NOTA 1.82

overkill · Post by **overkill** » 11 Sep 2007, 04:00

pew pew laser FTW!!!

RavingManiac · Post by **RavingManiac** » 12 Sep 2007, 12:34

Thor, have you considered making lasers in NOTA similar to lasers in BA? Some people thinks BA lasers are neater.

Saktoth · Post by **Saktoth** » 12 Sep 2007, 12:43

BA lasers are instant-hitting, make them very good against air and fast moving targets and bringing up a whole range of other problems, as well as reducing micro. This is why BA has to use a lot of special damages against air.

Not that i think this is really a problem with NoTA anyway due to that way is implemented and the playstyle.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 12 Sep 2007, 12:59

BA lasers are poor, i preffer em like this. should put some kind of barrel flare on lasers though

AF · Post by AF » 13 Sep 2007, 00:41

BA lasers arent realistic, lasers wouldnt be visible save at the starta nd end points.

And if they were so powerful they ionized the air that wouldn't be bright red ro green and they'd leave behind a lot of after effects.

The whole description laser is misleading....

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 13 Sep 2007, 02:40

Lasers in a game are NEVER realistic. Next?

RavingManiac · Post by **RavingManiac** » 13 Sep 2007, 09:30

Saktoth wrote:BA lasers are instant-hitting, make them very good against air and fast moving targets and bringing up a whole range of other problems, as well as reducing micro. This is why BA has to use a lot of special damages against air.

Good point. Still, laser bolts in NOTA seem to move too slowly. I think Thor should increase their speed or something.

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 13 Sep 2007, 21:10

Heh, that laser thing could be fixed by reducing turret turn speed...

overkill · Post by **overkill** » 13 Sep 2007, 22:24

NOTA lasers are fine....

Saktoth · Post by **Saktoth** » 13 Sep 2007, 23:13

AF wrote:BA lasers arent realistic, lasers wouldnt be visible save at the starta nd end points.

And if they were so powerful they ionized the air that wouldn't be bright red ro green and they'd leave behind a lot of after effects.

The whole description laser is misleading....

I love this, given how much more accurate to life the current lasers that move at the speed of a brisk jog are.

hunterw · Post by **hunterw** » 14 Sep 2007, 02:31

Saktoth wrote:
AF wrote:BA lasers arent realistic, lasers wouldnt be visible save at the starta nd end points.

And if they were so powerful they ionized the air that wouldn't be bright red ro green and they'd leave behind a lot of after effects.

The whole description laser is misleading....
I love this, given how much more accurate to life the current lasers that move at the speed of a brisk jog are.

i like that, lets call those brisk jog beams

RavingManiac · Post by **RavingManiac** » 15 Sep 2007, 16:08

I like the new ballistic nukes in NOTA, but the launching animation looks kinda weird. In one frame, the nuke is pointing straight up, in the next frame the nuke is now launching 45 degrees to the side. Could you make the nuke launcher turreted like the missile launchers of the cruise missile ships? Also, when an anti-nuclear device shoots down a nuke, there should be a sort of laser beam between the anti-nuke and the nuke. Otherwise, it is confusing to see a nuclear missile exploding in mid-flight for no apparent reason. (See here: http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=11604)

smartie · Post by **smartie** » 18 Sep 2007, 05:32

RavingManiac wrote:I like the new ballistic nukes in NOTA, but the launching animation looks kinda weird. In one frame, the nuke is pointing straight up, in the next frame the nuke is now launching 45 degrees to the side. Could you make the nuke launcher turreted like the missile launchers of the cruise missile ships? Also, when an anti-nuclear device shoots down a nuke, there should be a sort of laser beam between the anti-nuke and the nuke. Otherwise, it is confusing to see a nuclear missile exploding in mid-flight for no apparent reason. (See here: http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=11604)

Ideally the nuclear missiles would launch vertically at first, then roll to one side and begin making their balastic arc like they do now. The launching sideways thing is more a limit of spring rather than how they are supposed to be.

overkill · Post by **overkill** » 18 Sep 2007, 05:44

maybe u guys should limit what units people can fps with since its possible now, i fpsed a talwar, and microd the aim just right so its shot with the range of 2 coastal cannnons....

Saktoth · Post by **Saktoth** » 19 Sep 2007, 09:51

FPS limits arent needed in 99% of cases. FPS is cool and adds to the game. The micro it requires to exploit it is rarely, rarely worth the damage it causes.

MadRat · Post by **MadRat** » 28 Sep 2007, 07:31

Did you know your defenses.tdf file begins with an "f" in the text? Infolog.txt calls it junk in there.

Thor · Post by **Thor** » 28 Sep 2007, 08:08

fixed for next version, thanks.

MadRat · Post by **MadRat** » 28 Sep 2007, 19:27

I really like the fuel on the planes. The fuel is a little much for some of the units. You should think about crippling the short range fighter-bombers to strikes within a 10x10 map and then the long-range fighter-bombers around 50% more range. Then you can justify bombers over these fighter-bombers, where bombers at 4-6x the cost get easily across a 20x20 map.

I really like those anti-tank laser bombers. They could seriously use slower speed, though, because they are pretty devastating to tank columns. The fighters and fighter-bombers, except in rare circumstances, should never come close in range. And the peep has no limit to fuel, is that intentional??

What would seperate level 1 fighters in air-to-air from level 2 could be weaponfuelusage when they fire their missiles. Maybe allow two shots to exhaust the fuel supply entirely, no matter how close to base they begin. Would give an awfully powerful insentive then to get up to level 2 for air defense as a result.

Complicated · Post by **Complicated** » 28 Sep 2007, 22:20

MadRat wrote:I really like the fuel on the planes. The fuel is a little much for some of the units. You should think about crippling the short range fighter-bombers to strikes within a 10x10 map and then the long-range fighter-bombers around 50% more range. Then you can justify bombers over these fighter-bombers, where bombers at 4-6x the cost get easily across a 20x20 map.

I really like those anti-tank laser bombers. They could seriously use slower speed, though, because they are pretty devastating to tank columns. The fighters and fighter-bombers, except in rare circumstances, should never come close in range. And the peep has no limit to fuel, is that intentional??

What would seperate level 1 fighters in air-to-air from level 2 could be weaponfuelusage when they fire their missiles. Maybe allow two shots to exhaust the fuel supply entirely, no matter how close to base they begin. Would give an awfully powerful insentive then to get up to level 2 for air defense as a result.

Agree'd, strategically, if your crossing the ocean with bombers you'll want aircraft carriers which I hope you thor can input into the game.

I prefer the NOTA/CA lasers to BA, which I plan to impliment similar into my mod.

overkill · Post by **overkill** » 28 Sep 2007, 22:23

make the lasers have an effect like the funta ones, see the funta core battle ship laser to know what in talking about.

Spring RTS Engine

NOTA 1.82