NOTA 1.82
Moderators: smartie, Thor, PepeAmpere, Moderators, Content Developer
Re: NOTA 1.48
People have suggested that the rocket unit range be increased to make them more valuable, but I think that would ruin the tanks presence one the field. Not nerfing the hammers but making rocket kbots more spam able would appear to be the best excuse to have them on the field. They would not be the best unit, as they are not, but they would be a counter for a tank spam once you could get them in large enough numbers to be more significant than what peewees or hammers could to for dmg in the same build time. Most dmg for build time has been the main reason for the thud and hammer spams. If morties could be spammed as thuds then we would never see thuds because the mortie would be infinitely better.
Re: NOTA 1.48
Uhm, storms own medium tanks cost for cost, 123v. I mean, storm vs stumpy isnt really a close fight. storms are also very good at taking out reapers and bulldog, and decent verses anything else that has armor (yes even flash). In my opinion they are fine.
Re: NOTA 1.48
Rockos/Storms outrange Stumpies/Raiders. I don't really see why they need more range. If anything, their rockets should travel a bit faster or have a tiny little bit of guidance/tracking, maybe.
The way I see it, the trick with rocket KBOTs is where you place them. Out on the field by themselves they have limited use because they cannot chase down tanks. A better tactic would be to park them near something which tanks might want to charge against (a battery of mobile artillery, a MRPC, a factory, a fusion, etc). They're more of a defensive unit, imho. If you want something to hunt down tanks then use Toadfoots(Toadfeet?)/Vashps.
The way I see it, the trick with rocket KBOTs is where you place them. Out on the field by themselves they have limited use because they cannot chase down tanks. A better tactic would be to park them near something which tanks might want to charge against (a battery of mobile artillery, a MRPC, a factory, a fusion, etc). They're more of a defensive unit, imho. If you want something to hunt down tanks then use Toadfoots(Toadfeet?)/Vashps.
Re: NOTA 1.48
Tot, right on. but wait if you are spending M on def than that means your attack is not what it could be. Defensive play will not win the game. It will only prolong the game. It costs more to defend against possible attacks than it does to do the attacking yourself. So we are found with a unit that can only defend and not be used for attack. A which can support, attack and defend is infinitely more valuable.
Overkill, If a player is using his units wisely there will not be an opportunity to use storms, because the storms will get chewed up by superior firepower from units supporting what you would have tried to kill.
If the rocket kbots are to be a large presence they will need a characteristic that will make them a useful attack and not just def unit. We can see how the zeus is also not readily used. This is because the zeus is not designed for attacks and for that reason is used only in special situations. For the zeus it still has redeeming factors; it's hp, high dmg at close range, and effective dmg delivery. The only thing that rocket bots have is the dmg, but no other good attributes, and certainly not the best delivery method.
Also, if springers, fast attack kbots, aks and peewees had faster turret turn rates they would make the micro game play more enjoyable. For that reason it would be good to give hover arty a 360 degree turret. Ships are quick enough to scrap hover arty with out the hovers needing to sit still or get closer to the ship [which would be the only way they could maneuver and still attack the ship]. Obviously making the game play smoother and more enjoyable is crucial, but I am not sure that the turret turn rates should be improved for more effective micro unit we are sure we have a brilliant and still complex game play. I do feel that CA has destroyed a form of the game play complexity by allowing units to easily deal dmg, where as in another situation the units would have had to be used in special ways to exploit the units ability, not just be in range and thus deliver an nearly assured dmg regardless of other factors.
No CA does not always play like said, but was meant to provide some example of the concept, which would decrease NOTA's complexity.
Overkill, If a player is using his units wisely there will not be an opportunity to use storms, because the storms will get chewed up by superior firepower from units supporting what you would have tried to kill.
If the rocket kbots are to be a large presence they will need a characteristic that will make them a useful attack and not just def unit. We can see how the zeus is also not readily used. This is because the zeus is not designed for attacks and for that reason is used only in special situations. For the zeus it still has redeeming factors; it's hp, high dmg at close range, and effective dmg delivery. The only thing that rocket bots have is the dmg, but no other good attributes, and certainly not the best delivery method.
Also, if springers, fast attack kbots, aks and peewees had faster turret turn rates they would make the micro game play more enjoyable. For that reason it would be good to give hover arty a 360 degree turret. Ships are quick enough to scrap hover arty with out the hovers needing to sit still or get closer to the ship [which would be the only way they could maneuver and still attack the ship]. Obviously making the game play smoother and more enjoyable is crucial, but I am not sure that the turret turn rates should be improved for more effective micro unit we are sure we have a brilliant and still complex game play. I do feel that CA has destroyed a form of the game play complexity by allowing units to easily deal dmg, where as in another situation the units would have had to be used in special ways to exploit the units ability, not just be in range and thus deliver an nearly assured dmg regardless of other factors.
No CA does not always play like said, but was meant to provide some example of the concept, which would decrease NOTA's complexity.
Re: NOTA 1.48
Hey there.
The panther, for it's range, is too slow.
The rest is fine for me, it's just the panther, i never use it because it just feels useless unlike the core counter part which is more usefull. That propelled tank.
Also for the orbital strike, when i saw it in action, it felt kind of tiny for what it did
i don't know if it's possible, but it would be nice to have something like in dawn of war 1 with the orbital strike, it wouldnt be one shot killing anything, but it would go boom in a larger area
i like that mod, the ships are awesome
The panther, for it's range, is too slow.
The rest is fine for me, it's just the panther, i never use it because it just feels useless unlike the core counter part which is more usefull. That propelled tank.
Also for the orbital strike, when i saw it in action, it felt kind of tiny for what it did
i don't know if it's possible, but it would be nice to have something like in dawn of war 1 with the orbital strike, it wouldnt be one shot killing anything, but it would go boom in a larger area
i like that mod, the ships are awesome
Re: NOTA 1.49
v1.49 released. http://spring.jobjol.nl/show_file.php?id=1436
Here's the changelog:
v1.49
-Fixed a bug that caused morties to be stuck in high trajectory mode
-Added ability to turn off mobile artillery auto-switching trajectory
-Panther tank cost reverted to pre-1.48 value
-Fido hitpoints reduced 10%
-Buildtime on stealth fighters decreased 15%
-Buildtime decreased 5% on Blade interceptors; 10% on Osprey interceptors
-Buildtime on heavy strategic bombers decreased 5%
-ScramJam stun damage increased
-Fleas cost 50% more metal, hp increased slightly
New Spacebugs also released: http://spring.jobjol.nl/1437
The queen is quite a lot tougher now, based on the difficulty and number of players.
Here's the changelog:
v1.49
-Fixed a bug that caused morties to be stuck in high trajectory mode
-Added ability to turn off mobile artillery auto-switching trajectory
-Panther tank cost reverted to pre-1.48 value
-Fido hitpoints reduced 10%
-Buildtime on stealth fighters decreased 15%
-Buildtime decreased 5% on Blade interceptors; 10% on Osprey interceptors
-Buildtime on heavy strategic bombers decreased 5%
-ScramJam stun damage increased
-Fleas cost 50% more metal, hp increased slightly
New Spacebugs also released: http://spring.jobjol.nl/1437
The queen is quite a lot tougher now, based on the difficulty and number of players.
-
Google_Frog
- Moderator
- Posts: 2464
- Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24
Re: NOTA 1.49
Allied builds radii should be displayed during the start point choosing phase much like your own radius is shown atm.
Re: NOTA 1.49
I was thinking that too the other day :)Google_Frog wrote:Allied builds radii should be displayed during the start point choosing phase much like your own radius is shown atm.
Re: NOTA 1.49
A few questions/suggestions.
#1 why did you decide to make the commander a building?
#2 why did you decide to not allow to assist labs?
I watched a replay of Nota game today played with the 1.49 version.
One guy built like 20-30 air labs.
Seems kinda strange and imagine if that person would now have to switch to vehicles...can you imagine the amount of buildings hed have to put in a reclaim queue?CAuse each t1 air labs is 700+ metal...that amounts ot a huge sum so u have to reclaim them.
I think maybe Nota can adopt some of SupCom's ideas since Supcom FA plays kinda similair to NOTA.
morphing labs might be Good for NOTA.Ever considered it?
Another thing iv noticed is that unit speeds are lower than ba while ba is played on much smaller maps than NOTA.
It takes Ions for units to reach an enemy base on big maps.
Ever thought about increasing unit speed and of course also buffing defensive buildings?To give the game an a bit faster tempo.
Why did i ask about the commander?Well im jsut curious why you decided to take a pretty strategicly interesting unit and turn it into a static builder.
Also it has a huge range and it kinda kills any raid attempts on the main base.
Defences already shoot through buildigns so its easier to defend than in say BA.
Also wanted to say that auto trajectory is not a good idea since it can hurt players and make arty shoot further away buildings in high trajectroy instead of shooting incoming units that want to kill them.
Iv seen it happen in NOTA games.
T1 artillery is strong enough for its cost to not have low AND high trajectory.
#1 why did you decide to make the commander a building?
#2 why did you decide to not allow to assist labs?
I watched a replay of Nota game today played with the 1.49 version.
One guy built like 20-30 air labs.
Seems kinda strange and imagine if that person would now have to switch to vehicles...can you imagine the amount of buildings hed have to put in a reclaim queue?CAuse each t1 air labs is 700+ metal...that amounts ot a huge sum so u have to reclaim them.
I think maybe Nota can adopt some of SupCom's ideas since Supcom FA plays kinda similair to NOTA.
morphing labs might be Good for NOTA.Ever considered it?
Another thing iv noticed is that unit speeds are lower than ba while ba is played on much smaller maps than NOTA.
It takes Ions for units to reach an enemy base on big maps.
Ever thought about increasing unit speed and of course also buffing defensive buildings?To give the game an a bit faster tempo.
Why did i ask about the commander?Well im jsut curious why you decided to take a pretty strategicly interesting unit and turn it into a static builder.
Also it has a huge range and it kinda kills any raid attempts on the main base.
Defences already shoot through buildigns so its easier to defend than in say BA.
Also wanted to say that auto trajectory is not a good idea since it can hurt players and make arty shoot further away buildings in high trajectroy instead of shooting incoming units that want to kill them.
Iv seen it happen in NOTA games.
T1 artillery is strong enough for its cost to not have low AND high trajectory.
Re: NOTA 1.49
I can probably answer most of those questions for you
The original idea behind the mod was just to change how air units worked. Thor had the idea of making air power based more or less on a WWII type of thing where you'd have to use fighters to intercept bombers and control your airspace with patrols instead of just building anti-air defenses everywhere. The rest of the mod evolved from that idea. To balance out the power of air we decided on having stationary bases where you could build powerful anti-air defenses (missile towers mostly, flak somewhat), and you'd have to control your territory with mobile units. When you have a mobile commander the whole game breaks down. You can build missile towers and stationary defenses everywhere so it seemed to devolve into com pushing and cheezy assassination attempts with airplanes. Mostly though we just didn't find it very fun. If you really want to try it, play on the commanders mode and self-d your command tower. (make sure your opponent does too)
As for lab assisting, well think it another way. If someone is willing to build 30 air facs then that is a major investment and a big strategic decision. If the other guy took that same amount of resources and put it all into building a huge land army, or a couple of battleships, and now he's knocking on the other guy's door, why should the guy who screwed up and put all his money into air factories be allowed to immediately recoup his investment and start building tanks or shore guns instead?
About the artillery, the high trajectory/low trajectory switcher will try to use the low trajectory setting first, and high trajectory second. If units wander in close the artillery will switch to low trajectory, shoot them, then when the are dead, go back to high trajectory to shoot things farther off.
The original idea behind the mod was just to change how air units worked. Thor had the idea of making air power based more or less on a WWII type of thing where you'd have to use fighters to intercept bombers and control your airspace with patrols instead of just building anti-air defenses everywhere. The rest of the mod evolved from that idea. To balance out the power of air we decided on having stationary bases where you could build powerful anti-air defenses (missile towers mostly, flak somewhat), and you'd have to control your territory with mobile units. When you have a mobile commander the whole game breaks down. You can build missile towers and stationary defenses everywhere so it seemed to devolve into com pushing and cheezy assassination attempts with airplanes. Mostly though we just didn't find it very fun. If you really want to try it, play on the commanders mode and self-d your command tower. (make sure your opponent does too)
As for lab assisting, well think it another way. If someone is willing to build 30 air facs then that is a major investment and a big strategic decision. If the other guy took that same amount of resources and put it all into building a huge land army, or a couple of battleships, and now he's knocking on the other guy's door, why should the guy who screwed up and put all his money into air factories be allowed to immediately recoup his investment and start building tanks or shore guns instead?
About the artillery, the high trajectory/low trajectory switcher will try to use the low trajectory setting first, and high trajectory second. If units wander in close the artillery will switch to low trajectory, shoot them, then when the are dead, go back to high trajectory to shoot things farther off.
Re: NOTA 1.49
I dont understand the connection between a moving comander and aa.
Cons can build aa everywhere as well.
You can make the commander have a lot of HP just like the static one but reduce its dmg and remove the dgun.
Cons can build aa everywhere as well.
You can make the commander have a lot of HP just like the static one but reduce its dmg and remove the dgun.
Re: NOTA 1.49
what if they can't?Gota wrote:Cons can build aa everywhere as well.
Re: NOTA 1.49
cons can build the machine gun turrets, but not missile towers or flak.
It might be workable with the commander like that. We just didn't care for the commander mode when we tried it, so we scrapped the idea. Because the commander is the only unit other than the nano-towers that can build defenses or factories (not counting the transportable llt) all your build power is focused up on the front line where your commander is. I think you'd have to change a lot of other things to make a commander mode work really well. Maybe allow cons to build some more types of defenses, or lvl1 factories, i dunno. The really bad thing about it was the com pushing though. You'd could put up missile towers and plasma cannons on the front line and sit behind them with your commander repairing. You could fight off pretty much anything that way unless the other guy was doing the same thing to you. It's not that the commander idea isn't workable. I suspect a lot of those problems could be fixed in some ways, maybe make defenses less powerful, or limit the commander's build tree. We decided on taking the mod a different route and went with static coms.
It might be workable with the commander like that. We just didn't care for the commander mode when we tried it, so we scrapped the idea. Because the commander is the only unit other than the nano-towers that can build defenses or factories (not counting the transportable llt) all your build power is focused up on the front line where your commander is. I think you'd have to change a lot of other things to make a commander mode work really well. Maybe allow cons to build some more types of defenses, or lvl1 factories, i dunno. The really bad thing about it was the com pushing though. You'd could put up missile towers and plasma cannons on the front line and sit behind them with your commander repairing. You could fight off pretty much anything that way unless the other guy was doing the same thing to you. It's not that the commander idea isn't workable. I suspect a lot of those problems could be fixed in some ways, maybe make defenses less powerful, or limit the commander's build tree. We decided on taking the mod a different route and went with static coms.
-
smokingwreckage
- Posts: 327
- Joined: 09 Apr 2005, 11:40
Re: NOTA 1.49
My question is why NOT have a static comm? It does more than anything else to change the dynamic from TA to something unique.
If people were that enamored of a mobile start, why not throw in some conbots?
If people were that enamored of a mobile start, why not throw in some conbots?
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
Re: NOTA 1.49
How about something like this?
Game starts with a mobile commander, but he can only built really basic stuff (like solars, LLTs, mexes, that sort of thing). Then you can upgrade him into the command tower - which is static, but can build everything the current Command Tower can
Game starts with a mobile commander, but he can only built really basic stuff (like solars, LLTs, mexes, that sort of thing). Then you can upgrade him into the command tower - which is static, but can build everything the current Command Tower can
Re: NOTA 1.49
Again, why not have a static commander?
Re: NOTA 1.49
#1 a static commander is static meaning he is limited to his radius and cant do anything most of the game.
#2 it means ur base always has some protection and the commander can usually cover a lot of the base especially at start which means no small unit raiding.
The commander also has tons of build power and it builds other nanos towers liek him in the base perimeter which makes everything center around your base and be more rigid.
jsut dont allow the commander to build advanced turrets.
Dont make him some super mecha that can kill an entire army but at least it wont be so base centered.
Oh and another thing.
T wlaking commander ismuch cooler than just some standing tower.
#2 it means ur base always has some protection and the commander can usually cover a lot of the base especially at start which means no small unit raiding.
The commander also has tons of build power and it builds other nanos towers liek him in the base perimeter which makes everything center around your base and be more rigid.
jsut dont allow the commander to build advanced turrets.
Dont make him some super mecha that can kill an entire army but at least it wont be so base centered.
Oh and another thing.
T wlaking commander ismuch cooler than just some standing tower.
Re: NOTA 1.49
The commander works all game in NOTA. If it isn't, you're doing it wrong.Gota wrote:#1 a static commander is static meaning he is limited to his radius and cant do anything most of the game.
It doesn't take many units to kill something important. The commander doesn't deal damage very quickly.Gota wrote: #2 it means ur base always has some protection and the commander can usually cover a lot of the base especially at start which means no small unit raiding.
I'm having trouble understanding this one. You have to build vulnerable buildtowers to be able to porc in a meaningful manner. Unless you consider staying in your base and letting the enemy have the entire map "meaningful." And if you aren't just staying in your base, but instead moving out and building expansion bases, how is that rigid?Gota wrote: The commander also has tons of build power and it builds other nanos towers liek him in the base perimeter which makes everything center around your base and be more rigid.
Re: NOTA 1.49
Hey you know what.
If NOTA devs like it the way it is now its fine with me.
It's just that NOTA is in many ways like supcom so im naturaly comparing it to supcom but it has some advantages over it like unit divrsity and the OTA++ arsenal.
Was just thinking it would be great if NOTA could borrow some good ideas from supcom cause Supcom does have a few things it got right,IMO at least.
If NOTA devs like it the way it is now its fine with me.
It's just that NOTA is in many ways like supcom so im naturaly comparing it to supcom but it has some advantages over it like unit divrsity and the OTA++ arsenal.
Was just thinking it would be great if NOTA could borrow some good ideas from supcom cause Supcom does have a few things it got right,IMO at least.