XTA has absurd things ...

altaric · Post by **altaric** » 24 Jul 2006, 10:20

comm can build T2
comm have NO defence against planes
llt is crapass and costs far too much

FizWizz · Post by **FizWizz** » 24 Jul 2006, 10:25

Different Strokes for Different Folks.
Not that I disagree with you on any of those three points, I should add.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 24 Jul 2006, 10:29

Hence why I stopped playing XTA after a while... that and the effectiveness of Zippers and Defensive Structures.

Sgt Doom · Post by **Sgt Doom** » 24 Jul 2006, 14:23

The time it takes for the Penetrator (wrong name?) turrets to pop-up is absurd and annyoing.
In fact, the builders get slowed immensely by animations.

FoeOfTheBee · Post by **FoeOfTheBee** » 24 Jul 2006, 16:20

altaric wrote:comm can build T2
comm have NO defence against planes
llt is crapass and costs far too much

You're confusing your defects with XTA's defects. XTA has defects, but you have to play well to know what they are.

They aren't the cost of llt's, the build tree, or the com not having missile towers.

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 24 Jul 2006, 16:24

...and lvl1 missile kbots own the early game. But that's what I like about XTA.

hrmph · Post by **hrmph** » 24 Jul 2006, 18:57

The price of the LLT makes sense considering how strong it is compared to the AA llt...

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 24 Jul 2006, 19:27

<3 XTA, especially the fact that the com can build T2.

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 24 Jul 2006, 20:41

I play prefer XTA because it seems more realistically balanced. It doesn't have direct counters, but every overall battle plan is balanced.

That and I think not letting missle trucks fire at ground units is stupid

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 24 Jul 2006, 21:03

Lindir The Green wrote:I play prefer XTA because it seems more realistically balanced. It doesn't have direct counters, but every overall battle plan is balanced.

That and I think not letting missle trucks fire at ground units is stupid

Missile trucks are a bad example, as they're the only AA unit that can fire on ground targets.

But yes, sometimes I miss the anti-ground MTs of OTA in AA.

Molloy · Post by **Molloy** » 24 Jul 2006, 21:49

XTA is alot faster than AA. Makes for a nice change now and then. Less defence, more destruction.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 24 Jul 2006, 22:11

Lindir The Green wrote:That and I think not letting missle trucks fire at ground units is stupid

I'll agree with you on that point, for the most part. I mean, realistically, any use of an AA weapon below 45 degrees at a ground unit would completely suck, and for many such as the defender or pretty much anything with missiles, it just wouldn't make sense. However, many low-forward mounted missile launching systems and essentially all flak weapons should be able to fire upon ground...

It's a balance neither AA or XTA has ever reached.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 24 Jul 2006, 22:23

I think flak is pretty powerful (as evidenced by the destruction caused by flak shells that missed and fell back on your base in earlier OTA versions) but AA missiles aren't. A problem might be that AA weapons have a long range to deal with the speed of planes.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 24 Jul 2006, 22:32

KDR_11k wrote:I think flak is pretty powerful (as evidenced by the destruction caused by flak shells that missed and fell back on your base in earlier OTA versions) but AA missiles aren't. A problem might be that AA weapons have a long range to deal with the speed of planes.

Imagine how destructive ground-to-ground Screamers would be.

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 24 Jul 2006, 22:56

KDR_11k wrote:A problem might be that AA weapons have a long range to deal with the speed of planes.

Long range, large AoE, typically a high fire rate and guided projectiles...

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 25 Jul 2006, 00:20

The solution is to divide air HP and damage that all anti-air weapons do by 5 - 10.

Then anti-air weapons will be next to useless against ground.

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 25 Jul 2006, 00:30

Lindir The Green wrote:The solution is to divide air HP and damage that all anti-air weapons do by 5 - 10.

Then anti-air weapons will be next to useless against ground.

So why even bother having them fire at ground units? It's easier to balance if they just don't.

Slamoid · Post by **Slamoid** » 25 Jul 2006, 01:05

Lindir The Green wrote:I play prefer XTA because it seems more realistically balanced. It doesn't have direct counters, but every overall battle plan is balanced.

That and I think not letting missle trucks fire at ground units is stupid

+1 to all of the above. This is why I stopped playing AA, and only sometimes play EE. -5 kills to anyone who says that XTA sucks.

Remember, SY's started with XTA, and without it Spring probably would have never happened.

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 25 Jul 2006, 01:18

Lindir The Green wrote:I play prefer XTA because it seems more realistically balanced. It doesn't have direct counters, but every overall battle plan is balanced.

AA doesn't have direct counters either, for the most part. (The notable exception being gunships and flak)

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 25 Jul 2006, 01:26

Once you get used to the odd tech level things of XTA, it's actually pretty fun. I normally don't skip the first level, as they are cheap. But it is nice to just have your com build the next level, rather then take one of your factors off building attack units to build some con's.

Spring RTS Engine

XTA has absurd things ...

XTA has absurd things ...

Re: XTA has absurd things ...