Balanced Annihilation V6.0 - Page 6

Balanced Annihilation V6.0

All game release threads should be posted here

Moderators: Moderators, Moderators

Locked
[Krogoth86]
Posts: 1176
Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by [Krogoth86] »

KDR_11k wrote:I guess if the Juno really just created a temporary jamming field in the target area it would be a lot less overpowering...
I think it just would be nice if the Juno would blast mines but just paralyze Radars & Jammers for a minute or two rather than killing them. To my mind that always has been sort of a strange behaviour (Why not a special not counterable weapon for fusions too? :mrgreen: )...
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by Pxtl »

[Krogoth86] wrote:
KDR_11k wrote:I guess if the Juno really just created a temporary jamming field in the target area it would be a lot less overpowering...
I think it just would be nice if the Juno would blast mines but just paralyze Radars & Jammers for a minute or two rather than killing them. To my mind that always has been sort of a strange behaviour (Why not a special not counterable weapon for fusions too? :mrgreen: )...
Don't cloaked units come uncloaked when stunned? That would make stun-behaviour pretty nice even for mines.
0 x

[Krogoth86]
Posts: 1176
Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by [Krogoth86] »

True but I think the mine killing is ok. You could go ahead and say it creates some kind of shockwave which lets the mines think that there's a target in range and thus they detonate. For radars it's some kind of EMP-shockwave that gets absorbed through the huge dishes and overload the circuits for some while. That way only those buildings / units are affected...
0 x

User avatar
Pressure Line
Posts: 2283
Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by Pressure Line »

or that because of their receptive nature, the electronics in radar units etc are more susceptible to being damaged by an emp blast, because regular units' electronics suites would be hardened vs such things
0 x

DZHIBRISH
Posts: 357
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 22:28

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by DZHIBRISH »

Well if its not possible to make amphibious cons not climb hills than i think they should be removed from vehicle labs..at least from t1..
0 x

[Krogoth86]
Posts: 1176
Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by [Krogoth86] »

Fun fact:
Why do Dragon's Claw and Maw have the same movement class as a Krogoth? :mrgreen:
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by YokoZar »

[Krogoth86] wrote:Fun fact:
Why do Dragon's Claw and Maw have the same movement class as a Krogoth? :mrgreen:
So you can build them on slopes?
0 x

Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by Saktoth »

Essentially so they register as mobiles and dont show ghosting (Otherwise it would be easy to spot the real dt's).
0 x

DZHIBRISH
Posts: 357
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 22:28

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by DZHIBRISH »

hovers are unbalanced pressur line.accept it.
We need a hover nerf.
Nerf hover !
0 x

User avatar
Machiosabre
Posts: 1474
Joined: 25 Dec 2005, 22:56

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by Machiosabre »

its just because boats are dumb and everybod hates them, you all know it! need less speedboats more boats with 12 cannons on each side!
0 x

DZHIBRISH
Posts: 357
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 22:28

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by DZHIBRISH »

No.Its because cost vs cost corvettes lose or are the same as hovers.
Plus hovers go onland they dont get owned by subs or torpedoes or dstroyer class torpedoes.
Nerf them.

Better yet buff all sea cause hovers vs stumpies cost vs cost is much better...stumpies own them..so land should be secured vs hover spam..but sea isnt..which means the cost effectivness of sea is lower than land..so i say buff sea to be as cost effective or for an easier way out nerf hovers.

I didnt test it but i bet t2 ships also lose to hovers..cost for cost..but that needs testing...is anyone maintaining this mod at all?

***edited***
Maybe just buffing all ship hp by say 10-15 % might make it better.

Edited:
Nevermind.It seems that without micro hovers are better than corvettes but with micro they are much worse,unfortunatly it was hard for me to test it with intensive micro.
Just totaly discard all i wrote liek you usually do.
Last edited by DZHIBRISH on 10 Jan 2008, 17:46, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Machiosabre
Posts: 1474
Joined: 25 Dec 2005, 22:56

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by Machiosabre »

no it actually is that thing that i said.
0 x

DZHIBRISH
Posts: 357
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 22:28

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by DZHIBRISH »

I just use you jokery to make empheziz.
0 x

User avatar
Machiosabre
Posts: 1474
Joined: 25 Dec 2005, 22:56

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by Machiosabre »

Don't drag me down with you.
0 x

User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by Neddie »

Too late! Sleksa is already drawing the lines of doom from his pit of despair.
0 x

Klopper
Posts: 146
Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 14:31

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by Klopper »

Hovers can be easily outrun and -gunned with microed corvettes. And as soon as the sea player goes t2 (which you can't do with hovers) and deploys a few cruisers hovers won't be able to kill him if he doesn't make stupid mistakes (seaplane gunships used to work too as hover counter since hover doesn't have very good aa, i haven't tested it with the new "t 1.5" seaplanes yet though). Stumpies might be better cost for cost then hovers but they are also slower and can't drive happily through the seas.
And yes it's too late now, Sleksa will come and get you with evil posts of doom :lol:
0 x

User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by Neddie »

The T1.5 Seaplanes are still good for dealing with Hovers, though less able to fight sea or entrenched land.
0 x

User avatar
Pressure Line
Posts: 2283
Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by Pressure Line »

DZHIBRISH wrote:hovers are unbalanced pressur line.accept it.
We need a hover nerf.
Nerf hover !
what the hell are you talking about? I have never said anything about hovers in BA...
0 x

User avatar
Sleksa
Posts: 1604
Joined: 04 Feb 2006, 20:58

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by Sleksa »

neddiedrow wrote:The T1.5 Seaplanes are still good for dealing with Hovers, though less able to fight sea or entrenched land.
but the sad thing is that its not a option for the first lab.
0 x

User avatar
kiki
Posts: 859
Joined: 05 Nov 2007, 03:06

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.0

Post by kiki »

actually, a good spam of seaplane gunships and fighters can take down a pretty good t2 air force of the same or less metal, e and build time cost. They make a nice supplement to t2 fighters. Their success appears to be to their smaller size and faster speed, but I dont know that may be utter bs. Maybe sleska will clarify.
0 x

Locked

Return to “Game Releases”