Absolute Annihilation 2.11 - Page 77

Absolute Annihilation 2.11

All game release threads should be posted here

Moderators: Moderators, Moderators

Locked
User avatar
Snipawolf
Posts: 4357
Joined: 12 Dec 2005, 01:49

Post by Snipawolf »

WHOS WITH ME???
I am :P
0 x

User avatar
Min3mat
Posts: 3455
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 20:19

Post by Min3mat »

O.o
maybe its a bot ;P
*checks profile* :P
0 x

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

Post by Neddie »

I was listening until somebody said R/P/S.
0 x

User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

A random idea this talk about subs gave me was a stunner sub, sneak a few close to an enemy fleet, stun his anti-air and let torp bombers rip them to shreds.

Subs are weak against torp bombers if they are found since they can't shoot at air targets (and they can't attack land targets so they don't need to be that vulnerable). I'd say that makes them vulnerable enough that there is no need for a ship to counter subs. Use attack subs or torp bombers to take care of subs. Of course that'd mean there is no T1 counter for subs... Perhaps the attack sub could be T1 instead of T2?
0 x

User avatar
Min3mat
Posts: 3455
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 20:19

Post by Min3mat »

@.@
0 x

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

Post by Pxtl »

While the rest of that comment made no sense to me, I like the idea of Arm getting a submersible mobile EMP missile launcher. Their amphib inventory is already a little less than Core, so something to give them an edge in a landing onslaught would be fun.
0 x

User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Post by Dragon45 »

Min3mat wrote:i'd like it so sub packs were effective defensively but slow on the offensive and so liable to being flanked or just avioded (as well as not performing well against depth charges)
t1 scouts would be as they are now, fast and weak and cheap
Yes.

t2 AA ships would be nerfed slightly (so you cannot just rely on them to kill planes, you'd be far better off with a small airforce in support) (as well as having the depth charger removed)
No. Only thing i want cahnged abou these guys is that they should not have the depthcharge.
t2 subkillers would obviously be used in small numbers to kill any unsupported sub groups
t2 subs would be made smaller and basically made into a lvl1 sub with a slight bit more health and better speed
NO. Subs shold be able tohold their own against anything. That means faster, stronger. And make more, bigger subs! I want to see giant sub base ships - anyone remember those gigantically awesome subs from OTA? IMHO, the biggest chunk of firepower in sea should be in the sub arsenal. That would be frigging awesome...

t1 destroyers are useful fire support against depth charge launchers and the best option to counter hovercraft / pelicans with a weakish antisub weapon (reliant on their speed to aviod the unguided torpedoes)


t2 destroyers would be a all round good unit, weak against hovercraft / pelicans but with a decent ranged gun and 2 depth charge launchers (still weak to t2 subs though)
Yes.
t1 Corvettes would be given more health and range as well as costs increases (so they can't be used in rushes early on), they'd have no antisub weapon but be useful vs t2 destroyers (as they have no lasers / ligh guns on them) (due to their speed)
I'm not sure about this one. I *used* to think that corvettes were overpowered because you could rush with them so quickly, but then i found out how easily they die to a torp launcher in front of your shipyard in conjunction with a sonar tower. Of course, the problem with this is that the torp launcher is expensive enough that it is more economical to just build the corvette and go offensive... However yes, corvettes should be in between Crusader/Enforcer and scout ship in terms of everything.

t2 Corvettes would be fast and have a powerful mid-ranged weapon unsuited for taking on defenses but useful vs t2 destroyers (although they wouldn't be quite as good as t1 ones as they are slightly less fast) would be a ideal counter to any hover / pelicans as well as having a good speed and radar
Si senor.
t2 'messenger' ships would be given something like a tomahawk missile wit the range between that of a punisher and a toaster, with a small AoE (sufficent enough that it hits radar dots though) great for taking out porcers but ineffective against moving targets (as rocket doesn't home)
would be like R / P / S and would really work IMO (hate AA's water balance atm)
Disagree, I like them as they are - pwn at artil, but weak at actual fighting.
Last edited by Dragon45 on 04 Aug 2006, 18:43, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Post by Dragon45 »

Okay, here's the deal - sea balance is broken ATM. However, as broken as it is right now, there is an even bigger break that occurs when sea meets land, and when sea meets air. In particular, the Stingray/Thunderbolt laser tower is a big problem because of their range and cheapness. Stingray/Thunderbolt crawl along with a sub or two for backup pretty much kills any hope the enemy has of advancing.


Floating HLT defintely needs a nerf; probably by increasing cost 1.5x or so.


There needs to be a heavy defense unit buildable by Adv sub.

Torp launcher needs cost reduction.

I also suggest the following: make the seaplane consutrctor have a nano greater than the Fark. This may induce peopel to go seplane if the constructor has very strong buildpower.

I think the air v sea balance is good right now, except for the fact that Searchers and Skeeters are ADD about shooting their missles. Too often a stray bomber can just fly over a group of searchers/skeeters...
0 x

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

Post by Neddie »

Dragon45 wrote:There needs to be a heavy defense unit buildable by Adv sub.

Why?
Dragon45 wrote:Torp launcher needs cost reduction.
Why?
Dragon45 wrote:I also suggest the following: make the seaplane consutrctor have a nano greater than the Fark. This may induce peopel to go seplane if the constructor has very strong buildpower.
No, that isn't a very good idea. It dilutes the line between air and land, as air is the side gaining from this, and it promotes that painful "Build a lot of con planes and guard Brawler factory." tactic and it's variations.

For the last time, the Fark is an assist unit that dies almost as a tree burns. It doesn't have a full build-tree, it isn't an effective stand-alone. Don't compare it to the full constructors. You wouldn't compare the minelayer to them, so why the Fark?
0 x

User avatar
FireCrack
Posts: 676
Joined: 19 Jul 2005, 09:33

Post by FireCrack »

I mostly agree with dragon, except on the fark seaplane and torp launcher cost reduction.

It would be usefull if the adv sub could beuild some sort of defence, even if it just builds stingrays/thunderbolts.

On the same not, it would be nice if l2 construction vehicles and kbots and planes could build anti-bomber turrets. I find those much more usefull at l2 than they are at l1. As it is there is no "all purpose" l2 AA. The flak is too short range and the LRMT's fir too slow.
0 x

Kixxe
Posts: 1547
Joined: 14 May 2005, 10:02

Post by Kixxe »

Dragon45 wrote: Torp launcher needs cost reduction.

Maybe a cheaper unit to make up for it? Like...

FLOATING LLT? :O
0 x

User avatar
Min3mat
Posts: 3455
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 20:19

Post by Min3mat »

maybe give it two weapons? a torpedo launcher which does good damage to subs but poor damage to destroyer class ships and a LLT on top useful against light classes? would mostly be visual, but would be pretty cool IMO

And IMO lvl2 subs would be great, because of their speed they would own the ocean and because they are more powerful than t1 subs you could use them in flanking attacks on naval bases at a pinch. huge stupid t2 subs would suck, i would still love to see subs being used in small packs at t2.
Torp launcher needs cost reduction.
No its already fairly cheap and useful against all classes of ships (destroyers will have problems with hitting it even with LoS...)

T2 torpedo defenses should be alike to the t1, but slightly more health, slightly better range, slightly better firepower and due to them being underwater this would make them very potent, especially against t1 and 2 corvettes

I also suggest the following: make the seaplane consutrctor have a nano greater than the Fark. This may induce peopel to go seplane if the constructor has very strong buildpower.
HELLS NO
maybe make it cheap and spammable, so quite cost effective in terms of buildpower/time or /cost, at least if they are used in swarms they risk chain exploding. Having a single con with more than the buildpower of the FARK... <_<

I think the air v sea balance is good right now, except for the fact that Searchers and Skeeters are ADD about shooting their missles. Too often a stray bomber can just fly over a group of searchers/skeeters...
yeah its OK, torpedo planes need some sort of way to be made useful however, maybe make their torpedoes do crazy damage (1/3 or so of a t2 ship) in one pass and balance their costs accordingly, so you can use them against important ships in your enemies arsenal

No. Only thing i want cahnged abou these guys is that they should not have the depthcharge.
probably good idea, but for the record i wasn't talking about drastic changes


NO. Subs shold be able tohold their own against anything. That means faster, stronger. And make more, bigger subs! I want to see giant sub base ships - anyone remember those gigantically awesome subs from OTA? IMHO, the biggest chunk of firepower in sea should be in the sub arsenal. That would be frigging awesome...
they WILL
just because a bulldog is small doesnt mean it cant hold its own <_< you dont need giant subs and IMO that detracts from the gameplay experience, (let alone the pathing problems that would crop up o.@). T2 subs WOULD still be FAR better than t1 subs at moving about and destroying stuff
Disagree, I like them as they are - pwn at artil, but weak at actual fighting.
is that your final answer ;O
0 x

User avatar
LOrDo
Posts: 1154
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 00:21

Post by LOrDo »

Kixxe wrote:
Dragon45 wrote: Torp launcher needs cost reduction.

Maybe a cheaper unit to make up for it? Like...

FLOATING LLT? :O
YES YES YES!
0 x

User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Post by Dragon45 »

The problem as I see it with Floating LLT and Floating Punisher etc is that its just not *original* enough in terms of concept to really be entertaining.

There are however, a ton of units that are more original than simple Floating Punisher, Floating bertha etc - for example, look at the Trident cannon; its a bobup plasma cannon, but it looks and behaves different than a Punisher stuck on pontoons.

And the way I see it, the Torp Launcher is already the LLT of the seas as it were; its the deense buildable for that zone by the commander and is the cheapest around. However, it still goes down too hard for its cost from everything else. An LLT can at least give a Stumpy a good beating; a Torp Launcher is just pwned, and pwned hard by a Crusader.



The problem with T2 torp defense is that it is already pwned hard by even just a random wandering Crusader or something. They're only useful against subs; however, even a single leviathan can take out several very easily.

So therefore I'm going to restate my lobbying position; that there needs to be an effective T2 defense (above water or bobup) for the sea. Not a literal Floating Doomsday Cannon (again, boring and unoriginal) but there are Naval Defense Platforms and such on Core Prime, Unit Universe, etc, that seem to fit this role perfectly.

Missile Ships (Messenger etc) is perfectly AOK as it is. It's one of the like two things on sea that are balanced.

In general, sea simply does not have the wealth of possibility that Land does. Sea-sea battles are pretty much reduced to flanking and get-the-sub-there attacks, maybe with a dash of Seaplane.

Compare that to land, where you have a wide array of weapons and technologies - EMP, nanoturret, multiple heavy weapons classes, etc that you can utilize to boost your own stuff and demolish your enemy's, and you'll see why sea (pun! :D) combat is so Starcraft-y IMHO.

How about another radical/nutty idea: An underwater carrier (ala SupCom) ,but one that can pickup and transport Subs and amph constructors (Muskrat etc), amph units (gimp, Shiva, etc) as well as SeaPlanes, etc etc?

Crazy? Absolutely. But as I said, there is not a huge wealth of strategic possibility in the sea. Throwing this thing in there might add that.
0 x

User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Post by Dragon45 »

And on the topic of non-sea: Could you make nanoturets able to build other nanoturrets?
0 x

User avatar
Charlemagne
Posts: 174
Joined: 18 Apr 2005, 17:59

Post by Charlemagne »

I think sea shouldn't have more turrets. Static defences are for land, sea battles are more about units vs units than units vs building, and I think it should remain that way. It keeps sea somewhat unique, instead of just being like land but with submarines.
0 x

User avatar
Drone_Fragger
Posts: 1341
Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49

Post by Drone_Fragger »

Dragon45 wrote:And on the topic of non-sea: Could you make nanoturets able to build other nanoturrets?
That was in OTA and Earlier versions of Spring. It just didn't work. You ended up with 10X10 blocks of them instabuilding nukes and shit.
0 x

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

Post by Pxtl »

For naval defense, I'd just like to see the L1 torp-launcher reworked into playing more like a "torp-LLT". Something cheap you can drop anywhere, that can fight of scouts easily and (in groups) handle subs. After all, at L1 subs are only stopped by torpedo launchers - the only L1 unit that can fight back is the destroyer, and the destroyers still lose in an even fight. The only way to mark your territory and fight off subs is the Torp launcher - they destroy subs incredibly handily, but they're too expensive to use early-game. I'd like them nerfed and repriced.

As for the overpowered aqua-HLTs, they have to be overpowerd to balance with the overpowered navy. In order to fix aqua-HLTs, Caydr would have to nerf naval units across-the-board.
0 x

Egarwaen
Posts: 1207
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 21:19

Post by Egarwaen »

Pxtl wrote:As for the overpowered aqua-HLTs, they have to be overpowerd to balance with the overpowered navy. In order to fix aqua-HLTs, Caydr would have to nerf naval units across-the-board.
Which I'd really like to see. There's no reason why naval units should have such absurd prices/health/firepower compared to other units. It'd be fine if there were just all-sea and all-land maps, but for mixed maps, it makes balance a nightmare.
0 x

User avatar
LordMatt
Posts: 3393
Joined: 15 May 2005, 04:26

Post by LordMatt »

An LLT can at least give a Stumpy a good beating; a Torp Launcher is just pwned, and pwned hard by a Crusader.
What? A Crusader costs 850 metal vs 300 for a torp launcher. It should pwn it hard. Besides, torp launchers are for killing subs/skeets, not Crusaders. Also, I disagree that a stumpy and a Crusader are equals (or should be balanced as such).
0 x

Locked

Return to “Game Releases”