Absolute Annihilation: Spring 1.46
Moderator: Moderators
the only point was that 5(and less) skeeters wipe out 2 torpedo launchers without taking any damage!! by dodging their real slow bullets, nothing more.
the naval hlt is very good for standart naval units , just not for those real big ships wich you will have to defend with some big ships of yours wich is pretty natural.
the naval hlt is very good for standart naval units , just not for those real big ships wich you will have to defend with some big ships of yours wich is pretty natural.
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
That's my point. Far more so than on land you're very vulnerable to being raided in the first 5 minutes or so at sea.
I've had a fair fw games where a couple of skeeters will rush in and take out the majority of the early infrastructure (I've had this done to me and I've done it to other people). Once that's happened it's all too possible to pin the unfortunate victim down and prevent them from going above the surface again.
Once there's a bit of a base going it's not too bad, but at the moment ther really is no real defense against being raided in the first 5 minutes.
I've had a fair fw games where a couple of skeeters will rush in and take out the majority of the early infrastructure (I've had this done to me and I've done it to other people). Once that's happened it's all too possible to pin the unfortunate victim down and prevent them from going above the surface again.
Once there's a bit of a base going it's not too bad, but at the moment ther really is no real defense against being raided in the first 5 minutes.
Well, why is the mine-layer-sub lvl 2 and not lvl 1 ??? If it was lvl 1 like the other mine-layers it could defend vs. skeeters wuite well i´d imagine.
As my fellow posters have said, when playing on water maps, the game is often decided simply by who puts his shipyard up first, as he who does can pin all othres on land.
As my fellow posters have said, when playing on water maps, the game is often decided simply by who puts his shipyard up first, as he who does can pin all othres on land.
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
It's the role of the flash tank. It's a high damage low armor offencive solution. Flash tanks smash raiders and lay waste to opposing forces in the open field, but put thier offencive push within range of a few LLT or an HLT and a fraction of the forces it would take to stop and equivalent instagator force will massicar them.
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
-
smokingwreckage
- Posts: 327
- Joined: 09 Apr 2005, 11:40
I've found out some weird unbalancing thing.
My suggestion would be something like this:
- Construction vehicles: +0.4M / +27E
Adv. Construction vehicles: +1.2M / +45E
My suggestion would be something like this:
- Construction vehicles: +0.1M / +5E
Adv. Construction vehicles: +0.2M / +10E
And:
Construction kbot: +0.1M / +3E
Adv. Construction kbot: +0.2M / +8E
Last edited by TradeMark on 13 Mar 2006, 13:08, edited 3 times in total.
Your weapons file has a small mistake in it. A missing semicolon on line 7880, in the [REAL_DOOMSDAY] weapon.
Code: Select all
default=5000;
COMMANDERS=1300;
KROGOTH=9000
ORCONE=9000;
SEADRAGON=9000;i agree, remember you spamming out con vehicles on altored divide, u had basically 3 times the eco energy wise i had from going wind/solarsTradeMark wrote:I've found out some weird unbalancing thing.
If you keep building those, it is cheaper than building solars/wind & metal makers. I've won too many games with that tactic :/
- Construction vehicles: +0.4M / +27E
Adv. Construction vehicles: +1.2M / +45E
My suggestion would be something like this:
Now we dont get any advantages by building swarm of those.
- Construction vehicles: +0.1M / +5E
Adv. Construction vehicles: +0.2M / +10E
And:
Construction kbot: +0.1M / +3E
Adv. Construction kbot: +0.2M / +8E
Funk, i am sure that the decent econ output of con vehicles is meant to off-set the higher costs of vehicles compared to k-bots.
So, if you nerf that, you would have to lower production costs for vehicles.
Instead, why not implement the "diminishing returns" approch for con-vehicles, as they are similar to metal-makers. The more you have, the less you get, so oyu have to find a happy medium.
So, if you nerf that, you would have to lower production costs for vehicles.
Instead, why not implement the "diminishing returns" approch for con-vehicles, as they are similar to metal-makers. The more you have, the less you get, so oyu have to find a happy medium.
Why not just slash con-vehicles' production of resources to zero, period, and do balancing on workertime vs. mobility, survivability, cost and size? Just a thought.
It's much easier to balance the way that construction vehicles work that way- when you make them make resources, then it's just another factor adding to the complexity of making them somewhat "fair" or "useful" for their costs. It's actually very easy to do something like, say, make the projection distance of the nanospray longer, or to do a script tweak, like increasing the speed at which the nanosprayer deploys, to do a small tweak on overall utility... and far better to do it through things like that then to give an economic buff, especially one like that.
What you've got in the current buff, imho, is basically an anti-incentive to build a regular economy until fairly late in midgame, because if you look a the workertime involved, let alone the other resource costs, it's actually faster to spam out con vehicles than to build a regular economy, and you can hide them, too!
It's much easier to balance the way that construction vehicles work that way- when you make them make resources, then it's just another factor adding to the complexity of making them somewhat "fair" or "useful" for their costs. It's actually very easy to do something like, say, make the projection distance of the nanospray longer, or to do a script tweak, like increasing the speed at which the nanosprayer deploys, to do a small tweak on overall utility... and far better to do it through things like that then to give an economic buff, especially one like that.
What you've got in the current buff, imho, is basically an anti-incentive to build a regular economy until fairly late in midgame, because if you look a the workertime involved, let alone the other resource costs, it's actually faster to spam out con vehicles than to build a regular economy, and you can hide them, too!
When I did service we once had a look at a small portable one man AA missile battery.FizWizz wrote:listen, if we're going to bandy around with "reality" here, let's think about this: The Jethro's (and Crasher's, and Samson's, and Slasher's) weapon is roughly the equivalent to an AIM-9 Stinger missile. Tell me this: how suited are those to shooting at vehicles? How often are they used as anti-vehicle weapons? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that they are poorly suited, and are never used as such, period. the "reality" argument does not hold.
One of the questions that one of the officers asked us was what we would do if we saw an enemy armed vehicle come around a corner a few hundred meters away.
Well, the answer was, shoot the bastard! It might be AA missiles but they can still be somewhat effective, especially if the target is not a fully armoured tank.
Not saying that kbots are not armoured, but you get the point.
They might not be as effective but if you are in an open firefight then you should per definition throw everything you got on the enemy.
Now, that being said, I actually think that giving them rocket bots the ability to fire on all targets would make the brother bot obsolete to some extent. Therefore Im not so sure that its such a good idea from a TA point of view.
