BUMP
Just a balance discussion again...
I was wondering what are the views on adding weapon armour groups to some T1 units for testing.
(I know its not traditionally a balancing solution that XTA uses, especially in older version. Thats mainly due to XTAs balance is done by the way the unit is used, but hear me out here.)
What im debating is, should - for example, the Hammer/Thud have a lower damage weapon, however give it a bonus against defensive buildings.
Perhaps changes like this would make hammers/thuds less spammy on the battle field, but make them be used primarily for base assault and support. Rather than that of a costly way to trump rockos.
One of my main gripes about PW/AK is their efficiency against Gaat/HLT. For being an assault kbot, they kinda suck unless their running rings around hammers or destroying lines of MT's.
Ide like to experiment with giving them a bonus against defensive structures.
Can anyone suggest a % bonus to experiment with?
Any thoughts on this ?
Armour groups - Test
Moderators: Moderators, Content Developer
Re: Armour groups - Test
Armour groups or unit bonuses, I think this sounds interesting. If all units just deal a certian amount of damage, you can simply calculate what unit has best damage efficiency and spam that unit. Now it's probably arm zeus or so. Having armour groups would maybe bring more tactical consideration into the play. At the moment I think xta has lost some of its micro as opposed to macro.
Actually, there has been unit bonuses before, but they have been removed. Take for example arm shooter/sniper. This is its original damage stats:
Nowadays it looks like this:
I'm not saying the changes made are bad. I'm just inviting to discussion.
Actually, there has been unit bonuses before, but they have been removed. Take for example arm shooter/sniper. This is its original damage stats:
Code: Select all
range=600;
reloadtime=20;
energypershot=1500;
weaponvelocity=1000;
areaofeffect=8;
[DAMAGE]
{
default=1230;
corkrog=2460;
armcom=615;
corcom=820;
corcan=2810;
corsumo=5000;
}
}Code: Select all
range=1100;
duration=0.08;
reloadtime=14;
energypershot=1000;
weaponvelocity=1650;
areaofeffect=8;
[DAMAGE]
{
default=2260;
group_invincible=1;
group_commanders=1000;
group_landair=1212;
}
Re: Armour groups - Test
Why was this bumped...?
(even if you disregard that the peewee is so cheap you can get two for the prize of most other bots)
So how can you justify to say "they kinda suck"?
Played games do not reflect it either since players often make large groups of ak/pw and do well with it.
vs HLTs:
All t1 units kind of suck vs HLT which is the idea.
But if you have 1000 metal that buys you
a) 10 peewees or b) 6 rockos
Guess which group kills the HLT and which one fails.
Things like sniper doing less damage to commanders are not really comperable to this. Quite some high-damage units do less damage to coms simply because it would be silly if they can kill it in 1 or 2 hits. If the unit is otherwise balanced, that is imo legit way to solve the problem.
Of t1 bots, that would be the peewee.If all units just deal a certian amount of damage, you can simply calculate what unit has best damage efficiency and spam that unit.
(even if you disregard that the peewee is so cheap you can get two for the prize of most other bots)
So how can you justify to say "they kinda suck"?
Played games do not reflect it either since players often make large groups of ak/pw and do well with it.
vs HLTs:
All t1 units kind of suck vs HLT which is the idea.
But if you have 1000 metal that buys you
a) 10 peewees or b) 6 rockos
Guess which group kills the HLT and which one fails.
I do not see any use for it, T1 is different enought with the existing stats alone.I was wondering what are the views on adding weapon armour groups to some T1 units for testing.
Things like sniper doing less damage to commanders are not really comperable to this. Quite some high-damage units do less damage to coms simply because it would be silly if they can kill it in 1 or 2 hits. If the unit is otherwise balanced, that is imo legit way to solve the problem.
Re: Armour groups - Test
I mean't the fact that it deals 5000 damage to sumo, or 2800 to the can.
Technically it wasn't. bump = bring up my post. I brought up his post. I thought it was a topic similar enough. maybe it wasn't.knorke wrote:Why was this bumped...?
Re: Armour groups - Test
Armour groups can have a place in RTS, but I don't think they would enhance XTA's gameplay.
They can add a layer of very unintuitive unit interaction, and I think XTA has enough of that through the combination of economy and the micro factor/nuance of some units.
If the game was conceived of as using armour classes, and they were intrinsic in the definition of a given unit's role, they could be a good thing. To apply them on top of a balance model based off of hp, dps/burst damage, the ballistic profile of their weapon, and their cost and repair speed, would add what is, in my opinion, superfluous complexity that acts as a barrier to intuitive play.
They can add a layer of very unintuitive unit interaction, and I think XTA has enough of that through the combination of economy and the micro factor/nuance of some units.
If the game was conceived of as using armour classes, and they were intrinsic in the definition of a given unit's role, they could be a good thing. To apply them on top of a balance model based off of hp, dps/burst damage, the ballistic profile of their weapon, and their cost and repair speed, would add what is, in my opinion, superfluous complexity that acts as a barrier to intuitive play.
Re: Armour groups - Test
Armour groups can have a place in RTS, but I don't think they would enhance XTA's gameplay.
They can add a layer of very unintuitive unit interaction, and I think XTA has enough of that through the combination of economy and the micro factor/nuance of some units.
If the game was conceived of as using armour classes, and they were intrinsic in the definition of a given unit's role, they could be a good thing. To apply them on top of a balance model based off of hp, dps/burst damage, the ballistic profile of their weapon, and their cost and repair speed, would add what is, in my opinion, superfluous complexity that acts as a barrier to intuitive play.
They can add a layer of very unintuitive unit interaction, and I think XTA has enough of that through the combination of economy and the micro factor/nuance of some units.
If the game was conceived of as using armour classes, and they were intrinsic in the definition of a given unit's role, they could be a good thing. To apply them on top of a balance model based off of hp, dps/burst damage, the ballistic profile of their weapon, and their cost and repair speed, would add what is, in my opinion, superfluous complexity that acts as a barrier to intuitive play.