternative to thuds might be reapers, just give them a bit more range hp and dmg.....

i would also like to see adv-inf to get more range to battel thuds a but better

imo, the mobile com's dgun need more range....cant rlly hit anything with how short it is now, seeing how much E it costs......
I'm currently testing +30% hp on peewee/ak, with -10% speed and a little less dmg to armor also, and I think it's a really good change. They're definitely much more capable of holding their own against thuds or rocket kbots. It is a large increase in hp, but I don't think it will lead to boring peewee spam. They're still very vulnerable to light tanks, so that will give those more of a purpose too, and ultimately they still have short range and won't scale super well in large battles. I think it will lead to much more unit variation in armies, like levelers and zeuses for example. We'll probably have the new version up tomorrow or Friday. I'm really curious to see how it actually plays.

I think reapers might be slightly more useful next version due to the tank, kbot, and arty changes.

Warriors are pretty awesome against thuds already if you have raptors or something to draw their fire.

Mobile com isn't really supposed to be a combat unit first and foremost. I wouldn't want to increase the range because it would make it easier to pull off suicide-dgun-against-command-tower-sneak-attacks. Not that that isn't a valid strategy, it just shouldn't be too easy.
User avatar
Thor
NOTA Developer
Posts: 291
Joined: 05 Mar 2006, 10:26

Re: NOTA 1.65

Post by Thor »

Here's the new version. A lot of experimental balance changes. http://springfiles.com/spring/games/nota-27

Changelog:

v1.65

-Peewee, A.K. hitpoints increased 30%; speed decreased 15%; damage to armor decreased
-Medium tank accuracy, area of effect increased; range increased from 420 to 450; speed decreased 10%; Damage to armor lowered to 80% medium, 50% heavy
-Thud, Hammer reload time increased 10%
-Flash range increased to 310; Damage to light units and buildings decreased 15%
-Mobile artillery damage to armor lowered from 80% medium, 50% heavy to 60% medium, 35% heavy
-Arm railgun cruiser reload time increased 10%
-Core Osprey Interceptor firepower improved
-Arm Blade Interceptor firepower slightly improved
-Anti-sub hovercraft speed increased about 7%
-Arm Pod range decreased from 850 to 800
-Arm Flea size increased 20%
-Spacebug Insane difficulty made slightly easier (can still be made harder by adding extra bots)
Godde
Posts: 268
Joined: 29 Mar 2010, 17:54

Re: NOTA 1.65

Post by Godde »

Thor wrote: -Flash range increased to 310; Damage to light units and buildings decreased 15%
That makes Flashes and instigators pretty much the same unit except that Flash are slightly superior vs Instigators 1v1 in my testing. Are instigators different in any other way?
Units being pretty much the same(stumpy-raider, hammer-thud) is not uncommon but is it necessary in this case to reduce faction diversity? Is it done because flash should be better against peewees and AKs?
Godde
Posts: 268
Joined: 29 Mar 2010, 17:54

NOTA 1.64 Bugs

Post by Godde »

Here is me beating Insane AI. Alone it gets alot easier as less burrows spawn and therefore less bugs. Aslong as you can kill the burrows the game the game gets pretty easy. The last 20 minutes before the queen was a cakewalk and I were only forced to kill 1 Crawler the entire game i think.
The difference between killing burrows and not killing them is huge as a successful standing army can decrease the numbers of burrows very fast and prevent the bugs from getting Crawlers, Ultras and Tankers while also destroying the artillery.
20110311_160609_DeltaSiege_Island_8_Way_0.82.7.sdf
1 vs 1 Insane bug
NOTA 1.64
(1.2 MiB) Downloaded 26 times
Here I were pretty successful at killing burrows on my side but my allies weren't that successful and got most of the bugs against them and alot of crawlers. I should propably have supported them more but I tried to kill burrows instead. Only Pyros worked out pretty well for a long time. In the end I noticed that my +100 income spent into t1 kbots wasn't good enough against the large number of Ultras coming my way. T2 kbots would propably have been good and a silo to nuke the burrows. And the queen trampled my poor kbots :cry:.
20110311_202001_Moon Quartet Remake_0.82.7.sdf
4 vs 1 Insane bug
NOTA 1.64
(2.98 MiB) Downloaded 53 times
Bugs/Issues:
I got huge lag around 40 minutes. It weren't that many units around then and the unit limit was set to 500 so you might wanna check what caused the lag. Maybe bugs reaching the unit limit caused the lag.
There were also some lua errors.
Godde
Posts: 268
Joined: 29 Mar 2010, 17:54

NOTA 1.65 spacebugs

Post by Godde »

Pyro for the win 8)

I successfully cleared out all burrows around the 20 minute mark. After that it was easy peasy.
Attachments
20110312_112914_Moon Quartet Remake_0.82.7.sdf
1 v 1 Insane bug
NOTA 1.65
(1.29 MiB) Downloaded 37 times
User avatar
Thor
NOTA Developer
Posts: 291
Joined: 05 Mar 2006, 10:26

Re: NOTA 1.65

Post by Thor »

Godde wrote:
Thor wrote: -Flash range increased to 310; Damage to light units and buildings decreased 15%
That makes Flashes and instigators pretty much the same unit except that Flash are slightly superior vs Instigators 1v1 in my testing. Are instigators different in any other way?
Units being pretty much the same(stumpy-raider, hammer-thud) is not uncommon but is it necessary in this case to reduce faction diversity? Is it done because flash should be better against peewees and AKs?
It was done because flashes were much worse than gators vs other tanks. This was always true but with the medium tanks being changed it would've put arm at a definite disadvantage at the beginning of a comet catcher type vehicle map. At the same time they were much better swarming large groups of kbots. With the hp increase peewees are way better vs rocket kbots and so in my testing it was very difficult to fight peewees and flashes together.

Thanks for the replays of the spacebugs. It's very difficult to balance it so that killing burrows is worth your while without making it possible to dominate against the bugs at times. I'm not a fan of autobalancing mechanisms that make is so the difficulty is about the same each game no matter how well you play. But maybe the bugs do need to improve their defenses somehow if they start losing a lot of burrows.
Post Reply

Return to “NOTA”