Complete Annihilation News

[Elkvis]

I don't see what the problem is. If you have let a raider into your base early game, and your only defence is going to be reclaiming it. Its going to wreak havoc and you are well on your way to gg anyway.

[Licho]

Reclaiming of live units was removed due to wide range of abuses and hard to balance things.

Abuses like starting reclaim fusion as soon as you have it to build adv fusion (you have structure working all the time and get metal "instantly" after period ends), damaging unit and then reclaiming it etc..
There is scrap button to reclaim your own stuff instead.

And for constructor defense we are currently testing capture for all arm constructors and ressurect for all core cons.

[DreamWorker]

I have problem - CADownloader doesn't work more. It hang after start
I have executed:
Put CaDownloader.exe to your spring folder
Delete CaDownloaderConfig.xml in your spring folder
If still not working delete "updater" folder in your spring

http://www.librarianw40k.narod.ru/Pictu ... ring/1.PNG
http://www.librarianw40k.narod.ru/Pictu ... ring/2.PNG
LOG:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14.07.2008 6:09:44: initializing pool -
14.07.2008 6:09:44: Scanning Spring - loading cache
14.07.2008 6:09:45: Scanning Spring - scanning mods
14.07.2008 6:09:45: Scanning Spring - hashing
14.07.2008 6:09:45: Scanning Spring - complete
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After this I can't close application, download anything using CADownnloader. What's wrong? Thanks.

[Hoi]

Reclaiming of live units was removed due to wide range of abuses and hard to balance things.

Abuses like starting reclaim fusion as soon as you have it to build adv fusion (you have structure working all the time and get metal "instantly" after period ends), damaging unit and then reclaiming it etc..
There is scrap button to reclaim your own stuff instead.

And for constructor defense we are currently testing capture for all arm constructors and ressurect for all core cons.

then just make enemys reclaimable, also capture for cons fails vs resurect, id give both factions the same or both

[Saktoth]

When you are constructing something, you have two bars- a % finished and a HP bar.

When you reclaim, you have one bar, the HP bar. The two arent equivalent, and whether you get the metal depends on whether or not the last damage done was by the con or a weapon. Yet if reclaiming anything took the % complete bar down to 99% (Thus disabling the unit) it would be pretty OP.

Often its a better idea to force-fire on something until its almost dead, then reclaim it. Enabling reclaim only for enemies would be kind of silly if you cant do it to your own structures also.

So, you have a choice to scrap the unit and turn it into a wreck. This is a consistent behaviour- you have to get the unit into a wrecked state before you can get metal out of it. You can do this to any unit- its actually even easier now to scrap all those windmills you dont want anymore (Though... i dont know why you'd do this honestly), just hit the scrap button and get a con to clean them up with area reclaim or just build over the top of them.

Okay, so its a small consistency thing and like a minor mechanical issue. If reclaim wasnt really broken why was it changed?

Reclaim has several issues that become apparent especially when you have reclaim widgets which automatically reclaim enemies in range (IE its auto-firing, like a weapon, which is what it really is, should be). Its actually quite powerful.

Secondly reclaiming allows you to very rapidly switch labs and other forms of resource investment. With this, there is some loss of resources for doing so.

Reclaim is gradual in CA (like in BA), but only on wrecks- not on living units. This makes reclaim consistently gradual and consistently only possible after the unit is disabled (wrecked).

[Hoi]

When you are constructing something, you have two bars- a % finished and a HP bar.

When you reclaim, you have one bar, the HP bar. The two arent equivalent, and whether you get the metal depends on whether or not the last damage done was by the con or a weapon. Yet if reclaiming anything took the % complete bar down to 99% (Thus disabling the unit) it would be pretty OP.

Often its a better idea to force-fire on something until its almost dead, then reclaim it. Enabling reclaim only for enemies would be kind of silly if you cant do it to your own structures also.

So, you have a choice to scrap the unit and turn it into a wreck. This is a consistent behaviour- you have to get the unit into a wrecked state before you can get metal out of it. You can do this to any unit- its actually even easier now to scrap all those windmills you dont want anymore (Though... i dont know why you'd do this honestly), just hit the scrap button and get a con to clean them up with area reclaim or just build over the top of them.

Okay, so its a small consistency thing and like a minor mechanical issue. If reclaim wasnt really broken why was it changed?

Reclaim has several issues that become apparent especially when you have reclaim widgets which automatically reclaim enemies in range (IE its auto-firing, like a weapon, which is what it really is, should be). Its actually quite powerful.

Secondly reclaiming allows you to very rapidly switch labs and other forms of resource investment. With this, there is some loss of resources for doing so.

Reclaim is gradual in CA (like in BA), but only on wrecks- not on living units. This makes reclaim consistently gradual and consistently only possible after the unit is disabled (wrecked).

the scrappin is a good idea, i was just saying tht reclaiming enemys would help stop rushes, if you have no defences there isnt a real other way to stop enemys

[Acidd_UK]

First off, I haven't tried CA since the scrapping, so it may work very well. However, I had another idea - specifically to address the issue with reclaiming your own buildings as soon as they are finished. In this case, couldn't we basically just 'reverse-build' it? So immediately you start reclaiming, the nano structure comes back, the building stops working, and you get M back gradually as if it was a wreck. This could lead to interesting tactics, which are less exploity/borderline broken than the current system. You could also potenticlal make the living-reclaim not 100% efficient if you so wished.

For example, you have an excess of E and not much M. You start reclaiming your fusion. It immediately stops producing energy, and you immediately start getting metal from it. If you leave it alone, the nano structure will decay as normal. If you rebuild it, it starts producing E once it is fully rebuilt.

One potential downside would be people partially reclaiming all their base if they thought the base would die, then self-d-ing the nanostructures to avoid leaving tasty tasty wrecks. I think the soluiton is for self-d'd nanoframes leaving a wreck/dust with equivalent metal value. After all, it is effectively a huge chunk of nano dust, it never really made sense that if destroyed it would just dissapear. Maybe even a new wreck freature 'deep pile of dust' could be used

Thoughts?

[Google_Frog]

However, I had another idea - specifically to address the issue with reclaiming your own buildings as soon as they are finished. In this case, couldn't we basically just 'reverse-build' it? So immediately you start reclaiming, the nano structure comes back, the building stops working, and you get M back gradually as if it was a wreck.

Very good idea that has already been suggested. A problem with scrap is explosive things can be scrapped to avoid the explosion but the turn to nanoframe would require a con to be nearby.

If you leave it alone, the nano structure will decay as normal.

Normal i.e. no decay at all.

One potential downside would be people partially reclaiming all their base if they thought the base would die, then self-d-ing the nanostructures to avoid leaving tasty tasty wrecks.

I don't see how this is a problem as self-ded buildings already don't leave wrecks.

[Licho]

Try starting on spring copy without mods and maps..
Try starting without tasclient running.
Its most likely some map Did it work correctly in the past?

I have problem - CADownloader doesn't work more. It hang after start
I have executed:
Put CaDownloader.exe to your spring folder
Delete CaDownloaderConfig.xml in your spring folder
If still not working delete "updater" folder in your spring

http://www.librarianw40k.narod.ru/Pictu ... ring/1.PNG
http://www.librarianw40k.narod.ru/Pictu ... ring/2.PNG
LOG:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14.07.2008 6:09:44: initializing pool -
14.07.2008 6:09:44: Scanning Spring - loading cache
14.07.2008 6:09:45: Scanning Spring - scanning mods
14.07.2008 6:09:45: Scanning Spring - hashing
14.07.2008 6:09:45: Scanning Spring - complete
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After this I can't close application, download anything using CADownnloader. What's wrong? Thanks.

[BaNa]

you guys have done a ton of good work, keep it up!

I love the new arm destroyer, especially the way the depthcharges are made.

Flea to dragons eye morph is ubercool.

In general everything seems more... polished in the gameplay. Balance seems nice and all.

Getting used to the econ too.

a few minor suggestions:

Arm llt looks like its on a dinky tripod. Needs moar massive base.

Core t2 basic tank has a bit too long barrels.

Arm windmill is plain silly, not because it looks bad or anything but how is the bloody thing supposed to work?

T1 cons building so many things makes things cluttered in the buildmenu.

[Evil4Zerggin]

Arm windmill is plain silly, not because it looks bad or anything but how is the bloody thing supposed to work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_axis_wind_turbine

[Otherside]

bana we are waiting for the nested build menu LUA to be finished for tier 1 cons so there isnt to much clutter

[Neddie]

Arm windmill is plain silly, not because it looks bad or anything but how is the bloody thing supposed to work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_axis_wind_turbine

Zerg and I both worked on VAWT designs, but the included one is all his since he was able to model it to his specification. VAWT are generally less productive than the traditional HAWT windmill model, but a major benefit of the design is ease of maintainence, all the crucial pieces are found near the base of the structure.

[Neddie]

bana we are waiting for the nested build menu LUA to be finished for tier 1 cons so there isnt to much clutter

Just as long as I am not forced to use it. Wasted clicks and all.

[Google_Frog]

Arm llt looks like its on a dinky tripod. Needs moar massive base.

A base would make it look like it had health, have you checked the health on that thing?

[Neddie]

Arm llt looks like its on a dinky tripod. Needs moar massive base.

A base would make it look like it had health, have you checked the health on that thing?

I don't really like the model, but that is a point, Google.

[BaNa]

Arm windmill is plain silly, not because it looks bad or anything but how is the bloody thing supposed to work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_axis_wind_turbine

hmm i did not know there are such buildings IRL, one learns all the time.

im not sure about the pic they have there since its not from a lucky angle, but the schematic diagram seems to have much bigger "blades". Perhaps this is an exaggeration for the sake of illustrating it, but it looks more believable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Forc ... cities.png

Nested menus can be a mixed blessing, i hope you guys make it ergonomically pleasant.

[Pxtl]

Actually, amphib kbots would've made sense a few versions ago - but everybody's doing fast amphibs now, so amphib power is suddenly useful instead of a very teensy boost.

But either way, BA shows the problem with amphib vehicles instead of kbots - BA's amphib vehicles have the same slope tolerances as kbots, because true amphib vehicles can't climb beaches on most maps. Plus, back when BA's weak kbots were being used, amphib kbots would make sense just to give them a usefulness boost.

But now, kbots are already powerful in CA.

edit: if you want con units to be able to fight, then they may as well just get a weapon with "commandfire" turned on or something.

[Neddie]

My VAWT design had near real blade size, Zerg's is ingame now and looks fine, however.

[Saktoth]

I really like the idea of reverse-building, it actually makes more sense, esp requiring a con to do this (though its more micro to give the orders on each unit, like old reclaiming is).

bana we are waiting for the nested build menu LUA to be finished for tier 1 cons so there isnt to much clutter

Just as long as I am not forced to use it. Wasted clicks and all.

Scrolling through menus is more wasted clicks, esp if you have to get several pages. I dont know how many icons you have on one page though...

Popular stuff like llt, mex, etc should be on the first page, not nested.

reclaiming enemys would help stop rushes, if you have no defences there isnt a real other way to stop enemys

Make defenses? Ur gonna get rushed. Seriously, if you dont have defences, reclaim doesnt help you that much. Only time reclaim really becomes useful is when you have banks and banks of nanotowers in late game and his few stray raiders that break through can get sucked up, or very early when like one scout gets through your defenses, com can usually deal with that.