Absolute Annihilation 2.11

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 29 Aug 2006, 13:21

Arrrr... If it is that big of a deal, make a game with kbots and tanks (Your game) where AA is modified and tanks can climb 30-32 slopes...

Ofc against bots, players wouldn't work well (sync errors), Soooo

I wanna see tanks with kbots climb, put 2 bots against each other to WITNESS what a tank does to a kbot on land terms like that....

You better do it damnit...

Exactly as several people said (Kdr and forb, don't feel like naming others) there are reasons tanks can't climb hills well....

Ohh, Caydr, when will Arm and Core switch over to hover-chassis for their tanks, climbing ability of 50 and movespeed 3 times that of aks!

^Disregard that last sentence...

Wolf-In-Exile · Post by **Wolf-In-Exile** » 29 Aug 2006, 13:28

KDR_11k wrote:You call being able to traverse 25├é┬░ slopes too low to be realistic? That's a 46% slope! How many vehicles can go over that? Especially off-road where the ground may simply slip away under your tyres?

Yes, if you compare that to modern military vehicles.

And If you check, 4x4 offroad vehicles can negotiate at least 30 degree slopes.

Also, tanks can traverse slopes much more than 46% slopes.

http://www.onwar.com/weapons/afv/data/g ... esel1b.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm
http://koti.mbnet.fi/fmashiri/armor/a_main.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sabra/

Drexion · Post by **Drexion** » 29 Aug 2006, 13:48

Just wanted to add my voice to Daywalker and Randy. Vehicles, as a whole, do not need enhancements at the moment (Sure, the instigator needs a nerf). On flat maps, I will *always* go vehicles unless I want to provide myself with a handicap by going kbot. Always. I want to see one of these proponents of "kbots better than vehicles on flat maps" play me with kbots on a flat map and win =p.

The factory cost reduction I think is fairly minor, but the 10% speed/accel/brake(across the board...IMO flash could use that) change might very well tip the balance way too much into vehicle's favor. I don't know though, I haven't played the new version yet... Just seems like a dangerous change, very much so. Imagine having your veh bots 10% faster going towards mexes...It already builds things faster than the kbot con bot

.

-Drexion

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 29 Aug 2006, 14:01

Meh, if it doesen't work out, he can change stuff in other sectors. I think he WANTS the cheaper fac and the better Speed/ect for the vechiles. Then maybe other values can be edited if it dosen't work out.

Lippy · Post by **Lippy** » 29 Aug 2006, 14:29

Maverick damage per hit reduced to 75, switched to buckshot (10),
reloadtime increased to 3 (0.985), has less accuracy and wide spray,
AoE increased to 12 (8); effective DPS is now 250 (300)

Maverick holster/unholster animation speed boosted

Combat autorepair removed from all units except Commander, Maverick;
maverick description changed to reflect this

Can I ask what the reasoning behind this is???? Maverick is my favourite, mainly because people keep believing it is underpowered but they just are unable to use it effectively.
Can someone explain what the changes are in more detail, because I have no idea how buckshot works, or what DPS stands for (not in glossary). As far as my limited knowledge goes, it looks to me as though it will change roles to an anti-L1-swarm peashooter ;(

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 29 Aug 2006, 14:37

Lippy wrote:
Maverick damage per hit reduced to 75, switched to buckshot (10),
reloadtime increased to 3 (0.985), has less accuracy and wide spray,
AoE increased to 12 (8); effective DPS is now 250 (300)

Maverick holster/unholster animation speed boosted

Combat autorepair removed from all units except Commander, Maverick;
maverick description changed to reflect this
Can I ask what the reasoning behind this is???? Maverick is my favourite, mainly because people keep believing it is underpowered but they just are unable to use it effectively.
Can someone explain what the changes are in more detail, because I have no idea how buckshot works, or what DPS stands for (not in glossary). As far as my limited knowledge goes, it looks to me as though it will change roles to an anti-L1-swarm peashooter ;(

DPS = damage per second

Buckshot acording to wikipedia = shotgun shell...

It also has a higer AOE which means it will kill level 1 units and swarms of units even faster.

krogothe · Post by **krogothe** » 29 Aug 2006, 14:41

Kixxe wrote:It also has a higer AOE which means it will kill level 1 units and swarms of units even faster.

No it wont, an increase of 4 AOE will most likely hardly be noticeable, and with the lower DPS and accuracy its basically a big nerf.

Cabbage · Post by **Cabbage** » 29 Aug 2006, 14:51

which is what it needs.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 29 Aug 2006, 16:10

Machiosabre wrote:Vehicle-kbot balence is a little bit lopsided in this version but with all these changes to vehicles that are already in the log there's a good chance it'll flip towards vehicles already, no need to keep beating that horse.

And FA's right that 2 points of slopetolerance wont make a big difference in gameplay, though I don't see why such an insignificant change is necesarry

Because this insignificant change makes or breaks a slope of a vehicle. Those 2 points define whether a vehicle can make it up that slope (regardless of the fact that it would take them a while) or not at all.

@kdr. I have already demonstrated in multiple ways that spring does not use Degrees for slope tolerance.

Cabbage · Post by **Cabbage** » 29 Aug 2006, 16:17

fact of the matter is vehicles should not have extra slope tolerance, they shouldn't be able to climb steeper slopes than they already can, even if its just a few. They are already able to get into the craters on Q20, thats more than enough.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 29 Aug 2006, 16:23

Cabbage wrote:fact of the matter is vehicles should not have extra slope tolerance, they shouldn't be able to climb steeper slopes than they already can, even if its just a few. They are already able to get into the craters on Q20, thats more than enough.

Cabbage. That was a fault of Icexuick, either that or he intended it. Download ntai and use the AF map ai. Then take a look at the heightmap, then use smfed on the smf. Even a non mapper can look at that and say "Oops".

Icexuick is/was a noob mapper where spring is concerned, regardless of how pretty his maps are (excluding deltasiege, ungh). If you want to use maps as an example to base your arguments then you should be looking at Noize, agorm, weaver, mufdvr, myself and scattered other very experienced mappers.

Had Ice actually looked before releasing, he would have seen this problem.

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 29 Aug 2006, 16:42

Forboding Angel wrote:Because this insignificant change makes or breaks a slope of a vehicle. Those 2 points define whether a vehicle can make it up that slope (regardless of the fact that it would take them a while) or not at all.

Do they really? I did a side-by-side rundown of those two maps you posted, and I couldn't really spot much difference. On WR, there were maybe three places that your revised vehicles could access that they couldn't before... But building vehicles on that map would still be a waste of metal. EvergreenHaven has absolutely no difference. And Caydr's already explained, very concisely and sensibly, why having different slope tolerances for different "normal" vehicles is a really bad idea. "Amphibious" vehicles can already climb those hills, so if people really want to use tanks on a hilly map for some reason, they can get the amphibious tanks.

I'd support changing all vehicles to 28, if you can provide a coherent, positive, and brief explanation for why you want to see the change.

SwiftSpear wrote:It shouldn't be so violently pronounced "this is a kbot map" as opposed to "this is a vehical map"

No, but that's more a mapping issue than a modding issue. A lot of maps overuse steep hills and mountains, and even if they do have some flat paths that vehicles can use, Kbots wind up being able to use their elevation advantage to outrange them. A lot of the most popular maps are very OTA-like, or even OTA conversions, for a reason.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 29 Aug 2006, 16:56

Egarwaen wrote:
Forboding Angel wrote:Because this insignificant change makes or breaks a slope of a vehicle. Those 2 points define whether a vehicle can make it up that slope (regardless of the fact that it would take them a while) or not at all.
Do they really? I did a side-by-side rundown of those two maps you posted, and I couldn't really spot much difference. On WR, there were maybe three places that your revised vehicles could access that they couldn't before... But building vehicles on that map would still be a waste of metal. EvergreenHaven has absolutely no difference. And Caydr's already explained, very concisely and sensibly, why having different slope tolerances for different "normal" vehicles is a really bad idea. "Amphibious" vehicles can already climb those hills, so if people really want to use tanks on a hilly map for some reason, they can get the amphibious tanks.

I wouldn't be opposed to changing all vehicles to 28, if you can provide a coherent, positive, and brief explanation for why you want to see the change.

SwiftSpear wrote:It shouldn't be so violently pronounced "this is a kbot map" as opposed to "this is a vehical map"
No, but that's more a mapping issue than a modding issue. A lot of maps overuse steep hills and mountains, and even if they do have some flat paths that vehicles can use, Kbots wind up being able to use their elevation advantage to outrange them. A lot of the most popular maps are very OTA-like, or even OTA conversions, for a reason.

Wow, you are wrong. Here is why:

The slo[pe difference from 24 - 26 is quite a bit. Take a closer look, or do I have to photoshop them to point things out to you tonight when I get home?

Caydr's "Explaination" was complete crap. I don't even need to explain why.

Mapping issue? O really? Well maybe you can explain to me why NO TA PORT has a height above 300? And in all reality due to the flatland color on ota heightmaps being a mid grey already, that actually takes the height difference down to about 150ish.

Read this now and get it through your heads:
OTA was VERY FLAT. The hills that you see in ota that look OMGWTFHUGE are slightly more than bumps in the ground. What you are seeing is an OPTICAL ILLUSION. I use it all the time, I know how it works. It is your eye telling you one thing and your brain believes it because you do not know better.

Don't try to tell me that this is a mapping problem. If you really wanna argue that with me I will happily hand your ass to you on a silver platter. As it is, you are a nice guy and I would prefer not to have some huge blowout argument because I have no wish to beat you down or whatever.

Drone_Fragger · Post by **Drone_Fragger** » 29 Aug 2006, 17:24

Thats what I was sorta saying. put +contour10 on in OTA and see your prescous hills reduced to small lumps on the floor.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 29 Aug 2006, 17:36

The absolutely absurd idea that we should design maps around ota just blows my mind.

Cabbage · Post by **Cabbage** » 29 Aug 2006, 18:03

for christs sake FA, read what people are saying! THERE IS NO NOTHING WRONG WITH AA SLOPE TOLERANCES! I don't know why you mention iceX, i for one much prefer his maps over yours for playabilty and looks (except digsite and dryriver which tend to crash ofc). Calling him a noob sounds like resentment when all i was doing was giving an example of vehicles coping with fairly steep slopes already.

Vehicles simply do not need to extra tolerance you're asking for. However you look at it your argument is pointless "It's such a small change it won't make any diffrence" well then, whats the point? Or "It will make vehacles better for hilly maps" It's not needed, there are kbot for a reason.

It just seems to me like you are trying to press the issue until its changed just so you can save face, even though you've persistantly shown to be wrong - just like your earlier arguments in this thread.

Spiking · Post by **Spiking** » 29 Aug 2006, 18:10

I just wanted to mention that I think the reverting of sheilds back to reflectors is a good idea- the physics of reflector sheilds was always one of my favorite things in AA. However I think that you need to be careful not to make them the invincible bastions they were beforehand, as some people have said. Perhaps increasing the energy cost per deflected shot would solve this problem- this could also create a use for the energy storage buildings, which as it is are mostly unused. Ideally a sheild would act as effectivly or a little better than sheilds do now against a single bertha- with two berthas firing creating enough energy drain to bring the sheild down unless it is held up by a massive reserve of stored energy. This would create a very offense friendly situation, as the defender's economy would be hobbled by trying to keep the sheild up.
However, please do turn them back into reflectors. Plasma shells bouncing around the map makes for a lot of fun, and the game is in the end about having fun.

Zagupi · Post by **Zagupi** » 29 Aug 2006, 18:36

Is it possible to make a deflector shield that affects shot trajectories depending of its "internal energy reserves"?

If it had lots of energy, all shots would be completely deflected, but only with little energy it would affect their trajectory a bit, but not enough to completely repel them.
(Sorry if this is a wrong thread to make such suggestions)

FizWizz · Post by **FizWizz** » 29 Aug 2006, 19:52

The old, repulsor-style shields did that. They deflected ballistic weapons at full strength when they had energy, but when energy was low, the deflection would cut out completely. If energy income was high enough to partially power the deflector, it would go full-power until energy ran out, turn off, then turn on as soon as energy flowed in (becoming intermittent), creating a sort of semi-powered and semi-repulsing effect.

TradeMark · Post by **TradeMark** » 29 Aug 2006, 20:00

I liked the old shields more... those new ones with transparent color are just ugly.

Spring RTS Engine

Absolute Annihilation 2.11