Absolute Annihilation 2.11
Moderator: Moderators
-
Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Speedymetal
Speedymetal is the progenetor of Speedmetal which had deformable terrain.
And FA, you really should stop arguing about AA's balance - you just don't play enough of it to realise the reasons for most design decisions.
1) flat terrain buildings: This allows mappers to construct landscapes that are unviable for building on. THIS IS IMPORTANT. It allows mappers to create "no mans lands". The only problem is the terrain-levelling-power of DTs allowing the creation of LLTs in said rough terrain. And actually, I like the way that the slopes where you can only build mexxes affects the gameplay - it makes the region vaguely EEesque, focussing on unit action instead of defenses.
2) Vehicles v. Kbots and balance: Currently, having both is a big asset, and not a bad investment. A lot of players make the mistake of mentally equivocating "Second factory" and "L2 factory" since a factory is a factory - but really the L2 factories cost many times more than the L1s. Whilr rushing to L2 is crucial to succeed in AA, L1 factories are often a better investment than the extra HLTs that most players build. Frequently I see games where players start kbots to claim territory, go vehicles for the L1 war while their conbots consolidate up to high metal output, then crank out an L2 tank lab... with an L1 air lab popping in somewhere in the middle. Instigators can make a terrifying assault force, pillagers can smackdown most L1 skirmishers, and Shellshockers can ruin a porcer's day... plus, shellshockers have that wonderful demoralizing effect that the enemy briefly thinks he's being attacked by 5 guardians.
And FA, you really should stop arguing about AA's balance - you just don't play enough of it to realise the reasons for most design decisions.
1) flat terrain buildings: This allows mappers to construct landscapes that are unviable for building on. THIS IS IMPORTANT. It allows mappers to create "no mans lands". The only problem is the terrain-levelling-power of DTs allowing the creation of LLTs in said rough terrain. And actually, I like the way that the slopes where you can only build mexxes affects the gameplay - it makes the region vaguely EEesque, focussing on unit action instead of defenses.
2) Vehicles v. Kbots and balance: Currently, having both is a big asset, and not a bad investment. A lot of players make the mistake of mentally equivocating "Second factory" and "L2 factory" since a factory is a factory - but really the L2 factories cost many times more than the L1s. Whilr rushing to L2 is crucial to succeed in AA, L1 factories are often a better investment than the extra HLTs that most players build. Frequently I see games where players start kbots to claim territory, go vehicles for the L1 war while their conbots consolidate up to high metal output, then crank out an L2 tank lab... with an L1 air lab popping in somewhere in the middle. Instigators can make a terrifying assault force, pillagers can smackdown most L1 skirmishers, and Shellshockers can ruin a porcer's day... plus, shellshockers have that wonderful demoralizing effect that the enemy briefly thinks he's being attacked by 5 guardians.
Alright, this has dissolved into another splintered collection of arguments over the last few pages. Stop and look at what you've all written down on the subject of slope tolerance alteration.
As it is, the slope tolerance for many vehicles is, inexorably, horrific. To some degree, this makes sense - huge metal boxes with significant mass and large flat bottoms moving across rocky terrain...
Forboding suggested a slight, but significant, change to slope tolerance to make vehicles more viable for both Core and Arm - an acceptable alternative to K-bots.
As this is a AA thread, most of the posters here do not have extensive experience with E&E. Thus, I would ask that you play more of it before using it as an example in support of an argument, or a counterexample against one. The increased slope tolerance for buildings, for example, doesn't have a tremendous negative effect on gameplay - quite the opposite, it makes a rolling frontline possible in the absence of mobile factories, which most would consider a positive effect. Same with the unit slope tolerance issue - play it, URC is still much more mobile on the ground - so much so that I prefer URC for my current E&E style of play despite my personal leanings toward artillery that is best provided by GD.
Before I throw my hat into the slope ring for vehicles, I'd like to explain a few points. Larger vehicles are more powerful, and do generate more traction due to design in a logical game world. However, no amount of power can overcome the weakness of size and weight that is imposed upon speed and acceleration for a land unit. There is no logical reason why a larger tank would be able to climb a higher slope in comparison with a smaller tank of the same movement design.
I personally think that bumping the slope tolerance up for smaller vehicles is a good idea, however, I must stress that it is the base size and mass that matters, not the tech level. That is to say, a Shellshocker should not have the slope tolerance of a Flash. A bulldog should not have the tolerance of a Flak truck.
Thank you, and attempt to preserve civility.
As it is, the slope tolerance for many vehicles is, inexorably, horrific. To some degree, this makes sense - huge metal boxes with significant mass and large flat bottoms moving across rocky terrain...
Forboding suggested a slight, but significant, change to slope tolerance to make vehicles more viable for both Core and Arm - an acceptable alternative to K-bots.
As this is a AA thread, most of the posters here do not have extensive experience with E&E. Thus, I would ask that you play more of it before using it as an example in support of an argument, or a counterexample against one. The increased slope tolerance for buildings, for example, doesn't have a tremendous negative effect on gameplay - quite the opposite, it makes a rolling frontline possible in the absence of mobile factories, which most would consider a positive effect. Same with the unit slope tolerance issue - play it, URC is still much more mobile on the ground - so much so that I prefer URC for my current E&E style of play despite my personal leanings toward artillery that is best provided by GD.
Before I throw my hat into the slope ring for vehicles, I'd like to explain a few points. Larger vehicles are more powerful, and do generate more traction due to design in a logical game world. However, no amount of power can overcome the weakness of size and weight that is imposed upon speed and acceleration for a land unit. There is no logical reason why a larger tank would be able to climb a higher slope in comparison with a smaller tank of the same movement design.
I personally think that bumping the slope tolerance up for smaller vehicles is a good idea, however, I must stress that it is the base size and mass that matters, not the tech level. That is to say, a Shellshocker should not have the slope tolerance of a Flash. A bulldog should not have the tolerance of a Flak truck.
Thank you, and attempt to preserve civility.
I don't think you know what a shellshocker is :S
But I guess I can't blame you, there's like 300 units whose name means "blow up stuff"...
I should clear something up. My opposition to having different slope tolerances for various types of vehicles is based on two things, neither of them being stubborness.
1, it means more movement classes, which means more loading time. 2, it means that you can't just know off by heart that one vehicle can make it to the same location as another vehicle. It would obsolete many vehicles if only one subcategory of vehicles was capable of climbing a certain slope. It has already been divided into regular vehicles and amphibious vehicles, and that's as far as I'm willing to let it go since there's a logical gameplay reason for it. Amphibious vehicles need to climb slopes that most other units don't ever come across.
~~~
Has core always had a cloakable fusion reactor? It seems like something from uberhack, not OTA. It doesn't really make sense to me, tbh... core shouldn't have cloaking resource buildings. I think I might remove them and just boost their regular fusions a bit more.
But I guess I can't blame you, there's like 300 units whose name means "blow up stuff"...
I should clear something up. My opposition to having different slope tolerances for various types of vehicles is based on two things, neither of them being stubborness.
1, it means more movement classes, which means more loading time. 2, it means that you can't just know off by heart that one vehicle can make it to the same location as another vehicle. It would obsolete many vehicles if only one subcategory of vehicles was capable of climbing a certain slope. It has already been divided into regular vehicles and amphibious vehicles, and that's as far as I'm willing to let it go since there's a logical gameplay reason for it. Amphibious vehicles need to climb slopes that most other units don't ever come across.
~~~
Has core always had a cloakable fusion reactor? It seems like something from uberhack, not OTA. It doesn't really make sense to me, tbh... core shouldn't have cloaking resource buildings. I think I might remove them and just boost their regular fusions a bit more.
I think it was one of the old Cavedog units. The old Uberhack FAQ doesn't seem to list it as a new or altered unit. And the Core can be sneaky. They're just sneaky and big.Caydr wrote:Has core always had a cloakable fusion reactor? It seems like something from uberhack, not OTA. It doesn't really make sense to me, tbh... core shouldn't have cloaking resource buildings. I think I might remove them and just boost their regular fusions a bit more.
I've found that http://www.planetannihilation.com/taug/ is a fantastic resource for going back for OTA info. Yes, the Cloakable Fusion is a CC unit.Egarwaen wrote:I think it was one of the old Cavedog units. The old Uberhack FAQ doesn't seem to list it as a new or altered unit. And the Core can be sneaky. They're just sneaky and big.Caydr wrote:Has core always had a cloakable fusion reactor? It seems like something from uberhack, not OTA. It doesn't really make sense to me, tbh... core shouldn't have cloaking resource buildings. I think I might remove them and just boost their regular fusions a bit more.
And one needs to be careful about going overboard with the "arm is stealthy, Core is powerful" approach. Exaggerating that would mean doing things like removing the Bulldog and the Parasite - which would be rather silly. Arm already has a decoy fusion where Core doesn't. If you feel the need to remove the Cloakable Fusion, why not convert it into a "Prude"-style "Invincible Fusion".