Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing - Page 2

Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
Niobium
Posts: 456
Joined: 07 Dec 2008, 02:35

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Niobium »

I build T2 metal storage very often... Makes it far easier to manage when making large eco (i.e. 1 adv fusion -> multiple)

And I also make T2 energy storages (when I dont have adv fusions), its nice for com cloak-time, reclaiming energy production (geo -> adv geo or something) etc

Keep !
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by YokoZar »

t2 metal storage: .088 cost per unit of storage
t1 metal storage: .105 cost per unit of storage

It's only 19% more efficient, and that's making the wild assumption that you need all the 10k storage it provides (which is about half the cost of a bantha).

Worse, 97% of the cost of a t1 metal storage is reclaimable, while only 80% of the t2 storage is reclaimable. This means that if you build the storage as a temporary measure and plan to reclaim it later, then the real price is:

t2 metal storage: .0175 cost per temporary unit of storage
t1 metal storage: .0030 cost per temporary unit of storage

Which makes the t1 metal storage better than the t2!
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by YokoZar »

el_matarife wrote:The hover and land transport should probably disgorge all their units if killed on land, though maybe in a damaged state.
Thank you for reminding me about the hover transports, I had forgotten them entirely. I'll add the arm bear and core turtle to the list.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by YokoZar »

Pxtl wrote:Doesn't intruder have a special deploy-on-destroy power?
It does! This is not obvious at all and would be a perfect candidate for a tip of the day

However, I tested it a bit, and I've determined that something is seriously bugged about the intruder. The thing can carry 7 reapers, however when it dies 1 will appear next to it and 6 will appear in one spot (where it stood, although if it's moving they appear in a completely random place such as about 10 tank lengths behind the intruder). This bugginess on moving death makes it completely likely that the tanks will spawn in the water when the intruder attacks, causing them to instantly die.

More worrisome is that it chokes on certain units. Loading/unloading 7 reapers worked fine, but when I gave it a pillager it refused to load any new units and couldn't unload either. Self Ding it also destroyed the reapers inside but left the single pillager in its place.
User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2381
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by REVENGE »

JAZCASH wrote:Sub transports!
Wow, you and emmanuel think alike, how surprising.
:lol:
User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2381
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by REVENGE »

neddiedrow wrote:
Pxtl wrote:Imho: ditch the L2 metal storage. Make L2 super-storage. No blast radius, stores 10000 metal and 50000 energy, lots of armor. Scale the model up a bit. Cost it to be similarly efficient to the L1 counterparts - you're paying for armour and convenience, not efficiency.
Sure, go for it. Gantry sized?
Great, now I'll remember to add T3 storage to REVELATION.
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by TheFatController »

I'll probably replace the intruders auto unload with something in Lua as it does seem a bit unpredictable and god knows what crazy hardcoded rules exist inside the engine.
imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by imbaczek »

transport unload-on-destroy is bugged in 78.2 series, but is fixed in git; try it there.
User avatar
kburts
Posts: 134
Joined: 22 Mar 2009, 00:36

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by kburts »

how about the double llt, i've never seen anyone use that
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by TheFatController »

kburts wrote:how about the double llt, i've never seen anyone use that
I use double LLTs :(
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Neddie »

I do too, they can be useful for point defense before the advent of Tier Two.
User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2381
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by REVENGE »

I don't like the way HLLTs are setup using the arm/core llt weapons. Instead, I think there should be a gadget setup telling it to either always fire at one or two targets.
User avatar
KingRaptor
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 838
Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 03:44

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by KingRaptor »

HLLTs are eleven billion times better than LLTs...
YHCIR
Posts: 190
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 23:06

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by YHCIR »

KingRaptor wrote:HLLTs are eleven billion times better than LLTs...
Double LLT is good for chicken defense and also good where you have a narrow defense line/choke point like on Folsom, especially on the narrow hills.

On DSD they are not used much, because there is enough room to just spam LLT.
Raptor
Posts: 33
Joined: 01 Feb 2009, 08:12

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Raptor »

The Beamer may be alot better, but HLLT are still nice.

2 core LLT: 1170 HP, DPS 312.5, cost 190
1 HLLT: 1500 HP, DPS 312.5, cost 209

Doesnt look that impressive, huh?
110% of the cost for 128% the HP of 2 llts, with same DPS.

That doesnt factor in one thing though:
When the 2 LLT's are at 50% health, dps will fall to 50% too. The HLLT will continue at full power.
Plus, if 2 LLTs are close to each other, the secound one will take damage from the first one exploding. Also, everything that has AOE will basically almost get double damage. Unprecise Arty that misses its original target might still hit the LLT it actually didnt aim for.

So yeah, the HLLT actually is noticeably better than the 2 LLTs, for all the reasons listed above.
Raptor
Posts: 33
Joined: 01 Feb 2009, 08:12

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Raptor »

Hm, this last post leads me straight to a unit that seems pretty darn useless: T1 Arty.

Sure, its the only T1 land unit that outranges HLTs, but it takes them almost forever to kill even a single HLT. Its even worse if the enemy is skirmishing or starts making nanoturrets in range.
I'd suggest improving accuracy, its already hard to hit stuff with arty with the regular radarwobble at t1 without targetting facilitys.
Then we'd at least have a acceptable chance at hitting some defenses with radar images - and really good chances if one uses a minelayer (or a jammer + regular con) to make a cam that got LOS to the defenses u wanna kill with arty.
Yupp - t1 arty crawl would become a viable option then.
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by JohannesH »

radarwobble doesn't matter if you aim at buildings with known locations.
User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng »

dont baaww but the HLLT really isnt great not only for the lack of reasons above, but its high BT. i can think of very few situations where I wouldnt just use 2x llt, the tiny hp bonus is not worth the bother
User avatar
manolo_
Posts: 1370
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 00:08

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by manolo_ »

YHCIR wrote: All transports need to be much faster rotating and manoeuvring, also need to be faster unloading.
and then you have the problem (like in xta) with hovertrans-com-nap (YEEEEHAAAW babbles)
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by el_matarife »

JohannesH wrote:radarwobble doesn't matter if you aim at buildings with known locations.
Yeah, if you're using T1 arty you need to bring along scout cars to suicide to get LOS occasionally. As long as you maintain constant radar coverage, there's no loss in accuracy. T1 arty is also one of those "way better in groups" units. One or two T1 arty suck, five rip right through most T1 defenses. Groups of them damage defenses faster than they can be repaired which makes a big difference, and they tend to hit nearby repairing units as an added bonus.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”