---------------

Nixa · Post by **Nixa** » 31 Mar 2007, 05:06

Troll thread, all trolling to be done here

KTNXBAI

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 31 Mar 2007, 05:13

I still want a yes or no on the hellfire tank

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 31 Mar 2007, 06:50

So, now the Sniper sucks?

Just broaching that before anyone else brings it up. You nerfed it in so many places, I'll be somewhat surprised if it plays well.

BigSteve · Post by **BigSteve** » 31 Mar 2007, 07:01

I reckon he couldve hit the nail on the head with regards to the snipers, those suckers won't be so spammable now, plus I'll take a much larger economy to support their best feature, the dreaded cloak.
Ive yet to play it though, Im gonna as soon as I can however ^^

EDIT -- Praise be! I just noticed Nixa's fixing impulse too!

Sheekel · Post by **Sheekel** » 31 Mar 2007, 08:27

What happened to 4.0?

Looks like a nice changelog, good work.

Nixa · Post by **Nixa** » 31 Mar 2007, 08:29

Next release will feature bombardment ships back aswell as the blackdown, and a lil suprise for u arm fans out there ^^

KingRaptor · Post by **KingRaptor** » 31 Mar 2007, 10:32

Nixa wrote:Next release will feature bombardment ships back aswell as the blackdown, and a lil suprise for u arm fans out there ^^

Let me guess, since Blackdawn becomes the Blade equivalent again and the Krow is thus left without an Arm analogue...

We get NEW UBAR GUNSHIPZ

Nixa · Post by **Nixa** » 31 Mar 2007, 11:40

wrong answer

hunterw · Post by **hunterw** » 31 Mar 2007, 12:12

lets see:

-bertha ships only shoot one ball not two like they are supposed to...nowhere near worth their cost and build time at this point.

-water sentinel's range is shitty again, needs to be increased like in BA

-man i'd really like the MM's to be just a little bit more efficient. after being used to 60:1 for so long it was really a huge ass change for pretty much everyone in our game. i still say 80:1 is the perfect setting because imo 60:1 is too efficient, but 100:1 is not enough...if you want to win over people from BA you'll probably have to make this compromise.

that's all i can really comment on so far, except for omgosh sweet ass new effects (for the most part)

Nixa · Post by **Nixa** » 31 Mar 2007, 12:36

Hunter... the bertha ships work fine (core fires 2, arm fires 1, but has a sam on the front)

The sentinels r for hovers only and rushing, or theyll just b spamed due to their cost (whish is a third of ba's). Sea combat is fought using units, not static d

The idea behind the metal makers is to make ppl unshell for a while, they'll b buff'd a lil later on

submarine · Post by **submarine** » 31 Mar 2007, 12:42

imho metal makers are fine as they are... i really hate ba's metal maker farming... metal makers should not be the backbone of your eco but grant some extra metal in return for otherwise wasted energy

TheFatController · Post by **TheFatController** » 31 Mar 2007, 13:49

The version number jump makes it harder to take the mod seriously imo..

Cabbage · Post by **Cabbage** » 31 Mar 2007, 13:59

your comments make it hard to take you seriously really.. oO

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 31 Mar 2007, 14:57

TheFatController wrote:The version number jump makes it harder to take the mod seriously imo..

what like when caydr jumped from 1.6 to 2.0 because of new groundflashes?

nah, nixa can use whatever number system she wants.

TheFatController · Post by **TheFatController** » 31 Mar 2007, 15:01

The only reason people jump version numbers like that is marketing, for an open source mod it seems like its overcompensation for what it lacks in gameplay.

If it followed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_v ... ng#Numeric it would make it appear the person was taking the project more seriously.

So yes the version jump has genuinely put me off I wasn't just being rude for the sake of it :p

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 31 Mar 2007, 15:09

TheFatController wrote:So yes the version jump has genuinely put me off I wasn't just being rude for the sake of it :p

Oh really? or could it cause issues in lobby if people are trying to join a game?
(in the case of a map or minor patch)

Or maybe it marks progress towards a goal?
(in the case of gundam)

Or maybe it is a version number to differentiate between versions as one is making releases?
(EE)

no, version numbers exist for more then cosmetic reasons.

Scikar · Post by **Scikar** » 31 Mar 2007, 15:17

Are you trying to say there's a practical reason for calling this version 5.0 and confusing people?

knorke · Post by **knorke** » 31 Mar 2007, 18:26

i haven't played the non-cadyr AA yet because the changes seem even more random. Was there anything wrong with level 1 balance?

Also I find it a little stupid that are now again two similiar mods, AA and BA.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 31 Mar 2007, 19:01

The aoe numbers in that changelog don't look like aoe numbers. Aoe should be numbers like 50, not 1.sumthin. Are you perhaps changing the edgeeffectiveness? That tag governs the multiplier for the damage at the edge of the explosion, an ee>1 will mean the blast does more damage the farther you are away from the point of impact.

DemO · Post by **DemO** » 31 Mar 2007, 19:13

That tag governs the multiplier for the damage at the edge of the explosion, an ee>1 will mean the blast does more damage the farther you are away from the point of impact

Is this tag used on nukes? Its weird as hell how you can nuke a commander on his head and he lives with half hp but if you nuke some distance away from the comm but still in blast radius, he dies.

Spring RTS Engine

---------------

---------------