One major point of debate is to define the terms. Since you are both looking at the terms in different ways (Storm seeing small maps and OTA, 10053r seeing epic and XTA), there is no possible way to argue whether planes are over/underpowered.
(Off topic, but one of the great things about TA is how its strategy can completely change depending on the mapsize and metal. Small maps focus around a killer economy, large maps effective use of armies, and metal maps who can build an indestructible base. Since both of you are playing different mapsizes and essentially different games, It truely is pointless to debate.)
Flight behaviour of planes
Moderator: Moderators
True.Storm wrote:Thing is, if we balance it to normal maps, planes are gonna return to be a little too powerful on epic, but if we align them to epic, they will become totally worthless in normal games. The outcome doesn't matter much to him, but is devastating for the others.
Perhaps planes could do two different things, one which helps on normal maps and one for epic. For example, plane A would have radar jamming, but after a certain amount of time in the air the plane loses its jamming and its missile becomes slightly more powerful. In a normal game, it would have jamming, and in the time it takes to get to the opponent's base in an epic map it becomes more powerful.
Another, more sensible, answer would be to form a small delay between a unit moving and the radar getting updated. Buildings and slow units can still be hit with autotargetting, but you would need a spotter to hit planes with any sort of effectiveness.
-
Sean Mirrsen
- Posts: 578
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 17:38
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
I rather like the idea of a slowly updating radar. It coud update according to which way the radar dish is facing, so you have a radial update effect, as it arcs in 360 degrees updating your radar.
You have to wonder what would happen if I built two within the same range. Would my radar be updated up to twice as fast?
Of course, another, even cooler way around it, is for aircraft to recognise threats and activate maneuvres to avoid the missiles...
----------------------
I think that aircraft should be balanced according to smaller maps, simply because it won't have such a large effect on epic maps. Minor alterations have a big effect on small maps, because every unit counts. On large maps, swarms count, and so the minor differences are swallowed up in a cloud of firepower.
---------------------
Why do I picture you with a stiff-upper-lip British accent, 10053r?
You have to wonder what would happen if I built two within the same range. Would my radar be updated up to twice as fast?
Of course, another, even cooler way around it, is for aircraft to recognise threats and activate maneuvres to avoid the missiles...
----------------------
I think that aircraft should be balanced according to smaller maps, simply because it won't have such a large effect on epic maps. Minor alterations have a big effect on small maps, because every unit counts. On large maps, swarms count, and so the minor differences are swallowed up in a cloud of firepower.
---------------------
Why do I picture you with a stiff-upper-lip British accent, 10053r?
-
BlackLiger
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58
Actually, iv been thinking about that.
Even w out the misbalencing or whatever it is, aircraft just seem a little lame at the moment. They fly straight at the target, fire a missile, fly away, turn around, fly in again, shoot and repeat. I think they should try manovering a little....
Prehaps make missiles a little less accurate (you will understand in a second) when fired at aircraft.
Make aircraft manover when missiles are fired at them, and also make a little chaff animation, wont do anything, but because of reduced accuracy when missiles are fired at aircraft, would be cool.
Even w out the misbalencing or whatever it is, aircraft just seem a little lame at the moment. They fly straight at the target, fire a missile, fly away, turn around, fly in again, shoot and repeat. I think they should try manovering a little....
Prehaps make missiles a little less accurate (you will understand in a second) when fired at aircraft.
Make aircraft manover when missiles are fired at them, and also make a little chaff animation, wont do anything, but because of reduced accuracy when missiles are fired at aircraft, would be cool.
Wow. Lots of great points. I DO like Core Prime, Storm. It is one of my favorite maps. Perhaps we agree on it because it is EXACTLY the size such that you can't hit your opponant's base with a bertha in your base (at least in the OTA engine). That is kind of my minimum size.
Perhaps I like larger maps because they appeal to my anal retentive OCD side (thus the british accent in your head, Warlord, although I am american). On a large map, things are nice and neat. They get very messy on small maps. Core prime and larger maps are nice because there are 3 zones. My territory, your territory, and disputed territory. I like there being front lines, and I like the give and take of defending them and building behind them. On a small map, all territory is disputed, so all that effort one puts into building the PERFECT base is wasted. I respect the players who want things all to take place in no-man's land, but I like stepping back from that a bit and getting a more epic view.
All insults that we have traded aside, our debate has exposed an important part of the game (this is why I love debate), which Dekar has illuminated for us. It IS a vastly different game depending on map size, and we should reach a balance that works for all maps.
In Sean's latest proposal, radar is very much weakened. This should satisfy the small map crowd, since it becomes easy to autotarget radar, and more difficult to autotarget other things. On large maps, however, weakening radar strengthens planes, which are already too strong for those maps.
I propose the following changes.
1) We make radar reveal itself to anything in the effect radius by default. This will make radar easy to target on small maps, which weakens it there.
2) We make an option on radar for a "passive mode", which let's it not reveal itself, which makes the information game easier on large maps and allows for hiding radar installations (thus weakening planes). However, we make passive mode require a moderate to large amount of energy (say 100-200 E per tick) for the extra "signal processing". Since it takes a fair amount of energy, it will only be an useful option on large maps.
3) Stealth units stay stealth, but radar has two radii. At somewhere around .25 of the radius, a stealth / jammed unit will show up on radar. I choose the .25 value because it means that you get 1/16th of your radar coverage as unjammable (making it very difficult to cover the map with unjammable coverage). Near your base on a large map, those incoming hawks and vamps will still be targetted a couple screens out where they should be, to lessen the need for missle forests, but you can still hide your attack until it is too late to do anything about it but fight with the units you have. On a small map, this change won't do much, because .25 the radius of a small radar tower is usually within LOS.
Perhaps I like larger maps because they appeal to my anal retentive OCD side (thus the british accent in your head, Warlord, although I am american). On a large map, things are nice and neat. They get very messy on small maps. Core prime and larger maps are nice because there are 3 zones. My territory, your territory, and disputed territory. I like there being front lines, and I like the give and take of defending them and building behind them. On a small map, all territory is disputed, so all that effort one puts into building the PERFECT base is wasted. I respect the players who want things all to take place in no-man's land, but I like stepping back from that a bit and getting a more epic view.
All insults that we have traded aside, our debate has exposed an important part of the game (this is why I love debate), which Dekar has illuminated for us. It IS a vastly different game depending on map size, and we should reach a balance that works for all maps.
In Sean's latest proposal, radar is very much weakened. This should satisfy the small map crowd, since it becomes easy to autotarget radar, and more difficult to autotarget other things. On large maps, however, weakening radar strengthens planes, which are already too strong for those maps.
I propose the following changes.
1) We make radar reveal itself to anything in the effect radius by default. This will make radar easy to target on small maps, which weakens it there.
2) We make an option on radar for a "passive mode", which let's it not reveal itself, which makes the information game easier on large maps and allows for hiding radar installations (thus weakening planes). However, we make passive mode require a moderate to large amount of energy (say 100-200 E per tick) for the extra "signal processing". Since it takes a fair amount of energy, it will only be an useful option on large maps.
3) Stealth units stay stealth, but radar has two radii. At somewhere around .25 of the radius, a stealth / jammed unit will show up on radar. I choose the .25 value because it means that you get 1/16th of your radar coverage as unjammable (making it very difficult to cover the map with unjammable coverage). Near your base on a large map, those incoming hawks and vamps will still be targetted a couple screens out where they should be, to lessen the need for missle forests, but you can still hide your attack until it is too late to do anything about it but fight with the units you have. On a small map, this change won't do much, because .25 the radius of a small radar tower is usually within LOS.
-
Sean Mirrsen
- Posts: 578
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 17:38
I agree with most things, except the .25 stealth detection radius thingy. The whole point of stealth is remain unseen until it's too late. Since the only stealth planes in TA are the Hawk and the Vamp, they won't be able to deal too much damage to a concentrated array of anti-air defences, given their inability to swarm a target like they did in TA. They also become very vulnerable to any skybound weapons while manuevering above an enemy base. Even HLTs and LLTs sometimes score numerous kills on attacking aircraft.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
What does 'OCD' stand for?
And I agree with Sean regarding the unnecessarity of the complex system you propose regarding stealth. Units are stealth until they are in visual range. Stealth units should be balanced by unit makers, not Spring. If you are getting chewed up by stealth units, build spotter units.
This is interesting, as I could use this very paragraph as an argument against epic maps. I like the fact that all territory is disputed; battles become tense, and the whole map is a constant battlefield, rather than the tug-of-war strip of no-mans land in an epic battle, where neither side has enough resources to really kill the other side. It reminds me of WWI (or even the constant battles of Orwell's 1984); or worse, of the ludicrously linear battles of the 17th and 18th century.I like there being front lines, and I like the give and take of defending them and building behind them. On a small map, all territory is disputed, so all that effort one puts into building the PERFECT base is wasted.
I don't particularly like this option. While it solves one problem, it is a bandaid fix which creates many more. I can never hide a radar near the enemy base to keep an eye on them; similarly, I can never hide a hidden base behind enemy lines (atleast, not one with a radar). It means that any attempts to keep an eye on the enemy result in a big fat "MY BASE IS HERE" or "MY INTELLIGENCE OUTPOST/HIDDEN BASE IS HERE" tag broadcasted to the enemy. And that is just with structural radars. What about mobile radar units? Of course, I'm always one to put gameplay over realism, but it doesn't make any sense in terms of realism either...1) We make radar reveal itself to anything in the effect radius by default. This will make radar easy to target on small maps, which weakens it there.
And I agree with Sean regarding the unnecessarity of the complex system you propose regarding stealth. Units are stealth until they are in visual range. Stealth units should be balanced by unit makers, not Spring. If you are getting chewed up by stealth units, build spotter units.
-
Sean Mirrsen
- Posts: 578
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 17:38
Well, firstly, radars already give the player too much, and taking away some of this 'too much' will result in something closer to 'just right'.
If you can't spy on an enemy with a radar - you have to also remember that you're not only detecting his units on the map, you're also giving near-accurate positions for your aircraft and artillery, even though you don't really have a targeting upgrade. If you want to keep a base secret, turn the radar off, and use scouts instead. The revealed radar location should in no way be allowed to be jammed.
However, maybe a radar 'could' have a passive detection range, detecting units at half of its radius and with greater inaccuracy.
Btw, this system could be used to trick your opponent into thinking he has your attacking force on radar, when it's just your group of radar kbots performing a wicked distraction manuever.
And it makes perfect sense in terms of realism. Any radar emits a high-frequency radio signal, which can easily be spotted by common sensors. It's the same way a sub can tell it's been nailed by a sonar.
If you can't spy on an enemy with a radar - you have to also remember that you're not only detecting his units on the map, you're also giving near-accurate positions for your aircraft and artillery, even though you don't really have a targeting upgrade. If you want to keep a base secret, turn the radar off, and use scouts instead. The revealed radar location should in no way be allowed to be jammed.
However, maybe a radar 'could' have a passive detection range, detecting units at half of its radius and with greater inaccuracy.
Btw, this system could be used to trick your opponent into thinking he has your attacking force on radar, when it's just your group of radar kbots performing a wicked distraction manuever.
And it makes perfect sense in terms of realism. Any radar emits a high-frequency radio signal, which can easily be spotted by common sensors. It's the same way a sub can tell it's been nailed by a sonar.
Sean Mirrsen wrote:
Don't worry, warlord. I don't want to give up hidden intelligence gathering any more than you do.
OCD stands for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. I don't really have it, but was using it to talk about the "neat freak" in me.
Warlord Zsinj wrote:
Good point Sean. I forgot that. So this sounds like the ideal solution then. Radar reveals its location, but has a passive mode that costs energy to run so hidden installations are still viable on large maps, which is the only maps they are viable on anyway.Since the only stealth planes in TA are the Hawk and the Vamp, they won't be able to deal too much damage to a concentrated array of anti-air defences, given their inability to swarm a target like they did in TA. They also become very vulnerable to any skybound weapons while manuevering above an enemy base. Even HLTs and LLTs sometimes score numerous kills on attacking aircraft.
Don't worry, warlord. I don't want to give up hidden intelligence gathering any more than you do.
OCD stands for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. I don't really have it, but was using it to talk about the "neat freak" in me.
Warlord Zsinj wrote:
How about WW2? There were front lines in that. Or the Korean War? Or even the latest war in Iraq. During the 10 minutes it took the American military to roll over the Iraqi military, there was a quickly advancing front that started in Kuweit and moved towards the north as the ground invasion proceded. This is not to say that action can't occur behind the lines, but it is more rare. I agree that as technology has proceded, the trend so far has been to eliminate lines and make them more fluid, but who is to say that this trend will continue, or that it is more fun to simulate? I acknowledge that YOU like that kind of battle, and lots of people do, but there are others who don't.This is interesting, as I could use this very paragraph as an argument against epic maps. I like the fact that all territory is disputed; battles become tense, and the whole map is a constant battlefield, rather than the tug-of-war strip of no-mans land in an epic battle, where neither side has enough resources to really kill the other side. It reminds me of WWI (or even the constant battles of Orwell's 1984); or worse, of the ludicrously linear battles of the 17th and 18th century.
Technically, it all makes sense to have the radar beaming out it's position without any real hesitation. As I said before, it brings out an enormous strategical value into the game... the age old question if you want intelligence or if you dare to want intelligence.
First of all, again I want to put down the suggestion of seing stealth units at 25% of the range. Stealth units aren't supposed to be seen, so making them show exactly when they get in range is kinda defeating the purpose.
Now, as for the "silent" mode, I don't really know. After all, level 2 provides you with jammers, along with adv. radars and it's about then it really starts to matter. I would like to say that if people want a stealth outpost, they either have to jam the radar or use units for cover. You can also build fake bases with radars and then self-destruct them after a while to give the impression that you just jammed something.
Yes it would be harder to deliver a jammer kbot than just turn the radar to the other setting, but really, since it is more cumbersome, it will be used a tad more rarely and therefore not expected in the same extent.
About mobile radar units, let's assume they are passive radars (and hence the much shorter range) and not flash them up on the map. That would make them a lot more useful than they are now.
First of all, again I want to put down the suggestion of seing stealth units at 25% of the range. Stealth units aren't supposed to be seen, so making them show exactly when they get in range is kinda defeating the purpose.
Now, as for the "silent" mode, I don't really know. After all, level 2 provides you with jammers, along with adv. radars and it's about then it really starts to matter. I would like to say that if people want a stealth outpost, they either have to jam the radar or use units for cover. You can also build fake bases with radars and then self-destruct them after a while to give the impression that you just jammed something.
Yes it would be harder to deliver a jammer kbot than just turn the radar to the other setting, but really, since it is more cumbersome, it will be used a tad more rarely and therefore not expected in the same extent.
Yes, exactly, so you either gonna take the pun and place a radar halway to your enemy to see when his forces start to move in on your turf, a base without radars, with a few patrolling Finks as lookouts or place a jammed radar in his close proximity. Note that the radar should reveal itself to any enemy unit within it's work distance, so you shouldn't be able to see the opponent's first radar anyway.I don't particularly like this option. While it solves one problem, it is a bandaid fix which creates many more. I can never hide a radar near the enemy base to keep an eye on them; similarly, I can never hide a hidden base behind enemy lines (atleast, not one with a radar). It means that any attempts to keep an eye on the enemy result in a big fat "MY BASE IS HERE" or "MY INTELLIGENCE OUTPOST/HIDDEN BASE IS HERE" tag broadcasted to the enemy. And that is just with structural radars. What about mobile radar units? Of course, I'm always one to put gameplay over realism, but it doesn't make any sense in terms of realism either...
About mobile radar units, let's assume they are passive radars (and hence the much shorter range) and not flash them up on the map. That would make them a lot more useful than they are now.
That is kinda my maximum size. At least we have a common ground to judge from. I played OTA on CPI and planes sucked there compared to Mavericks (not that planes weren't useless, as I had a bunch)Wow. Lots of great points. I DO like Core Prime, Storm. It is one of my favorite maps. Perhaps we agree on it because it is EXACTLY the size such that you can't hit your opponant's base with a bertha in your base (at least in the OTA engine). That is kind of my minimum size.
-
Sean Mirrsen
- Posts: 578
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 17:38
So, ok, we come to the following conclusion:
Aircraft remain as they are, without changes.
Active radars reveal themselves imediately to the side whose units they detect.
Passive radars should be introduced, which act the same way as active radars, but do not reveal their location to the enemy. A 'radardistance2' tag will probably be sufficient.
Passive radars can be hidden by jammers. Active cannot.
With these changes, it will be possible to make normal radars still detect things when off, and it will also be possible to make hidden outposts with a jammed passive radar.
Aircraft remain as they are, without changes.
Active radars reveal themselves imediately to the side whose units they detect.
Passive radars should be introduced, which act the same way as active radars, but do not reveal their location to the enemy. A 'radardistance2' tag will probably be sufficient.
Passive radars can be hidden by jammers. Active cannot.
With these changes, it will be possible to make normal radars still detect things when off, and it will also be possible to make hidden outposts with a jammed passive radar.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
To clarify what i was talking about:mongus wrote:PauloMorfeo:
You are thinking about a plane that takes some shots, and then "malfunctions" (loose a part of its wing maybe) and crashes into ground, WITHOUT have depleted its life points (HP).
...
Let's say for example that a K-Bot has 6 HPs per metal spent. It costs 100 metal and so, has 600 HPs.
Now, let's say that a plane costs 100 metal also. How much HPs does it have?
I think it should also have around 600 HPs (6HPs/metal) but that it should crash down (still able to fire and stuff) reaching some 300 HPs of damage.
Of course, it's HP bar would only show 300 HPs.
Since now, planes have some 3HP/metal, it would be exactly the same as it works now with the diferences that that plane would only blow up reaching 600 HPs of dmg (more than it's HP bar shows) and that it's carcass would fall down on the ground if it wouldn't blow up.
And i don't see how this would make planes weaker... Only stronger as on top of sending missiles/bombs, it could also fall on enemy units.
All values are meant as examples!
-
Sean Mirrsen
- Posts: 578
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 17:38