Balanced Annihilation 5.71

Mr.Frumious · Post by **Mr.Frumious** » 09 Sep 2007, 15:12

I liked flares, but agree that the "random" feature was stupid. I preferred 100% success, but limited quantities. Then it was a fixed success rate - you knew how deep into enemy territory a fighter could go. It was particularly useful to have limited flares on the Stealth Fighters, since it let them patrol within enemy screamer range. It also makes peepers useful for deep recon (but also makes them annoyingly useful for drawing fire from useful planes - they should be avoided targets).

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 09 Sep 2007, 15:16

peepers didnt have a flare.

Saktoth · Post by **Saktoth** » 09 Sep 2007, 16:14

Flares are stupid, make air too random. The only case where they are really any different than more HP on the plane in question is with screamers and flaks. Screamers often fire at radar blobs (missing) or at low-value planes (Doing very little impact) anyway, so removing flares wont make them much more useful. Other than that, all flares do is make missiles miss and fly everywhere.

With removing flares though, it needs to be considered that this makes EMP bombers, Radar Planes, and Stealth Fighters less effective at running AA lines. As such, it may be worth upping their HP to compensate. This is especially true for the stealth fighter, which has bupkis HP and often patrols in areas where it might get shot.

However, fighters in general have gotten a large buff in their ground damage which is quite significant and will be exploited more and more as people get used to it. In light of that perhaps a HP buff isnt needed (Though id rather see the hawk having more HP than more ground damage).

I know Noize hates radar planes though, so not much chance of seeing them get a HP buff (The radar planes arent the problem with getting your berthas scouted Noize, any good player can easily triangulate the position of a bertha!).

Floating targetting facility's costs divided by 4, so they are in line with the landbased ones.

Most useless unit in the game right there.

ginekolog · Post by **ginekolog** » 09 Sep 2007, 16:48

So could we say AA got 20% buff because of removed flares? I would leave some flares, give em 100% success and slow reload. easy.

If atlas lost flare too meaining it dies 25% faster from defender (in 3 sec insted of 4)

Are all these massive air changes intended?

Other stuff seems fine.

Klopper · Post by **Klopper** » 09 Sep 2007, 18:52

Atlas didn't have flare.
Missing flares make t2 fighter escorts for bomber raids harder because the escorting t2 fighters can now be hit more easily by t1 fighters and all t1 aa (defenders,sams, chainsaws, all stuff which is seen more or less often when t2 air comes into play), so it's no longer "t2 fighter screen vs enemy fighter screen + maybe some flak + some random missile hits" but "t2 fighter screen vs enemy fighters + all aa". And currently t2 fighters get slaughtered pretty good by t1 aa...

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 09 Sep 2007, 18:56

please post stuff you actually know, no more "lol atlas dies now b-c it lost flare ;-;"

kthx <3

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 09 Sep 2007, 19:12

Wait, somebody thought the Atlas had a flare?

Wow - no, they've always been made of cardboard with nary a paper plate to toss out as a decoy.

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 09 Sep 2007, 19:25

atlas had flare

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 09 Sep 2007, 19:28

[ARMATLAS]
candropflare=1;
flaredelay=0.25;
flaredropvector=0 1 -1;
flareefficieny=0.9;
flarereload=20;

Acidd_UK · Post by **Acidd_UK** » 09 Sep 2007, 19:50

SERVED!

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 09 Sep 2007, 20:00

Klopper · Post by **Klopper** » 09 Sep 2007, 20:31

Atlas had flare?

My fault then, never saw a missile miss an atlas...
Heavier job for fighter escorts i have seen 3 times or so now, with bombing raids even with heaviest escort failing because fighter screen lost in battle vs fighters assisted by tons of t1 aa in situations which were formerly fighters vs fighters assisted by a few random aa hits...

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 09 Sep 2007, 21:27

I guess we need new tactics

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 09 Sep 2007, 21:31

I guess I shouldn't post while feverish.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 09 Sep 2007, 21:46

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:[ARMATLAS]
candropflare=1;
flaredelay=0.25;
flaredropvector=0 1 -1;
flareefficieny=0.9;
flarereload=20;

are you really sure about this? because i've never seen the flare work with it now that i think of it.

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 09 Sep 2007, 21:55

Thats a bad thing about flares too, you can't actually see them.

But he is right the atlas had flares.

REVENGE · Post by **REVENGE** » 09 Sep 2007, 23:00

You're all right. Atlas has had flares since Caydr introduced them. That said, they only appear to work when the Atlas isn't in LOS range yet, but is that due to radar inaccuracy or the effect of the flare or both? ^_^

ginekolog · Post by **ginekolog** » 09 Sep 2007, 23:14

Sleksa wrote:please post stuff you actually know, no more "lol atlas dies now b-c it lost flare ;-;"

kthx <3

plz check before u talk rubish kkkk tx. damn trolls.

CanDropFlare = 1
FlareDelay = 0.25
FlareDropVector = 0 1 -1
FlareReload = 20

Atlas had one flare only.. so first roket missed him. Not anymore i guess.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 09 Sep 2007, 23:20

First missile SOMETIMES (Apparently very seldom) missed the Atlas.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 10 Sep 2007, 07:07

ginekolog wrote:
Sleksa wrote:please post stuff you actually know, no more "lol atlas dies now b-c it lost flare ;-;"

kthx <3
plz check before u talk rubish kkkk tx. damn trolls.

CanDropFlare = 1
FlareDelay = 0.25
FlareDropVector = 0 1 -1
FlareReload = 20

Atlas had one flare only.. so first roket missed him. Not anymore i guess.

i have never seen the first rocket miss an atlas, not even when it has been coming outside your LOS

Spring RTS Engine

Balanced Annihilation 5.71