If you swarm them, and tell them to attack ground on a particular target, that target will die. So will the bombers, but the target will die.Also i am just intresting - can we make bombers stronger? They are so yeasily kiled in aa, that i have never setn it was used by anybody. It really means athat they are unpowered.
Absolute Annihilation: Spring[old]
Moderator: Moderators
smokingwreckage, i agree totally with you. But that pic is still cool.
Dude, that's what they're for. MERLs are not for unit attack - they're specifically anti-building. If need artillery support for anti-unit, use Mortys (if you play Arm - well, that's not my fault). Plus, in Spring, a lot of maps require the hyperballistic firing arc that the MERL provides. I've done some damn sneaky terroristic stuff with MERLS on super-hilly maps.Forboding Angel wrote:caydr
exactly what the fuck was that for dude?
It makes a difference in mass numbers.
my testing with drex tonight opend up a few things I didn't think of before.
Now to be honest I was really upset when I found the energy and storage units only hold 1k now. THat hurts.
You know, mebbie I should send you the demo or put up for download the demo so you can see where I'm coming from.
We are trying to do good and fair tests here but it's not that possible in spring. It just isn't. I trust your judgement but you have some odd balancing instincts.
I said anni laser because sound is the same, looks the same. I never said it had as much power and when I refer to ota I'm talking OTA not OTA AA.
I like aa a lot, but some of the positive changes introduce probelms.
For example, the merl, it shoots straight up and then straight down, but it's slow to the point it can't even hit a sumo walking. (I have a demo of that too). That makes it awesome for base busting but terrible as an attack unit.
In OTA it shot up a little ways and then when Diagonally at it's target and hit most of the time. Different mod different specs, I understand that, but it take a unit away from the attack force. Now if the thing you are attacking walkis in the middle or near your merls, they kill themselves. I'm not saying that it should be changed, I'm just saying that it poses a new difficulty.
You're just splitting hairs.
The change to the mav. It was a good change but a little overdone I think. Consider this: mavs fire quickly, each mav shot does 25 less damage. Which means that if you have 5 mavs in a force they do 125 damage less every time they shoot, with the refire rate it adds up quickly. Maybe 305 would be reasonable? I don't really think increasing the cost was necessary (now that I have had time to test the new changes), but on the other hand I don't think it makes THAT much of a difference.
In a close-up brawl, yes... but that's the element of the Goli. The whole point of the Goli is that it's the ultimate damage-dealing and damage-taking monster. Meanwhile, the mechs are multifunction units - they have a variety of arms for attacking a variety of targets. You can't throw a jack-of-all-trades against a hyper-specialized assault vehicle and expect it to win.
Maybe every unit should have it's counter combo? Just an idea, but balancing this stuff is tedius as hell.
10 golies can kill and orcone and only lose four gollies. Sad but true. Makes me rethink using mechs.
Do you mean the stun spider? The problem with the stun spider is the R.O.F. - a single spider can stun a lot - but it's so weakly armoured it should be dead already. Imho, Caydr would do well to increase it's cost, armour, etc. and reduce it's rate-of-fire. Currently, the all-or-nothing fast-stunner unit makes it practically the same as the bladewing, but on the ground. Otherwise it's good.
I agree with drex, sumo golli and emp spider are overpowered.
A core part of AA is that AA makes the tertiary tactics that used to be small side-approaches in TA (such as cloaking, stunning, kamekaze, etc) are now mainstream. As a result, Caydr beefs up such units.
He has poured a lot of labour into this, and gets nothing but grief for it. If you voice your opinions politely, he might still be gruff, but he'll never bite your head off.I understand you being upset, but I don't think telling me to fuck off was the correct way to deal with it. Hell me and drex argued all night, and we never argue lol. I think ultimately he's right for the most part tho.
Problem with balancing things is that you have to factor cost, damage done, etc. Very hard to deal with. Now I'm wishing I had just kept my mouth shut and dealt with it. Or just play arm like most people :D
BTW we the community are just trying to voice our opinions about a mod we all like. There is nothing wrong with that. We are only trying to improve it. Stop taking it personally.
BTW thanks for being an ahole to me here on the forums, that just made my day that much better /sarcasm
After seeing countless volunteer projects get harassed by whiny players, I have to say that I have no tolerance for such bitchers. That's why I maintain an unhealthy level of groupiesque fanboiism - he deserves it.
Bombers
Bombers have always been a balancing problem in TA. If they're under-armoured then you never get them back - they may as well be kamekaze units. If they're over armoured, you get an undefendable attack ability. You could have them punching deep within an enemy base. Fundamentally the problem is that a bomber _will_ be going into the heart of the enemy base. It's what they're for. Sometimes you can have some luck by using advanced fighters to fly in front of them and draw away the missile fire (adv. fighters can often outrun missiles) - but everything's still gonna die on the second pass.
Maybe the best approach is in a totally different direction - make them fly really, really high up so that they're hard to shoot down?
Maybe the best approach is in a totally different direction - make them fly really, really high up so that they're hard to shoot down?
Using longer-ranged weapons such as missile-towers, rather than short-ranged devices such as lasers. Plus, flying higher means that it's in range of less missile-towers - only the ones nearly directly below could hit. Flak cannons would presumably be less accurate at such ranges too (I don't know too much about how flak cannons work - they just seem to make gunships pop).Maelstrom wrote:If they flew up so high nothing could shoot them down, how would you shoot them down?
(Yes, it sounds stupid. but think about it)
Oh, and fighters. Shooting down bombers with fighters is teh sexy.
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Lol, 2 pages of flaming.
Anyway, back on target....how about them sams? lol.
Anyway, to me, they seem the same to me, just cost more and have lower hp. They still own rockos and stuff tho. Thuds are a bit harder cuz they have high hp. People might still complain, but those are probably the idiots that build just 1 type of unit (all thuds, or rockos or whatever) and they get owned and come crying to forums with a omgwtf post.
And the post about sumos, goli and emp spider being overpowered. Thats a mixed bag.
Goli: I think its fine. Mavs, shooters, and bulldogs are a great way to kill em...and air of course.
Sumos: To me, they are a bit too fast, but they aren't too powerful. A huge swarm of flash tanks can make quickly eat these guys away. And again, mavs and air. Mavs are great up close, def in swarms.
EMP Spiders: These things are a bit overpowered IMO. Not only do they have a decent amt of life, but they stun very fast, move very quick, and are very tiny. I seen ppl use nothing but these against a diversitfied army and stunned almost the whole army. Tanks have almost no chance of hitting them since they move very fast and are very small. Kbots do great, but the range and rate of fire on many of them are short, that they can get in 1-2 shots b4 they are stunned. Same for static defenses. These things are like EMP zippers. Maybe a slower rate of fire, or lower emp damage, or a bit of both. Maybe a very small hp reduction. I dunno, you choose.
Also, I saw a post about bombers and fighters. I kinda like the idea, but not entirely. Maybe somethign like this:
Gunships: They fly low to the ground, pretty low. Flaks eat em up (as they should and do already) Krow, vtols, bladewings would be in this category. if on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being highest and 1 being hovercraft, ground level, they should be a 3-4
Lv 1 Bombers: lv 1 bombers should be higher altitude, if on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being highest and 1 being hovercraft, ground level, they should be a 5-6.
Lv 1 Fighters: They should be just slightly higher than a bomber, maybe a 6-6.5-7. That way they would have to shoot down to kill gunships then go back up to altitude.
Lv 2 Fighters: Hawks, Vamps. These guys should be faster and fly high, like an 8-9. Eat air like popcorn. Maybe have their a-a missle range increased and damage to air increased so they can hit gunships better.
Lv 2+ bombers: They should be high altitude like a 9-10. Static defenses SHOULD have a hard time hitting (even in RL). Best way to kill a bomber is with lv 2 fighters. Flaks can hit only if its really close (ie. almost above) missle towers should still hit them within a decent range. Mercuries should eat these things up. Maybe a boost to current lv 2 or so bomber costs with an hp balance and mercury balance as well. Only grip I have about the very long range missle towers, is that their rate of fire is very low.
Mobile flak: They should only be able to shoot down gunships with ease, lv 1 fighters with a little difficulty, and lv 1 bombers are a challenge. They cant hit lv 2 fighters or bombers. This might help in building static flaks and mercuries (and help not make mobile flak the kill all air solution)
The points of this post: Well, I want to see the fighters not have to come so close to ground level that they can just get eaten up by mobile flaks or flaks so well or get stunned by spiders and other emp units. If they can shoot to kill w/o having to go closer to the ground, that would be great. This also will give fighters back their glory as the premier anti air solution.
Also, this might help bombers getting in just 1 drop of bombs deep into base, which is what their purpose is. Right now, mobile flaks and other defenses pretty much kill bombers so fast they can't even get close to the heart of the base, maybe a little deeper than the outskirts. I'm not saying like 20 bombers should be enuff to kill something way deep in the base, but like 50, or 100, or 200 or more should be able to take out at least 1 fusion or nuke or plant.
Last point, mobile flaks are too powerful IMO. They are extremely accurate, and build decently quick and are pretty cheap too, yet they can own all air. In OTA, mobile flaks weren't as good as stationary flaks, which I thought was a good balance. Stationary cost more, so it should be better. Mobiles cost less, shouldn't be as good. They were still good on gunships, but not fighters or bombers. In AA, they pretty much own all air.
Anyway...yes...hf
Anyway, back on target....how about them sams? lol.
Anyway, to me, they seem the same to me, just cost more and have lower hp. They still own rockos and stuff tho. Thuds are a bit harder cuz they have high hp. People might still complain, but those are probably the idiots that build just 1 type of unit (all thuds, or rockos or whatever) and they get owned and come crying to forums with a omgwtf post.
And the post about sumos, goli and emp spider being overpowered. Thats a mixed bag.
Goli: I think its fine. Mavs, shooters, and bulldogs are a great way to kill em...and air of course.
Sumos: To me, they are a bit too fast, but they aren't too powerful. A huge swarm of flash tanks can make quickly eat these guys away. And again, mavs and air. Mavs are great up close, def in swarms.
EMP Spiders: These things are a bit overpowered IMO. Not only do they have a decent amt of life, but they stun very fast, move very quick, and are very tiny. I seen ppl use nothing but these against a diversitfied army and stunned almost the whole army. Tanks have almost no chance of hitting them since they move very fast and are very small. Kbots do great, but the range and rate of fire on many of them are short, that they can get in 1-2 shots b4 they are stunned. Same for static defenses. These things are like EMP zippers. Maybe a slower rate of fire, or lower emp damage, or a bit of both. Maybe a very small hp reduction. I dunno, you choose.
Also, I saw a post about bombers and fighters. I kinda like the idea, but not entirely. Maybe somethign like this:
Gunships: They fly low to the ground, pretty low. Flaks eat em up (as they should and do already) Krow, vtols, bladewings would be in this category. if on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being highest and 1 being hovercraft, ground level, they should be a 3-4
Lv 1 Bombers: lv 1 bombers should be higher altitude, if on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being highest and 1 being hovercraft, ground level, they should be a 5-6.
Lv 1 Fighters: They should be just slightly higher than a bomber, maybe a 6-6.5-7. That way they would have to shoot down to kill gunships then go back up to altitude.
Lv 2 Fighters: Hawks, Vamps. These guys should be faster and fly high, like an 8-9. Eat air like popcorn. Maybe have their a-a missle range increased and damage to air increased so they can hit gunships better.
Lv 2+ bombers: They should be high altitude like a 9-10. Static defenses SHOULD have a hard time hitting (even in RL). Best way to kill a bomber is with lv 2 fighters. Flaks can hit only if its really close (ie. almost above) missle towers should still hit them within a decent range. Mercuries should eat these things up. Maybe a boost to current lv 2 or so bomber costs with an hp balance and mercury balance as well. Only grip I have about the very long range missle towers, is that their rate of fire is very low.
Mobile flak: They should only be able to shoot down gunships with ease, lv 1 fighters with a little difficulty, and lv 1 bombers are a challenge. They cant hit lv 2 fighters or bombers. This might help in building static flaks and mercuries (and help not make mobile flak the kill all air solution)
The points of this post: Well, I want to see the fighters not have to come so close to ground level that they can just get eaten up by mobile flaks or flaks so well or get stunned by spiders and other emp units. If they can shoot to kill w/o having to go closer to the ground, that would be great. This also will give fighters back their glory as the premier anti air solution.
Also, this might help bombers getting in just 1 drop of bombs deep into base, which is what their purpose is. Right now, mobile flaks and other defenses pretty much kill bombers so fast they can't even get close to the heart of the base, maybe a little deeper than the outskirts. I'm not saying like 20 bombers should be enuff to kill something way deep in the base, but like 50, or 100, or 200 or more should be able to take out at least 1 fusion or nuke or plant.
Last point, mobile flaks are too powerful IMO. They are extremely accurate, and build decently quick and are pretty cheap too, yet they can own all air. In OTA, mobile flaks weren't as good as stationary flaks, which I thought was a good balance. Stationary cost more, so it should be better. Mobiles cost less, shouldn't be as good. They were still good on gunships, but not fighters or bombers. In AA, they pretty much own all air.
Anyway...yes...hf
-
Doomweaver
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14
Reducing effectiveness of mobile flaks a bit. I like the idea with EMP spiders being slower, slower firing, but more HP. Maybe the speed of a flash or so?
Also already fighters have extremely high damage versus bombers and gunships, proportional to their tech level. For instance, L1 fighters do high damage vs L1 bombers, and moderate-high damage vs L2 bombers, but poor damage vs L2 fighters.
L2 fighters have super-high damage vs L1 fighters, super-high damage vs .... right, I think I'll just post the relevant section of the weapons file.
(A2A means air-to-air only)
Also already fighters have extremely high damage versus bombers and gunships, proportional to their tech level. For instance, L1 fighters do high damage vs L1 bombers, and moderate-high damage vs L2 bombers, but poor damage vs L2 fighters.
L2 fighters have super-high damage vs L1 fighters, super-high damage vs .... right, I think I'll just post the relevant section of the weapons file.
(A2A means air-to-air only)
Code: Select all
[ARMVTOL_MISSILE_A2A]
{
ID=107;
name=GuidedMissiles;
rendertype=1;
lineofsight=1;
toairweapon=1;
model=missile;
range=530;
reloadtime=0.77;
weapontimer=5;
weaponvelocity=750;
startvelocity=600;
weaponacceleration=150;
turnrate=24000;
areaofeffect=48;
metalpershot=0;
soundstart=Rocklit3;
soundhit=xplosml2;
firestarter=70;
smokedelay=.1;
guidance=1;
tracks=1;
selfprop=1;
smoketrail=1;
tolerance=8000;
explosiongaf=fx;
explosionart=explode3;
waterexplosiongaf=fx;
waterexplosionart=h2o;
lavaexplosiongaf=fx;
lavaexplosionart=lavasplash;
startsmoke=1;
[DAMAGE]
{
default=60;
L1FIGHTERS=87;
L1BOMBERS=240;
}
}
[CORVTOL_MISSILE_A2A]
{
ID=119;
name=GuidedMissiles;
rendertype=1;
lineofsight=1;
toairweapon=1;
model=missile;
range=502;
reloadtime=0.5;
weapontimer=5;
weaponvelocity=750;
startvelocity=600;
weaponacceleration=150;
turnrate=24000;
areaofeffect=48;
metalpershot=0;
soundstart=Rocklit3;
soundhit=xplosml2;
firestarter=70;
smokedelay=.1;
guidance=1;
tracks=1;
selfprop=1;
smoketrail=1;
tolerance=8000;
explosiongaf=fx;
explosionart=explode3;
waterexplosiongaf=fx;
waterexplosionart=h2o;
lavaexplosiongaf=fx;
lavaexplosionart=lavasplash;
startsmoke=1;
[DAMAGE]
{
default=49;
L1FIGHTERS=87;
L1BOMBERS=196;
}
}
[ARMVTOL_MISSILE]
{
ID=108;
name=GuidedMissiles;
rendertype=1;
lineofsight=1;
model=missile;
range=510;
reloadtime=1.2;
weapontimer=5;
weaponvelocity=620;
startvelocity=420;
weaponacceleration=200;
turnrate=24000;
areaofeffect=8;
metalpershot=0;
soundstart=Rocklit3;
soundhit=xplosml2;
firestarter=70;
smokedelay=.1;
guidance=1;
tracks=1;
selfprop=1;
smoketrail=1;
tolerance=8000;
explosiongaf=fx;
explosionart=explode3;
waterexplosiongaf=fx;
waterexplosionart=h2o;
lavaexplosiongaf=fx;
lavaexplosionart=lavasplash;
startsmoke=1;
[DAMAGE]
{
default=42;
L1FIGHTERS=84;
L1BOMBERS=126;
ANTIFIGHTER=20;
}
}
[CORVTOL_MISSILE]
{
ID=109;
name=GuidedMissiles;
rendertype=1;
lineofsight=1;
model=missile;
range=502;
reloadtime=0.87;
weapontimer=5;
weaponvelocity=625;
startvelocity=425;
weaponacceleration=200;
turnrate=24000;
areaofeffect=8;
metalpershot=0;
soundstart=Rocklit3;
soundhit=xplosml2;
firestarter=70;
smokedelay=.1;
guidance=1;
tracks=1;
selfprop=1;
smoketrail=1;
tolerance=8000;
explosiongaf=fx;
explosionart=explode3;
waterexplosiongaf=fx;
waterexplosionart=h2o;
lavaexplosiongaf=fx;
lavaexplosionart=lavasplash;
startsmoke=1;
[DAMAGE]
{
default=38;
L1FIGHTERS=76;
L1BOMBERS=114;
ANTIFIGHTER=19;
}
}
[ARMVTOL_ADVMISSILE]
{
ID=112;
name=GuidedMissiles;
rendertype=1;
lineofsight=1;
model=missile;
range=562;
reloadtime=0.85;
weapontimer=7;
weaponvelocity=850;
startvelocity=650;
weaponacceleration=250;
turnrate=36000;
areaofeffect=8;
metalpershot=0;
soundstart=Rocklit3;
soundhit=xplosml2;
firestarter=70;
smokedelay=.1;
guidance=1;
tracks=1;
selfprop=1;
smoketrail=1;
tolerance=8000;
explosiongaf=fx;
explosionart=explode3;
waterexplosiongaf=fx;
waterexplosionart=h2o;
lavaexplosiongaf=fx;
lavaexplosionart=lavasplash;
startsmoke=1;
[DAMAGE]
{
default=55;
L1FIGHTERS=160;
L2FIGHTERS=110;
L1BOMBERS=350;
L2BOMBERS=450;
ANTIFIGHTER=26;
}
}
[ARMVTOL_ADVMISSILE2]
{
ID=115;
name=GuidedMissiles;
rendertype=1;
lineofsight=1;
model=missile;
range=659;
reloadtime=14;
weapontimer=7;
weaponvelocity=510;
startvelocity=410;
weaponacceleration=25;
turnrate=16000;
areaofeffect=24;
metalpershot=0;
soundstart=Rocklit3;
soundhit=xplosml2;
firestarter=70;
smokedelay=.1;
guidance=1;
tracks=1;
selfprop=1;
smoketrail=1;
tolerance=8000;
explosiongaf=fx;
explosionart=explode3;
waterexplosiongaf=fx;
waterexplosionart=h2o;
lavaexplosiongaf=fx;
lavaexplosionart=lavasplash;
startsmoke=1;
[DAMAGE]
{
default=270;
ANTIFIGHTER=60;
}
}
[CORVTOL_ADVMISSILE]
{
ID=113;
name=GuidedMissiles;
rendertype=1;
lineofsight=1;
model=missile;
range=550;
reloadtime=.5;
weapontimer=7;
weaponvelocity=850;
startvelocity=650;
weaponacceleration=250;
turnrate=36000;
areaofeffect=8;
metalpershot=0;
soundstart=Rocklit3;
soundhit=xplosml2;
firestarter=70;
smokedelay=.1;
guidance=1;
tracks=1;
selfprop=1;
smoketrail=1;
tolerance=8000;
explosiongaf=fx;
explosionart=explode3;
waterexplosiongaf=fx;
waterexplosionart=h2o;
lavaexplosiongaf=fx;
lavaexplosionart=lavasplash;
startsmoke=1;
[DAMAGE]
{
default=43;
L1FIGHTERS=116;
L2FIGHTERS=86;
L1BOMBERS=206;
L2BOMBERS=265;
ANTIFIGHTER=22;
}
}
[CORVTOL_ADVMISSILE2]
{
ID=114;
name=GuidedMissiles;
rendertype=1;
lineofsight=1;
model=missile;
range=650;
reloadtime=12;
weapontimer=7;
weaponvelocity=500;
startvelocity=400;
weaponacceleration=25;
turnrate=16000;
areaofeffect=24;
metalpershot=0;
soundstart=Rocklit3;
soundhit=xplosml2;
firestarter=70;
smokedelay=.1;
guidance=1;
tracks=1;
selfprop=1;
smoketrail=1;
tolerance=8000;
explosiongaf=fx;
explosionart=explode3;
waterexplosiongaf=fx;
waterexplosionart=h2o;
lavaexplosiongaf=fx;
lavaexplosionart=lavasplash;
startsmoke=1;
[DAMAGE]
{
default=220;
ANTIFIGHTER=50;
}
}
Last edited by Caydr on 16 Dec 2005, 21:24, edited 1 time in total.
That sounds more like it. I liked that you lightened them up and sped them up, but remember how the original spiders started - slow, cumbersome, useless OTA units. The only time anyone ever saw one was in that damn "rescue the spiders" mission at the beginning of hte game.Caydr wrote:Reducing effectiveness of mobile flaks a bit. I like the idea with EMP spiders being slower, slower firing, but more HP. Maybe the speed of a flash or so?
From the TLL-Thread
Andreask wrote:Awesome mod there Noize, but sadly not many people are online playing it whenever i come along.
So, i have a suggestion to increase the popularity of your mod:
Incooperate TLL in AA!
Your fanbase would explode just by doing this!
Furthermore two of the most talented mod-developers in the community would join their talents!
All the fun and novelity that TLL has would be promoted by AAs popularity and improved by the motivating balanced gameplay Caydr has developed.
Easily, the TLL-Units would be a regular sight in any TA:Spring game, just like Core and Arm, thanks to this cooperation of TLL and AA.
Of course, TLL-Units would have to be adapted to the balance of AA, but that is just a game of numbers, and the ovious benefits are enormous.
I wouldn't be against the idea of TLL being incorporated in some fashion, but I foresee the possibility of hurt feelings. AA is my mod, and I'd want to make sure that the TLL units fit in with AA well... but what if the author of TLL felt I wasn't doing a good enough job?
It would have to be collaberative somehow, but cooperation in large-scale mod making is difficult. The reason why AA is so cohesive is because there aren't a dozen warring parties trying to get their X unit to have Y role, etc.
Another problem might be that AA combined with TLL would likely overflow the 2048x2048 combined texture limit. I'm not sure exactly how close AA is to the limit already... there's not really any way to tell offhand. But I suspect that TLL uses a fair bit of custom textures, and AA uses some custom textures in combination with the entirety of the OTA texture set.
Also, I've never played TLL... so... I don't know how good or bad it is. Even the best completely "home-made" mod often fails to have the same level of quality and consistency that OTA was known for.
I think maybe you're overstating the problem a bit? I've seen quite a few TLL games running at any given time.
It would have to be collaberative somehow, but cooperation in large-scale mod making is difficult. The reason why AA is so cohesive is because there aren't a dozen warring parties trying to get their X unit to have Y role, etc.
Another problem might be that AA combined with TLL would likely overflow the 2048x2048 combined texture limit. I'm not sure exactly how close AA is to the limit already... there's not really any way to tell offhand. But I suspect that TLL uses a fair bit of custom textures, and AA uses some custom textures in combination with the entirety of the OTA texture set.
Also, I've never played TLL... so... I don't know how good or bad it is. Even the best completely "home-made" mod often fails to have the same level of quality and consistency that OTA was known for.
I think maybe you're overstating the problem a bit? I've seen quite a few TLL games running at any given time.
At any given time i have been online, which was frequently during the last weeks, there were always a few AA game running but only occasionally a TLL game.
Also, i am quite impressed by the gameplay and balance of AA as it is now and it would be a wichfull thought of mine to see TLL benefit from that, scince i like that faction so much.
AA on the other hand would benefit from a new faction, new content, to explore and play with, try the mod, and you will see that TLL lacks nothing in the technical department compared to the Standards of Arm and Core.
Before disragarding the proposal completly, i suggest you have a talk with Noize, the modder that has ported TLL to TA:Spring.
I am merely a fellow player, impressed by those two mods, and i know from modding other games, that the attention span of the crowd is low, so modders have to find new ways of promoting their work constanly.
Have a talk with Noize and see if you can get along with him, you might even share similar goals in modding and can get rid of any difficulties regarding that texture-size right away.
Also, i am quite impressed by the gameplay and balance of AA as it is now and it would be a wichfull thought of mine to see TLL benefit from that, scince i like that faction so much.
AA on the other hand would benefit from a new faction, new content, to explore and play with, try the mod, and you will see that TLL lacks nothing in the technical department compared to the Standards of Arm and Core.
Before disragarding the proposal completly, i suggest you have a talk with Noize, the modder that has ported TLL to TA:Spring.
I am merely a fellow player, impressed by those two mods, and i know from modding other games, that the attention span of the crowd is low, so modders have to find new ways of promoting their work constanly.
Have a talk with Noize and see if you can get along with him, you might even share similar goals in modding and can get rid of any difficulties regarding that texture-size right away.
I just wanted to tell ya... keep on doing the awesome job 
-
Doomweaver
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14
AA rocks. TLL rocks. Need I say more... 
Plus, if they are both based on UH, it shouldn't require much balancing.
Personally, I think you should pause AA development for the moment, and create an offshoot; remove the variants - the forge and the barebones - and add in TLL. Without balancing TLL, play and get to know the team, both against another TLL player and against Arm and Core, and of course Arm and Core versus it. Then work out what rebalancing it needs.
Of course, only do this with the original mod makers permission.
And we should bug the SY's to increase the texture size, every day. Well, not really, but it would be nice, huh?
Plus, if they are both based on UH, it shouldn't require much balancing.
Personally, I think you should pause AA development for the moment, and create an offshoot; remove the variants - the forge and the barebones - and add in TLL. Without balancing TLL, play and get to know the team, both against another TLL player and against Arm and Core, and of course Arm and Core versus it. Then work out what rebalancing it needs.
Of course, only do this with the original mod makers permission.
And we should bug the SY's to increase the texture size, every day. Well, not really, but it would be nice, huh?
-
smokeynseinor
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 21 Oct 2004, 12:19
I have been playing AA for over a year now (v4.1) and it has come along in leaps and bounds and will continue to do so unless it is incoperated with another mod.
No disrespect intended at all but personally I just hate the idea of changing AA on such a large scale in any way shape or form.
Its taken a lot of work on Caydrs behalf and a lot of testing from the AA community veterans and I feel that incoperating another mod with AA would just destroy the balance that has taken over a year to achieve.
No disrespect intended at all but personally I just hate the idea of changing AA on such a large scale in any way shape or form.
Its taken a lot of work on Caydrs behalf and a lot of testing from the AA community veterans and I feel that incoperating another mod with AA would just destroy the balance that has taken over a year to achieve.
What would be possible, is to make the AA+TLL another mod entirley. Basically, do what Caydr did with the -F, -B and -S mods, and add another called -TLL. Balance the TLL with AA, but dont change AA at all. Then the -TLL mod could be shipped totally seperate for those that want it. It takes the responsibility off Caydr then, but still lets people play TLL+AA.