NOTA 1.82 - Page 64

NOTA 1.82

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

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

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Thor » 14 May 2011, 05:35

1.66 released! Get it here: http://springfiles.com/spring/games/nota-28

Some fairly big nerfs to air. We'll see how it plays I guess.

Changelog:

-Hellfish cost increased 20%; Bomb area of effect decreased 20%; damage to ships decreased 10%
-Toadfoot hitpoints decreased 15%
-Vashp hitpoints decreased 15%
-Napalm bomber cost increased 10%
-Flying Wing cost increased 10%
-Stationary Flak gun accuracy significantly improved, but ability to hit fast moving targets lowered
-Strategic bomber hitsphere size increased
-Flying Fortress hitpoints increased from 5800 to 8000
-Razorback's ability to lead moving targets improved
-Crusader destroyer cost increased 5%; hitbox size increased; gun accuracy decreased; turnrate increased
-Excalibur and Enforcer destroyer turnrate increased
-Black Hydra wiggly behavior fixed; hitbox size increased to fix problem where some weapons were shooting over it
-EMP Mine area of effect greatly increased; it also jams radar in the area it was detonated; cost increased
-Increased the build distance on all construction units
-Zeus has new icon
-In spacebugs, the bugs now have a squad of spitters defending hives in the early game
-Spitters appear sooner on Insane difficulty
0 x

Draven
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 15:25

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Draven » 14 May 2011, 15:41

Hellfish, Vashp, Napalm, Flying Wing nerf sure. But whats with the toad foot nerf. Its slow building and over priced. I have never seen it dominate games in any way. Like wise why nerf strat bombers by making flak better and there hit box bigger. Again this unit is mostly only used to finish coms once the games won anyway. As its almost always not cost affective to bomb enemy fac's and the like, coz once u make one run u know enemy flack and fighter screen just wheres u down too much to make boming facs worth it. Now it seems they wont even need fights just flack will where bombers down. Some people have said flack to weak in the past but its not very costly and plenty can be built cheap. meh just my 2c.

edit: infact i dont think hellfish need a hp nerf at all. you loose almost all of them on all but completely undeffended targets. Infact I have myself lost many to just thuds/hammers when the dam things are trying to gain hight coz thuds/hammers are on hills. They need a build time nerf i think, so you need more labs to build an affective force. As it is one lab can produce quite a force and 2 can build heaps! Much unlike other bombers.

On another note. MAKE CARRIERS BUILD SEA PLANES!!!! Wow what an idea nightcold! You take 2 things that are never built (carriers and seaplane lab/sea planes) and fix two problems in one! And it makes sea more diverse! So not two but infact 3 wins! If you dont try this i think your crazy!
Last edited by Draven on 14 May 2011, 16:39, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

==Troy==
Posts: 376
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 15:55

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by ==Troy== » 14 May 2011, 16:10

try to use strat bombers early on to bomb geothermals/fusions... you only need 3-4 of them +1 per 2 flaks up to 8 flaks.

Without getting early flak/fighters, and a lot of them, the only other option is to spam solars/wind.
0 x

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

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Thor » 14 May 2011, 16:52

The Toadfoot nerf may have been more than was necessary.

Flak was never really a useful way to defend against strategic bombers in my experience.

I like the idea of the carriers building seaplanes as well. It's more a matter of actually doing it. I'm not sure how that could be done. Does spring allow mobile factories?
0 x

Draven
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 15:25

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Draven » 14 May 2011, 16:53

==Troy== wrote:try to use strat bombers early on to bomb geothermals/fusions... you only need 3-4 of them +1 per 2 flaks up to 8 flaks.

Without getting early flak/fighters, and a lot of them, the only other option is to spam solars/wind.
If you start air (to do said early bombing) you give up M and if u dont have a team mate to hide behind what little eco you have will be just as easily raided. Infact if u dont have an enemy to hide behind and u start air with stats you will just plain loose (as it should be). And like you said it only takes 8 flak to start really hurting bombers as it is (so whats it going to be like now with a double nerf)!
0 x

Draven
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 15:25

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Draven » 14 May 2011, 17:07

Thor wrote:The Toadfoot nerf may have been more than was necessary.

Flak was never really a useful way to defend against strategic bombers in my experience.

I like the idea of the carriers building seaplanes as well. It's more a matter of actually doing it. I'm not sure how that could be done. Does spring allow mobile factories?
Hmm I hope it can have mobile facs. Maybe at worst it could build them on the sea floor.

As for flak not useful to defend agaist bombers? Well if defend means stoping the attack then no its not thak good. Its more to just throw the cost effectiveness of an attack into question. Fighters are what is and SHOULD be needed to effectively counter bombers strategic or otherwise! I firmly FIRMLY FIRMLY believe to have air superiority you need well.......... air superiority! If clumps of stat bomber start getting shot down by flak and you really dont need fighters to counter them I think thats a huge step back for NOTA. Lets not forget how expensive strat bombers are. Not just the bombers themselfs but the infostructure needed to support them!
0 x

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

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Thor » 14 May 2011, 18:41

t2 strategic bombers should still hold up pretty well against flak. I expect flak without fighters will still be inadequate to stop an attack. Also keep in mind that while flak had its accuracy increased, it is also quite a bit worse against faster units like vashps and fighters than in last version.
0 x

==Troy==
Posts: 376
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 15:55

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by ==Troy== » 14 May 2011, 19:25

Draven, although I understand your conservatism (heh, I am not extremely happy with air being nerfed either). I have to say that an early 2-3 strats, instead of ground attack planes can be devastating to the opponent's economy, or factories. And you have to have concentrated 8 flak battery, meaning that
1) all of your buildings are near it
2) you are vulnerable to ground attack planes (bigger games in this case)
3) and you spend more metal on flaks than your opponent on strat bombers. (add in the damage that the bombers cause)
4) you need WAY more flak to not let the bombers drop even a single load (i.e. you can still send suicidal bombers against valuable targets late game)


Just agree to try it, see how it plays, if old strategies do not work, try new ones, if they suck, then something does have to be changed...
0 x

Draven
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 15:25

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Draven » 14 May 2011, 20:04

I guess this is what im saying in a nut shell.

Im a good player. Not the best but im up there.

I have tried air start many times. Many of those times with strat bombers, many other times with strat bombers in mid game after ground start. And I have NEVER EVER stood back and gone "wow strategic bomber strat rocks" as much as i want it to work. Never have I seen them break a game in an OP way. If you can show me a replay where they own plz do. And I mean one where they are used to own a good player not a noob. So why is something that was never op being nerfed?

You know what plane I have seen allbut single handedly win games though. The vashp, and it would still be the best strike bomber. Yet it only get a 15% hp nerf, the same as the toad witch would be the worst strike bomber. While the fish witch is only as good as the vashp at best! Gets a huge nerf?

edit: Oh just thought of something else. Just the other week I was playing supreme lake against godde and others(dont know who I think you where on my team thor). I had just over half of the bottom land. I had a few coastals and defenders. Godde dropped some coastals with strat bombers. In less then 2 mins I put up 10 or more flaks.... Guess what after one more try at bombing godde did not bother again. And goddes not dumb. Took about 2 min very little M at that point in game. No fighter screen and flaks turned godde back.
0 x

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

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Thor » 14 May 2011, 22:35

I found that replay. You spent more metal on flak than the thunders cost, and those thunders went on to happily bomb several coastals in the north instead. I don't think this flak change is as bad as you think it is. Rarely is flak actually used to counter strategic bombers, usually fighters are built instead. Every flak built is money that could've been spent on getting air supremacy instead. That will still be true. But I can definitely understand where you're coming from and if I'm wrong I'll change it next version.

I think hellfish was better than vashp in 1.65.
0 x

Draven
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 15:25

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Draven » 17 May 2011, 14:58

I still think flak change is poo poo but ill live with it. But fish double nerf was no good. Just a cost nerf would have been good. But -%20 aoe :o what are they without there aoe. its going to make them even more shit at taking out guardians as there bombs always stradle them. Oh and plz revert the toad foot nerf its crazy.
0 x

User avatar
Gone
Posts: 18
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 01:24

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Gone » 18 May 2011, 00:02

Draven wrote:Again this unit is mostly only used to finish coms once the games won anyway. As its almost always not cost affective to bomb enemy fac's and the like, coz once u make one run u know enemy flack and fighter screen just wheres u down too much to make boming facs worth it. Now it seems they wont even need fights just flack will where bombers down. Some people have said flack to weak in the past but its not very costly and plenty can be built cheap. meh just my 2c.
And my 2 cents on this matter is that the com bombing doesn't signify win/loss. In several games last year if i recall them correctly... Sadly i don't have the replays... MY com kept getting bombed... And my team still won... It's probably because by then i had an interceptor screen around the other coms. So Interceptor screens are useful late game hint hint. Oh and fighter screens are like flak... they let a couple through


Oh... and what's the use of the Mandau Blade (If it's still in the game)?
0 x

Draven
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 15:25

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Draven » 19 May 2011, 11:39

Did some tests in 1.65 with bombers. Im about to do some more.

But it seems flack was already more then fine. I did 12 flack vs 10 bombers witch both = about 3.1k M, bombers cost a fair bit more energy though. On average a bombing run lost about 5 bombers. witch is about 1.5k M and 28k E. When we consider that the flaks cost less E and dont need one or two labs / maybe a few pads as well. We see for a far cheaper inverstment then 10 t1 bombers you can really start to make bombing runs costly. Not much early game is worth more then 1.5k M and 28k E to bomb. Later game more flaks can easily be built.
0 x

==Troy==
Posts: 376
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 15:55

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by ==Troy== » 19 May 2011, 14:12

10 bombers is mid-game... try 3 bombers and equivalent flak in metal. Then fly those bombers around the range of the flak, and drop bombs on something else valuable.


If you are in 2v2, a single player can have 3 bombers, but both players will have to get the flak... Or a single player can get fighters.

if you are in 4v4, it just progresses even more so.


Also, bombers pay for themselves by killing a geothermal/lab (iirc 3 bombers worth about the same as geo, I can be wrong).


Keep in mind that you are not just bombing the back of your base, but especially more so, expansion towers, which cannot be easily protected by flak (only mobile one, but to transport it, you need airlab... might as well make fighters).
0 x

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

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Thor » 19 May 2011, 22:29

There's a good chance that some of the nerfs you don't like, Draven, like the strategic bombers, toad, and hellfish, will be scaled back next version. I just wanted to see how nota played with weaker air. Air has always been overpowered in nota and I figured it would be faster to find the best balance this way than through continuing to do small gradual changes every version.

I have gotten similar results to yours from tests with flak I've done in the past. I've found though, that flak is never as useful in a real game as you would expect from tests. One reason is, like Troy said, in team games the bombers will just go attack another teammate, and so it makes much more sense to build fighters that can move to whereever they're needed. Also, flak is less effective at the extremes of its ranges and so because you have to defend different areas of your base often doesn't perfom as well in reality as in tests. If you have about as many flaks as bombers, flak does pretty well, but if flak is outnumbered, which is often the case, its firepower becomes too diluted and doesn't kill much. Also, a single flak burst will kill a fighter and so flak can often be a hindrance as much as a help when you have fighters and flak together. Ultimately, the player with the bombers gets to decide when and where he uses them. If you invest the same amount of resources in flak that he did in bombers, you still haven't nullified the threat of the bombers, just made them too costly to use attacking medium value targets like fusions and factories.

On the other hand though, it is true that building up enough strategic bombers to actually accomplish much does take a lot of resources and can be hard to pull off even in a team game, at least until the late game. If it's needed, I'm thinking a reduction of the likelihood of critical hits/engine fires would help them out against flak while keeping the new flak targeting which I like for other reasons.
Gone wrote:Oh... and what's the use of the Mandau Blade (If it's still in the game)?
It's good against hovers and being cheap you can get it earlier than other ships and rush their shipyard or whatever. It's pretty good against the excalibur but not much use vs the crusader.
0 x

User avatar
Gone
Posts: 18
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 01:24

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Gone » 20 May 2011, 00:22

Thor wrote: It's good against hovers and being cheap you can get it earlier than other ships and rush their shipyard or whatever. It's pretty good against the excalibur but not much use vs the crusader.
Thanks for that... Now I that I know what it's used for I can modify my strategy a bit. :mrgreen:
0 x

Draven
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 15:25

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Draven » 20 May 2011, 07:33

"If you invest the same amount of resources in flak that he did in bombers, you still haven't nullified the threat of the bombers, just made them too costly to use attacking medium value targets like fusions and factories."

This is my point Thor. This is the way the game should be. Flak wont stop an attack, but it will make it to costly to bomb medium value targets. If you want to build a hi value target u better have a good fight/interceptor screen. I thought the point of strat bomber was that ground AA was not the best way to counter them. If flaks are to good we may as well just build more fish, vashps, or toads to bomb the enemy base. Because IMO this is already a better option in most cases given the add versatility of those planes.

I am sorry to bang on about this. I have not agreed with all the changes in the past(although I do with almost all of them) but even when I did not agree I could see where you were coming from. I cannot see where this is coming from. I can't think of Me, you, Godde, Law or any of the other good players ever using stat bombers on a regular bases. Why? Because they where never that good. Certainly they where not OP.

Battlecruiser was OP b4 it had it build time and iirc cost nerf. Aside from the fact it was OP back then. The reason we can tell it was, is that if we look back at those old replays good players would aways rush them, always! Lets me tell you no good players are rushing strat bombers to assure a victory.
0 x

==Troy==
Posts: 376
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 15:55

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by ==Troy== » 20 May 2011, 14:22

Draven, why are you so butthurt about something rarely used anyway? (at least from your wods)...


Bombers _are_ used. Especially on larger maps.

Issue with Bomber VS Flak standoff, is that there is a critical amount of flak, beyond which no bomber will pass through. So it doesnt matter how much damage the flak does, all it changes, is how soon it is impossible to fly over the flak.

And here is where the problem actually lies. If one of the players has committed to airlab early on in the game, he gets 3-4 bombers before anyone else on the field even started his second lab.

Using these bombers, he can easily destroy initial fusions/labs/geos. And then switch to ground attack planes.

If you prefer to use ground attack planes, instead of bombers, you would be facing all of the ground AA made to protect the tanks + any light stationary AA (and well, 2 defenders kill a vashp) + anything else other than flak.

So overall, initial bomb rush can pay off in larger games. In small games, going air is suicide anyway, if its your first lab, and if its the second lab, you should rather make ground attack planes + fighters.



And anyways, its nice to see NOTA changing the air into more of a tertiary support, it would be interesting to see how it will play out.




Thor, may I suggest a slightly different approach to the bombers?

Instead of making the bomber fall whenever he gets an engine fire/any other failure due to health dropping to 0 or a scripted event, I would suggest instead, to allow the bomber to proceed with its task, and replenish its health back to 100%, with further health decay (i.e. 5% per second or similar).

It will result in bombers effectively having twice the current health, being able to perform their run more effectively, but at the same time, it would mean a certain loss of the bomber after the run is done. Of course flak can "finish off" the bomber, by adding more damage on top the engine fire, but it would be nice if flak would prioritise the healthy bombers, than the permanently damaged ones. (unless they manage to land on a repair pad in time).


In effect, it makes the bombers more suited and effective for suicide attacks than ground planes, while reducing their potency of being a permanent threat, if you have insufficient flak to deal with them immediately.



I.e.

8 flak = dead geo, dead 3 bombers on the way back
16 flak = dead bombers, alive geo.

vs previous

12 flak = dead 3 bombers with them crashing behind flak and geo surviving.
0 x

User avatar
Gone
Posts: 18
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 01:24

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Gone » 20 May 2011, 22:22

==Troy== wrote:.
Bombers _are_ used. Especially on larger maps.

Issue with Bomber VS Flak standoff, is that there is a critical amount of flak, beyond which no bomber will pass through. So it doesnt matter how much damage the flak does, all it changes, is how soon it is impossible to fly over the flak.

Using these bombers, he can easily destroy initial fusions/labs/geos. And then switch to ground attack planes.
If I remember correctly that strategy would only work on at least a 3v3.
As it's suicide on 2v2 iirc.

And btw most players don't even think to build flak that early. I know that's how I lost a match once.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

That is an interesting prospect on the bomber approach... I think it'll make more people pay attention to AA if a bomber will still live after its hp gets knocked out. Oh and there should be a randomness to whether the bomber simply explodes in midair or crashes into the ground.
0 x

Godde
Posts: 268
Joined: 29 Mar 2010, 17:54

Re: NOTA 1.66

Post by Godde » 20 May 2011, 23:26

==Troy== wrote:If one of the players has committed to airlab early on in the game, he gets 3-4 bombers before anyone else on the field even started his second lab.

Using these bombers, he can easily destroy initial fusions/labs/geos. And then switch to ground attack planes.

If you prefer to use ground attack planes, instead of bombers, you would be facing all of the ground AA made to protect the tanks + any light stationary AA (and well, 2 defenders kill a vashp) + anything else other than flak.
I think you overestimate the power of 3-4 bombers compared to other ground attack planes. Firstly there usually aren't any fusions around that early while geos and labs are quite cheap compared to the infrastructure(airlab and extra energy) you need in order to produce air. Bombs are quite innaccurate(espacially against targets like guardians, coastals and expansions) and the enemy might repair the target so its hard if to know if 2 or 5 bombers will destroy the target.
Secondly, vashps, toadfoots and hellfish can be used to kill cons and raiders even when the enemy have fighters while thoose 3-4 bombers usually need to go into enemy territory to find a suitable target.
Thirdly, players rarely build AA before they see enemy air and a few AA kbots won't do much against 3-5 toadfoots, vashps or hellfish.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “NOTA”