Absolute Annihilation 2.11

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 28 Aug 2006, 04:58

Egarwaen wrote:
Pxtl wrote:Personally, I never liked the gunship-missile-resistence. Ditch it and buff their armour correspondingly.
You are aware that, unless flak gets buffed, this has the net effect of nerfing flak hard?

Personally, I'd go with a 15% buff of the Gunship armour, with the corresponding removal of the SAM-damage reduction. This would split the difference (iirc the SAMdamage reduction is ~30%). Thus flak cannons would be "short-range/large-blast AA defense" instead of the "anti-gunship defense" that they are currently. I doubt a ~15% damage reduction to gunships would be game-ending for flakkers anyways. If they need a buff to keep up, that's fine - it's not like they're horribly overpowered against aircraft that isn't gunships right now anyways. But that's just the way I'd do it - Caydr probably considered that option when implementing the missile-nerf, so I'm sure he has his reasons.

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 28 Aug 2006, 05:00

Forboding Angel wrote:It may not seem like a big differance, but it does have an impact.

2x2 vehicles have a maxslope of 10, 3x3s a maxslope of 12. (Presumably due to their larger size, this results in a similar behaviour) KBots are anywhere from 14 to 20. The values in the .FBI file apparently override the values in the movement class.

As for Flakkers, someone mentioned a while back that a surprisingly small number of Gunships can take one out - something like 6-8?

Day · Post by **Day** » 28 Aug 2006, 05:01

Huh. I see the problem now, they only had one missile. They were supposed to have two. I wonder how long it's been like that...

i said it a couple of times before....

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 28 Aug 2006, 05:02

You're not noobish enough to be listened to, Day

Take it as a compliment @_@

JK for all you haters out there!

KlavoHunter · Post by **KlavoHunter** » 28 Aug 2006, 05:07

Pxtl wrote:Umm, changing the model basically means a new unit, which Caydr doesn't do. Any "new" Poison Arrow would still have just 1 gun. And there already are non-amphib "small guardian" units in the Luger and friends.

The thing that must be considered is whether the Poison Arrow must remain yet-another-assault-tank... when there is already so many other assault amphibs. Personally, I'd like to see it either as an artillery, or to be more interesting (and different from just an "amphib luger") I'd make it a "Amphibious Anti-Naval Cannon" - that is, a slow unit armed with a weapon similar to the low-trajectory fire of a Guardian, with a Luger's range, and Naval damage. It would be useful on land-maps as a slow, heavy, longer-ranged Morty, and on naval maps as a mobile Guardian, but without the high-trajectory Bombardment mode.

That, and I think the L1 SAM kbots should be made into amphibious units. Not like they're useful in any other way.

Ah, my bad, forgot that he doesn't mess with models. So scrap the "self-defense guns" idea.

However, giving it a Guardian cannon (Which in itself is anti-Naval, as IIRC it does 2x damage to all ships) sounds like a remarkably attractive idea. Which is what I said in the first place.

Why are we reverting Shields back to the old, ridiculously effective Repulsor-type? I like the change with the newer strength-based blocking shields. They're not going to save you forever - you can't just porc if the enemy has a Bertha shelling you. If you want to stop it, you actually have to go out and kill it. Or bugger your economy with lots of Shields.

Honestly... Why, Caydr, why?

WTF is with the Fusion nerf? They make a quarter less than the originals, and now you keep on boosting and boosting their cost. It's looking more and more like just spamming Adv. Solars is better, with the occasional Geo. Which are already nicely cost-effective versus Fusions in 2.11 .

Drexion · Post by **Drexion** » 28 Aug 2006, 05:13

Pxtl wrote:
Drexion wrote:... Of course, that will also make jethros even better against gunships . I hate the idea of level 1 anti-air totally destroying level 2 air...
BWAHAHAHAHAH. Did you not read the earlier post where it was found that Jethros were, metal-to-metal, about equal to gunships? Considering the massive mobility and usefulness advantage that gunships have over jethros, I think that being an even fight could not be described as even close to "totally destroying".

Personally, I never liked the gunship-missile-resistence. Ditch it and buff their armour correspondingly.

Pxtl, one is level 1 and one is level 2. Level 1 anti-air should NOT be on an even footing with level 2 air.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 28 Aug 2006, 05:13

Egarwaen wrote:The values in the .FBI file apparently override the values in the movement class.

Not true. Maxslope of 10 means that the flash tank would have trouble navigating potholes, and it would not be able to traverse anything more than a paved road.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 28 Aug 2006, 05:21

Bladewing metal cost increased by 6, energy cost increased by 250

Once again, a request by people who dont know how to counter the buggers. Bladewings die like flies even to Insti lasers! Why increase their cost? 6 metal may not be a lot, but it adds up, and the +250 energy will DEFINATELY hurt.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 28 Aug 2006, 05:30

Drexion wrote: Pxtl, one is level 1 and one is level 2. Level 1 anti-air should NOT be on an even footing with level 2 air.

Yes, but one is a fast moving plane that can be practically anywhere on the map within moments and can destroy most classes of targets, and the other is a kbot that is limited by terrain and really can only shoot at a short list of units.

Saying that jethros shouldn't be able to do moderately against attack aircraft is like saying that shoreline deptchcharge launchers shouldn't do well against L2 amphib assaults. It's what they're for.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 28 Aug 2006, 05:45

Dragon45 wrote:
Commander metal value reduced (15000->2500)
May I ask the reasoning behind this/what noob whined for it?

Yeah, what the hell, man? Pardon my uncharacteristic swearing... I mean, I don't usually reclaim them and I think that is insane.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 28 Aug 2006, 05:50

Pxtl wrote: Saying that jethros shouldn't be able to do moderately against attack aircraft is like saying that shoreline deptchcharge launchers shouldn't do well against L2 amphib assaults. It's what they're for.

Si senor, IN MASSES. Saying that a few AKs suck at killing economy from behind is saying the smae thing. You need MASSES.

and if you want a seriously hefty L2 air defense, BUILD L2 AIR DEFENSE. Mercuriues and flakkers! They WURK.

Drexion · Post by **Drexion** » 28 Aug 2006, 05:58

Pxtl wrote:
Drexion wrote: Pxtl, one is level 1 and one is level 2. Level 1 anti-air should NOT be on an even footing with level 2 air.
Yes, but one is a fast moving plane that can be practically anywhere on the map within moments and can destroy most classes of targets, and the other is a kbot that is limited by terrain and really can only shoot at a short list of units.

Saying that jethros shouldn't be able to do moderately against attack aircraft is like saying that shoreline deptchcharge launchers shouldn't do well against L2 amphib assaults. It's what they're for.

I never claimed jethros should not do decently against air. I think t1 vs t2, it should be slightly inferior metal-for-metal...IMO. If its already "equal", making missiles do MORE against brawlers would make it better than equal

.

-Drexion

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 28 Aug 2006, 06:18

Forboding Angel wrote:
Egarwaen wrote:The values in the .FBI file apparently override the values in the movement class.
Not true. Maxslope of 10 means that the flash tank would have trouble navigating potholes, and it would not be able to traverse anything more than a paved road.

Then someone needs to update the Wiki, because it's currently very, very wrong. And that also means that the MaxSlopes aren't a problem. Whoo. The Goliath has a whole one degree of slope tolerance over the other tanks.

And I'm going to second the WTF on the Fusion nerf.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 28 Aug 2006, 07:52

Egar, try making maps. 1 Degree matters.

In particular, the 2 degrees for the light tanks makes a big difference.

For example 24 - 26 on climbing slope (This is degrees that we are talking about here, cause you probably don't know that) is an 8% difference. That is a big frickin differance on whether a unit can climb a slope or not. Whereas a 1 degree differance is 4%. Big differance eh?

TradeMark · Post by **TradeMark** » 28 Aug 2006, 09:24

I dont either understand the fusion nerf, even now it is cheaper to build 37.5 solars to gain 750E.
115M*37.5 = 4312.5M
Fusion cost: 4504M

In next version fusion will cost 5404M

So it is cheaper to just build solars...

And with advanced solars you need to build 10 to gain 750E
343M*10 = 3430M !!!!

So i suggest not to build fusions at all, you will save 5404-3430 = 1974 Metal

I suggest caydr should nerf the advanced fusion instead of normal fusion, which is too cheap compared to its energy production.

Also i wonder why commander wreck got nerfed too

Hellspawn · Post by **Hellspawn** » 28 Aug 2006, 09:58

Yeah commander wreck should be wroth 15k, so nubs gets punish for random comm bomb. I also agree that fusion shouldnt be nerfed, fusion already are easy air targets =(.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 28 Aug 2006, 10:21

Forboding Angel wrote:Egar, try making maps. 1 Degree matters.

In particular, the 2 degrees for the light tanks makes a big difference.

For example 24 - 26 on climbing slope (This is degrees that we are talking about here, cause you probably don't know that) is an 8% difference. That is a big frickin differance on whether a unit can climb a slope or not. Whereas a 1 degree differance is 4%. Big differance eh?

If the minimum slope is 0 degree's and the maximum slope is 90 degrees then 1 degree change would be just over a 1% slope change. Not that it isn't significant because 45 degrees is an incredibly steep slope for spring's usages. You really should rarely work much in the difference between 45 and 90.

FireCrack · Post by **FireCrack** » 28 Aug 2006, 10:32

FireCrack wrote:Do remember to give depth charges back to cruisers....

Also, what ever hppened to that t3 factory for vehicles you had planned?

Yeah, i'm quoting myself....

Anyways, I would like to see Anti-bomber turrets buildable by l2 builders, especilay if gunships lose their missile resistance, as it is they're more usefull at l2 than l1, and there is no "normal" t2 AA.

Torrasque · Post by **Torrasque** » 28 Aug 2006, 13:22

So with the commander will only give you 3000 if you reclaim it,
but his corpse will still give you 15k ?

About the air, I agree that they really can't do damage if people have some anti-air.

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 28 Aug 2006, 14:38

Torrasque wrote:So with the commander will only give you 3000 if you reclaim it,
but his corpse will still give you 15k ?

About the air, I agree that they really can't do damage if people have some anti-air.

Ooh! good find about the comm. Was worried there for half a second! :D

Also, yes and no. Depending. Antiswarm, antibomber and figthers don't do sqwat agsint level 2 air. i had 5 raipers take out an antiswarm with no casulties, while 3-4 figthers patrolled the area. Level 2 figthers, flakkers covering every area and mecruies will stop an air attack in it's tracks.

Spring RTS Engine

Absolute Annihilation 2.11