LOL, BIG TEXTNOiZE wrote:don't listen to himDragon45 wrote:LEAVE GROUND AND AIR BALANCE ALONE ITS FINE >_<
!
Make transports more viable by giving them a short range, large AOE and small paralyse time? so you can shoot, drop and clean up.
Absolute Annihilation 2.11
Moderator: Moderators
-
Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
Yes, but they also don't benefit from terrain for cover, and most air defences are balanced to attack things that move much faster and stay in the area for only a small amount of time. So even though they take reduced damage from missiles, missile-based defences can still do bad, bad things to them.Aun wrote:But compared all the other units in the game they're pretty damn fast and move at the same speed independant of terrain.
-
Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
problem is, if you dont kill those 6 brawlers before they spread out, the area of effect chain damage is compeletely nullified..
if you look at the brawler conceptually youll see where it is unbalanced, it is an uber unit... think on it:
it can hover over the battlefield for an indefinite duration
it can target anything on the battlefield and never runs out of ammo (given all units dont)
It is a perfect attack platform, it is hard to hit, can go anywhere and attack from anywhere, really the only weakness it has is an arbitrary damage recieved increase and a tendency to explode.. if you ignore that why wouldnt you make all your units like brawlers.. and even though they are slow compared to aircraft they are still 2x faster than some of the fastest ground units..
If you look at real life (OH NOES) the only reason aircraft arent used exclusively is because they can only be on the battlefield for a limited amount of time and have even less ammunition carrying capacity than ground units.. When you remove disadvantages like this, of course aircraft become the pwn... its pure simple logic.
if you look at the brawler conceptually youll see where it is unbalanced, it is an uber unit... think on it:
it can hover over the battlefield for an indefinite duration
it can target anything on the battlefield and never runs out of ammo (given all units dont)
It is a perfect attack platform, it is hard to hit, can go anywhere and attack from anywhere, really the only weakness it has is an arbitrary damage recieved increase and a tendency to explode.. if you ignore that why wouldnt you make all your units like brawlers.. and even though they are slow compared to aircraft they are still 2x faster than some of the fastest ground units..
If you look at real life (OH NOES) the only reason aircraft arent used exclusively is because they can only be on the battlefield for a limited amount of time and have even less ammunition carrying capacity than ground units.. When you remove disadvantages like this, of course aircraft become the pwn... its pure simple logic.
Last edited by Fanger on 22 Aug 2006, 23:34, edited 1 time in total.
I think the Rock Paper Scissors element is a vital part of the overall balance for AA and Air. I also think this has some interesting implications. I actually suspect that to reduce the amount of players who get swarmed by air with inadequate aa would be reduced if we buffed air, and reduced further if we nerfed air, which is the opposite of what most people would expect.
The reason - if we nerf air, then more people think that air is a real waste of time. So no one build airs, which means more people think that AA is a waste of time. So there are more people that leave themselves open to a player who takes the gamble of dedicating all their resources to air.
But what would happen if we buffed air by reducing the cost of every air factory and every air unit by 50%? Obivously the outrage in the thread would be so heavy you could hear the typing from Mars. People would then go out and build mass swarms of air all the time. And everyone would know that they have to build anti air defence. They would build lots of it. And I think anti air vs cost effective enough that even such an extreme buff to air would still give the advantage to AA. Everyone would build lots of air stuff.
And then someone would get the wise idea of building a bunch of tanks (remember those) with a bunch of mobile flakkers and fighters to keep the air out. They'd walk into the enemy base and find there is hardly any ground defence and that they can slaughter all the anti air defence and econ and win the game. The game would still be balanced, but it would be a very different balance with a lot more air units, and a lot less ground units.
The reason - if we nerf air, then more people think that air is a real waste of time. So no one build airs, which means more people think that AA is a waste of time. So there are more people that leave themselves open to a player who takes the gamble of dedicating all their resources to air.
But what would happen if we buffed air by reducing the cost of every air factory and every air unit by 50%? Obivously the outrage in the thread would be so heavy you could hear the typing from Mars. People would then go out and build mass swarms of air all the time. And everyone would know that they have to build anti air defence. They would build lots of it. And I think anti air vs cost effective enough that even such an extreme buff to air would still give the advantage to AA. Everyone would build lots of air stuff.
And then someone would get the wise idea of building a bunch of tanks (remember those) with a bunch of mobile flakkers and fighters to keep the air out. They'd walk into the enemy base and find there is hardly any ground defence and that they can slaughter all the anti air defence and econ and win the game. The game would still be balanced, but it would be a very different balance with a lot more air units, and a lot less ground units.
If gunships spread out, they can't really do damage. And again, gunships are easy prey for the most mobile unit in the game. Even a handful of Freedom Fighters will shred a 10-15 Brawler swarm before it can do more than cursory damage. And Air Plant + 5-15 fighters is a considerably smaller investment than Air Plant + L2 Air Plant + 10-30 Brawlers.
-
Lolsquad_Steven
- Posts: 488
- Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 17:55
Yes, and that's going to keep being the case until people learn that AA isn't that expensive, and dedicating some resources to it won't severely harm your ground combat potential. Especially since you can then very cheaply get bombers and gunships if your enemy's neglected his AA in favour of ground units.Lolsquad_Steven wrote:Most games someone will be able to get a swarm of brawlers before their enemy desides to get patrolling freedom fighters or decent aa unless their enemy has seen their t2 aircraft earlier. Brawlers are strong very mobile, fast and do alot of damage, if unprepared they are very hard to stop.
Generally, as soon as you get an advantage, you're going to want to slow down a bit and build up some AA, then ratchet up the pressure again.
One thing I was thinking: part of the argument here is that the L1 airfac is getting cut in price, but the L1 fighters are going up in price....
Why not cut the price on the L1 facs (except Navy) down to the level of the kbot lab, or even cheaper? It would encourage diversifying at L1, and would also encourage expanding to firebases. Plus, it's logisitically easier to handle 2 kbot labs compared to 1 kbot lab with a conbot guarding it (and the conbot-guard is a much better deal of nano-per-metal) since you can use one for repeatbuilding your combat troops and the other for ad-hoc needs like constructors and scouts.
I imagine the initial reason for this pricing was (a) the risk of an unstoppable flash-rush right off the bat because of the high speed of L1 raider vehicles, and (b) similar worries about early fighters/bombers.... but the AA comm can get up a SAM tower too fast to worry about the latter, and likewise can handle the former adequately.
Why not make them all cost around 400 metal? So building a factory is substantially cheaper than building an HLT. Cut the buildtime on them too, while you're at it - that would mean that there would be much less initial dead-time at the beginning of the game. The only catch I see is that it would make taking out the enemy's factory much less fun as an early victory.
Why not cut the price on the L1 facs (except Navy) down to the level of the kbot lab, or even cheaper? It would encourage diversifying at L1, and would also encourage expanding to firebases. Plus, it's logisitically easier to handle 2 kbot labs compared to 1 kbot lab with a conbot guarding it (and the conbot-guard is a much better deal of nano-per-metal) since you can use one for repeatbuilding your combat troops and the other for ad-hoc needs like constructors and scouts.
I imagine the initial reason for this pricing was (a) the risk of an unstoppable flash-rush right off the bat because of the high speed of L1 raider vehicles, and (b) similar worries about early fighters/bombers.... but the AA comm can get up a SAM tower too fast to worry about the latter, and likewise can handle the former adequately.
Why not make them all cost around 400 metal? So building a factory is substantially cheaper than building an HLT. Cut the buildtime on them too, while you're at it - that would mean that there would be much less initial dead-time at the beginning of the game. The only catch I see is that it would make taking out the enemy's factory much less fun as an early victory.
You do know about alt-queuing, right?Pxtl wrote:Plus, it's logisitically easier to handle 2 kbot labs compared to 1 kbot lab with a conbot guarding it (and the conbot-guard is a much better deal of nano-per-metal) since you can use one for repeatbuilding your combat troops and the other for ad-hoc needs like constructors and scouts.
As for the other factories, I think their price is pretty good now. Check the tournament 1v1 replays. It's pretty common to see people throwing up second factories closer to the enemy.
/me runs off to look up alt-queuing in wikiEgarwaen wrote:You do know about alt-queuing, right?
As for the other factories, I think their price is pretty good now. Check the tournament 1v1 replays. It's pretty common to see people throwing up second factories closer to the enemy.
when did they add that?
Ages ago. Before I started playing. It's just one of Those Features.Pxtl wrote:/me runs off to look up alt-queuing in wiki
when did they add that?
The one problem is that there's no way to say "Build one and only one of these now" if the factory's on repeat. You have to alt-queue and then de-queue after it's done building. So in that case, having two factories is better.
But yeah, watch the 3rd tournament replays. I think you'd find them very educational.