You're definitely right that it's possible, but I have no idea how to figure out what the magic number is for "won't be hit by exploding shells from the surface" - I'm pretty sure we can't expect most of our users to either.Pressure Line wrote:wrong. the tooltip in the bottom left hand corner gives you an elevation. +ve for above the waterline, -ve for below. Its that simple.YokoZar wrote:...but there's no way for a player to tell how deep water actually is.
Balanced Annihilation V5.8
Moderator: Moderators
-
Pressure Line
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09
trial and error, the way things have been tested since we were bashing each other over the heads with rocks.YokoZar wrote:You're definitely right that it's possible, but I have no idea how to figure out what the magic number is for "won't be hit by exploding shells from the surface" - I'm pretty sure we can't expect most of our users to either.
and perhaps you should have phrased the question better. the inference was that you didnt know how to get a value for the water depth.
Yoko: Its really seriously not a problem. Berthas dont do extra damage vs underwater stuff, and even in the shallowest water, get some degree of damage reduction (and in most maps where you'll see berthas the water is deep enough that you'll never kill anything).
They DO, on the other hand, do 3x damage vs ships and can kill shipyards (which are on the surface) quite easily. There is no reason to try and dig a fusion out from under the water when you can just hit all those juicy surface targets.
Its not a bug, its not gameplay effecting. Its a quirky result of the physics (and in such situations, one should rely on the physics to determine the damage reduction).
On t2 fighters: They certainly are a hell of a lot better, but this is the general rule with t2 air. While on land, t1 and t2 are well matched, t2 just does some things better (like artillery and AoE weapons) which you need later on. In the air (and on the sea for that matter), however, t2 is just plain old better, often by several orders of magnitude, than t1.
I think its set up this way to stop air being a complete bastard at t1. People will often make only minimal AA at t1, because every defender you build is an LLT you cant. Having to make lots of AA for fear of air attacks at t1 can set you back incredibly. Defending against two totally disparate fronts line this can be crippling. Luckily, t1 air is not that effective and pretty easy to counter.
At t2 however, when you probably have more cash floating around, you can afford to make a lot of AA to defend against air. Thus, air needs to be better (to make sure its useful at t2, and also to make sure the god damn game ends).
So its pretty simple really. Air isnt such a problem at t1 (and with good reason), so t1 fighters dont need to be that good (and if they were any better, they'd be too good against t1 air). Air is a problem at t2, and fighters are your best (and often the only effective) defence against bomber swarms, so t2 fighters need to be that good.
So why do they have to be good vs other fighters? Well, a player can quite easily get up a t1 fighter screen, and use it to stop t2 bombers before there is even any t2 air! How do you clear out a t1 fighter screen? A t2 fighter escort, of course.
That being said, i think all the special damages on fighters are lame (but dont break it just because it aint fixed- the general philosophy of BA).
They DO, on the other hand, do 3x damage vs ships and can kill shipyards (which are on the surface) quite easily. There is no reason to try and dig a fusion out from under the water when you can just hit all those juicy surface targets.
Its not a bug, its not gameplay effecting. Its a quirky result of the physics (and in such situations, one should rely on the physics to determine the damage reduction).
On t2 fighters: They certainly are a hell of a lot better, but this is the general rule with t2 air. While on land, t1 and t2 are well matched, t2 just does some things better (like artillery and AoE weapons) which you need later on. In the air (and on the sea for that matter), however, t2 is just plain old better, often by several orders of magnitude, than t1.
I think its set up this way to stop air being a complete bastard at t1. People will often make only minimal AA at t1, because every defender you build is an LLT you cant. Having to make lots of AA for fear of air attacks at t1 can set you back incredibly. Defending against two totally disparate fronts line this can be crippling. Luckily, t1 air is not that effective and pretty easy to counter.
At t2 however, when you probably have more cash floating around, you can afford to make a lot of AA to defend against air. Thus, air needs to be better (to make sure its useful at t2, and also to make sure the god damn game ends).
So its pretty simple really. Air isnt such a problem at t1 (and with good reason), so t1 fighters dont need to be that good (and if they were any better, they'd be too good against t1 air). Air is a problem at t2, and fighters are your best (and often the only effective) defence against bomber swarms, so t2 fighters need to be that good.
So why do they have to be good vs other fighters? Well, a player can quite easily get up a t1 fighter screen, and use it to stop t2 bombers before there is even any t2 air! How do you clear out a t1 fighter screen? A t2 fighter escort, of course.
That being said, i think all the special damages on fighters are lame (but dont break it just because it aint fixed- the general philosophy of BA).
-
[Krogoth86]
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Well I don't really understand this:Saktoth wrote:I think its set up this way to stop air being a complete bastard at t1. People will often make only minimal AA at t1, because every defender you build is an LLT you cant. Having to make lots of AA for fear of air attacks at t1 can set you back incredibly.
You have a tight budget on T1 (what is true) and so you have to cripple down the possibly best AA per cost on that tech level? For what reason? I also don't really get the "bastard at T1" idea. I'm not asking for better bombers or something like that but for better T1 fighters, especially when considering T2 units...
Well it's still no reason to render em "disabled" against T2 units. So even when flying your T2 bombers in a T1 fighter patrol it's not that bad as they take ages to get shot. So as long as you don't face five fighters per bomber (which I think I've never seen ingame as T1 fighters are rarely built due to obvious reasons) you even could fly in and bomb your targets successfully...Saktoth wrote:So its pretty simple really. Air isnt such a problem at t1 (and with good reason), so t1 fighters dont need to be that good (and if they were any better, they'd be too good against t1 air). Air is a problem at t2, and fighters are your best (and often the only effective) defence against bomber swarms, so t2 fighters need to be that good.
Giving the T1 fighters another rocket also wouldn't make them "bastards" but just give an equal ratio to T2: On T2 two shots are needed to kill a T2 bomber and now on T1 it also would need two shots. It also would make em stand a little chance against T2 at all. I mean read DemOs comment for example. While of course T2 units should be more effective I think it's a no-go that you lose to T2 when spending 6 times the ressources for your T1 units...
There's nothing gamebreaking in this matter.
Read saktoth's post again krogoth86 before suggesting changes
T1 fighters serve no other purpose than countering t1 air shit, mainly to kill spammed reclaiming aircons.
T2 fighters are good because they are the only real good air defence you can get vs t2 bombers.
The game is fine, l2p.
Read saktoth's post again krogoth86 before suggesting changes
stop crying about the game mechanics.You have a tight budget on T1 (what is true) and so you have to cripple down the possibly best AA per cost on that tech level? For what reason? I also don't really get the "bastard at T1" idea. I'm not asking for better bombers or something like that but for better T1 fighters, especially when considering T2 units...
T1 fighters serve no other purpose than countering t1 air shit, mainly to kill spammed reclaiming aircons.
T2 fighters are good because they are the only real good air defence you can get vs t2 bombers.
The game is fine, l2p.
NO. STOP VOMITING SHIT.
Giving the T1 fighters another rocket also wouldn't make them "bastards" but just give an equal ratio to T2: On T2 two shots are needed to kill a T2 bomber and now on T1 it also would need two shots. It also would make em stand a little chance against T2 at all.
Long range missles are pretty effective, although there attack speed is slow and they cost alot so they'll never be enough to take out a good t2 bomber attackT2 fighters are good because they are the only real good air defence you can get vs t2 bombers.
I agree with sleska for one of few timesNO. STOP VOMITING SHIT.Giving the T1 fighters another rocket also wouldn't make them "bastards" but just give an equal ratio to T2: On T2 two shots are needed to kill a T2 bomber and now on T1 it also would need two shots. It also would make em stand a little chance against T2 at all.
1500 M for a single aa tower that kills 1 (with luck, 2) bombers in a raid is not good enough substitute for a t2 fighter screen.
The only good use i see for the screamer/mercury is to push the enemy's fighter screens back, and to kill massed gunships against people who dont know about spreading gunships. But gunships are rarely seen in pitched t2 situations anyway ~~
The only good use i see for the screamer/mercury is to push the enemy's fighter screens back, and to kill massed gunships against people who dont know about spreading gunships. But gunships are rarely seen in pitched t2 situations anyway ~~
-
Mr.Frumious
- Posts: 139
- Joined: 06 Jul 2006, 17:47
While his solutions are kinda stupid, isn't it true that T2 fighters are a total replacement for T1 fighters? That is, if you can build both, you should ALWAYS build the T2 and NEVER build the T1? I thought BA tried to avoid that kind of thing?
Shouldn't the T1 fighter be given some sort of application where it's more useful than the T2 fighter, even in T2 play?
I know Sleska disagrees, since he's a firm believer in the "T2 replaces T1" school with many units (HLTs vs. Vipers, for example), but I thought LordMatt was against T1-deprecation?
edit: about the spread-gunships - is there a good way to get them to spread out? I try to use the line-move command but it still only spreads them so much.
Shouldn't the T1 fighter be given some sort of application where it's more useful than the T2 fighter, even in T2 play?
I know Sleska disagrees, since he's a firm believer in the "T2 replaces T1" school with many units (HLTs vs. Vipers, for example), but I thought LordMatt was against T1-deprecation?
edit: about the spread-gunships - is there a good way to get them to spread out? I try to use the line-move command but it still only spreads them so much.
press wait, then hold shift and make 1 line movement command near the current location of the gunships and then a new line to the target area and theyll fly there in a line instead of clusterfucking and getting instagibbed by 1 flakkerMr.Frumious wrote:
edit: about the spread-gunships - is there a good way to get them to spread out? I try to use the line-move command but it still only spreads them so much.
tier 1 fighters already counter everything in tier 1 air more than well enough.While his solutions are kinda stupid, isn't it true that T2 fighters are a total replacement for T1 fighters? That is, if you can build both, you should ALWAYS build the T2 and NEVER build the T1? I thought BA tried to avoid that kind of thing?
You could also ask why llts/beamers dont kill your enemies bulldogs and argue that beamers should have a place in tier 2 battles as a defence.
ofcourse if you absolutely do not want to invest in hawks you are always left with the options of pack0's and anti bomber turrets and flakkers and mercuries to push the enemy's fighter screens further away.
why? If avenger is made better then what reason is there to get hawks?Shouldn't the T1 fighter be given some sort of application where it's more useful than the T2 fighter, even in T2 play?
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
The point of t1 'being a bastard' is that explains why t1 air cant be too good, and why t2 air needs to be better. Early on having to fight in two totally separate domains at the same time can be deadly, esp since mt's dont hit land (no crossover). Later on, it becomes easier (not to mention that the game should get progressively difficult as the game goes on- which it doesnt, exactly, in all cases- but air is good precedent).
T1 fighters have almost the same dps vs ground as t2 fighters but cost half as much. There you go, t1 fighters make better anti-ground, thats an advantage (Though, ill freely admit its not enough to make them worthwhile- in CA, t2 fighters are dedicated AA and dont shoot ground at all, which is how i chose to differentiate them).
For what it matters, t1 fighters actually make a very good fighter screen. Even vs t2, a t1 fighter screen can be enough to prevent a rush. The fact they can keep hitting the enemy over the whole of your territory (unlike static AA) makes them really a very good choice.
T2 fighters are quite simply the best AA in the game. They are obscenely horribly heinous against air and your best defence. So what, t1 fighters arent nearly as good. They're still okay. Yes they are obsoleted when you get t2 air (and you'll often tech land first) but so are a lot of other units.
Flaks (not mercuries) make gunships useless in anything but a rush or defence anyway. I wouldnt even bother taking on flak with gunships its just not worth it
T1 fighters have almost the same dps vs ground as t2 fighters but cost half as much. There you go, t1 fighters make better anti-ground, thats an advantage (Though, ill freely admit its not enough to make them worthwhile- in CA, t2 fighters are dedicated AA and dont shoot ground at all, which is how i chose to differentiate them).
For what it matters, t1 fighters actually make a very good fighter screen. Even vs t2, a t1 fighter screen can be enough to prevent a rush. The fact they can keep hitting the enemy over the whole of your territory (unlike static AA) makes them really a very good choice.
T2 fighters are quite simply the best AA in the game. They are obscenely horribly heinous against air and your best defence. So what, t1 fighters arent nearly as good. They're still okay. Yes they are obsoleted when you get t2 air (and you'll often tech land first) but so are a lot of other units.
Get the line move order widget. Try drawing a zig-zag or a chevron. This will spread your gunships nicely, since there is only so much you can spread in a single horizontal line before you're crossing all his AA and you lose the advantage of a 'punch through' attack.edit: about the spread-gunships - is there a good way to get them to spread out? I try to use the line-move command but it still only spreads them so much.
Flaks (not mercuries) make gunships useless in anything but a rush or defence anyway. I wouldnt even bother taking on flak with gunships its just not worth it
-
Mr.Frumious
- Posts: 139
- Joined: 06 Jul 2006, 17:47
I didn't say replace the T2 in _all_ applications, just in some. For example, if you were at L2 and you had a team of, say, zippers, rushing your base, what would you rather have: equal cost in LLTs, or Vipers? Obviously the 8 LLTs instead of one viper. Those LLTs would be a bad investment for every other purpose, but they're actually very useful for fighting hordes of small, short-ranged, low-blast-radius units.
It's not that the L2 fighter is _better_ than the L1 fighter. That's a given. It's that the L2 fighter is better than the L1 fighter, buck for buck, at everything, including fighting L1 units.
That's the point. It's not that L1 fighters should be better than L2 fighters, it would just be nice if there was some niche where they were still useful to justify keeping some diversity in L2 fighter-game-play.
Personally, I liked Caydr's approach: nerf the L2 fighter but give it limited flares. That meant that L1 fighters were better for raw firepower-for-cost, but L2 fighters were better in hostile situations. Don't remember what version that was.
edit: just saw the "anti-ground" comment. I guess that's something. The L1 fighter is the Weasel of the sky.
It's not that the L2 fighter is _better_ than the L1 fighter. That's a given. It's that the L2 fighter is better than the L1 fighter, buck for buck, at everything, including fighting L1 units.
That's the point. It's not that L1 fighters should be better than L2 fighters, it would just be nice if there was some niche where they were still useful to justify keeping some diversity in L2 fighter-game-play.
Personally, I liked Caydr's approach: nerf the L2 fighter but give it limited flares. That meant that L1 fighters were better for raw firepower-for-cost, but L2 fighters were better in hostile situations. Don't remember what version that was.
edit: just saw the "anti-ground" comment. I guess that's something. The L1 fighter is the Weasel of the sky.
If it's part of the design for berthas and t3 artillery bots to kill underwater fusions, then why don't they target them automatically?Saktoth wrote:Yoko: Its really seriously not a problem. Berthas dont do extra damage vs underwater stuff, and even in the shallowest water, get some degree of damage reduction (and in most maps where you'll see berthas the water is deep enough that you'll never kill anything).
Should we be factoring in the cost of the air factory here?Sleksa wrote:T1 fighters serve no other purpose than countering t1 air shit, mainly to kill spammed reclaiming aircons.
I'm wondering what's more effective vs a t1 air spamming opponent: building a bunch of t1 AA or building a t1 air plant just to pump out fighters.
Yoko: T1 air plant just to pump out fighters.
Seriously.
Shits good. Gives you air reclaim econ too (your m will GO THROUGH THE ROOF) and scouts, even if you dont make any offensive air units.
Seriously.
Shits good. Gives you air reclaim econ too (your m will GO THROUGH THE ROOF) and scouts, even if you dont make any offensive air units.
No. Because they arent very good at it, so you're usually wasting your shots. If my bertha fired at things it could barely (or not at all) kill, id be pissed.If it's part of the design for berthas and t3 artillery bots to kill underwater fusions, then why don't they target them automatically?
It depends on the depth though. Sometimes they're very good at it, especially the t3 kbot. That thing can kill an underwater fusion plant on tangerine in a couple shots.Saktoth wrote:No. Because they arent very good at it, so you're usually wasting your shots. If my bertha fired at things it could barely (or not at all) kill, id be pissed.If it's part of the design for berthas and t3 artillery bots to kill underwater fusions, then why don't they target them automatically?
-
[Krogoth86]
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Sleksa wrote:why? If avenger is made better then what reason is there to get hawks?
Well I never said I want T1 air to be better than T2 air (i.e. especially bombers). It's mainly about the hilarious degradarion of the T2 killing ability of the T1 fighters. Pushing that up again won't make them OP at once because due to the about 10x higher damage Hawks do you still can have a hell big difference. So the reason to build Hawks is the same as with pretty much any T2 unit: It's better as a unit itself i.e. has a better cost-ratio...Saktoth wrote:The point of t1 'being a bastard' is that explains why t1 air cant be too good, and why t2 air needs to be better.
Make bombers. Period...Saktoth wrote:T1 fighters have almost the same dps vs ground as t2 fighters but cost half as much. There you go, t1 fighters make better anti-ground, thats an advantage
As you said they just are not worthwile for this purpose so just don't use em. Bombers do this job much better while having far more health and cost even less than 2 fighters. You make one point here though: When going for the "do a 2nd weapon slot suggestion" I made the damage against ground would be too high so you would have to trim it down again - true I didn't say a word about this yet...
Bombers dont hit air. o_O (this is a lie, they do, tell a pheonix to attack an enemy bomber. lulz).
No, really, a fighter screen is quite good vs a few flash getting through, stops jeffies entirely, spots and kills spies, etc.
Want an advantage of t1 fighters over t2?
They are t1.
If you have teched land, you can still make them without teching air too. t1 fighters arent as bad as you make them out to be (certainly not 10x!). Their major disparity is vs t2 bombers and t2 fighters.
No, really, a fighter screen is quite good vs a few flash getting through, stops jeffies entirely, spots and kills spies, etc.
Want an advantage of t1 fighters over t2?
They are t1.
If you have teched land, you can still make them without teching air too. t1 fighters arent as bad as you make them out to be (certainly not 10x!). Their major disparity is vs t2 bombers and t2 fighters.