after testing with bigsteve and drexion,
aa is like a pretty painting with coffee spilt all over it.
Absolute Annihilation 1.5
Moderator: Moderators
Don't forget how 3 pitbulls took out 2 golliaths...heh. Thats 2500 metal for the golliath and 1500 metal for the pitbulls =). One pitbull was almost dead, i'll give the golliaths that ;D.
We tried viper/pitbulls against sumos, pyros, fidos, zeus, morty, golliath, maverick (haha, I stand by how much this unit sucks for the cost), rocket spider (sigh, so sucky too...3 rocket spiders barely damaged the viper...for 2.2x the metal cost!).
Of course defense should be more effective per metal than mobile units...But right now you can't kill defenses with twice the metal investment on the unit-side. That seems funny. Oh yeah, also tried a razorback (3600 metal) versus 1500 metal of vipers (3 vipers)...Hehe, not even 1 viper dead.
I think the point where an offensive army is able to destroy defenses is at about 2.5 to 3 times the metal cost. Of course, the energy cost is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than 3 times since the energy-cost of defenses is absurdly low (same energy cost for a viper as a zeus? geez).
-Drexion
p.s. Frankly AA is getting less fun for me after every patch =( I really don't know who your listening to for these changes, Caydr... All I know is that myself and friends of mine with lots of experience in AA are finding ourselves playing more and more XTA + EE. Ah well.
We tried viper/pitbulls against sumos, pyros, fidos, zeus, morty, golliath, maverick (haha, I stand by how much this unit sucks for the cost), rocket spider (sigh, so sucky too...3 rocket spiders barely damaged the viper...for 2.2x the metal cost!).
Of course defense should be more effective per metal than mobile units...But right now you can't kill defenses with twice the metal investment on the unit-side. That seems funny. Oh yeah, also tried a razorback (3600 metal) versus 1500 metal of vipers (3 vipers)...Hehe, not even 1 viper dead.
I think the point where an offensive army is able to destroy defenses is at about 2.5 to 3 times the metal cost. Of course, the energy cost is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than 3 times since the energy-cost of defenses is absurdly low (same energy cost for a viper as a zeus? geez).
-Drexion
p.s. Frankly AA is getting less fun for me after every patch =( I really don't know who your listening to for these changes, Caydr... All I know is that myself and friends of mine with lots of experience in AA are finding ourselves playing more and more XTA + EE. Ah well.
What is the metal ratio for attacking units for defense for llts and hlts? I'd guess it could be about 2-3 based on gut feel, and that seems to me to be a suitable balance:
For example the attacker spends 1000 metal building an attacking force. To stop this, the defender may need 300 metal in defensive strucutre. Yet the game could still be balanced in favour of the attacker. Because the defender may have to invest this 300 metal in 4 different places, as the attacker has a choice of where to attack. The attacker also has the option of attacking with land or air. So the defender better spend another 300 metal in air defense (a rough guess based on the fact that anti air seems more cost effective). So to stop an attacker with 1000 metal available, the defender needs to spend over 1500 metal in defensive structures.
I don't think that doing a staged playtest of x unit A vers y unit B and comparing results and metal invested is a good judge of balance. There are so many variables in a game besides metal income. I think that balance should be judged solely by pure playtesting time. If we find that most people are spamming pitbulls and ignoring annis then maybe we suspect there is an imbalance and that annis should be stronger compared to pit bulls. If we find that many games are being bogged down in defence and porcing, then maybe we need to adjust the power of attacks compared to nerfs.
And this judgement depends on how the balance affects game play. Perhaps gameplay is best served by a particular units dominance. The prime example being the commander. This unit tends to dominate game play with its d-gun and explosion. The issue is then whether this is a bad thing (I personally am not a fan), or whether it is a good game (probably the majority view). Also mexes are a very dominant 'spammed' unit, but I think (nearly?) everyone would agree it should stay that way as that is a key part of what the game is about.
So the question is - how does 3 pitbulls taking out 2 goliaths affect game play? Is this giving porcers to much of an advantage? making goliaths useless? Making alternative defense to pitbulls useless?
edit: I'm not saying that pitbulls are not unbalanced. And maybe you've seen them in action in real games and seen a problem there, and tried to validate this with the experiment. I just want to say that the argument needs to consider other factors. I have not done any playtesting on this issue and have no opinion either way.
For example the attacker spends 1000 metal building an attacking force. To stop this, the defender may need 300 metal in defensive strucutre. Yet the game could still be balanced in favour of the attacker. Because the defender may have to invest this 300 metal in 4 different places, as the attacker has a choice of where to attack. The attacker also has the option of attacking with land or air. So the defender better spend another 300 metal in air defense (a rough guess based on the fact that anti air seems more cost effective). So to stop an attacker with 1000 metal available, the defender needs to spend over 1500 metal in defensive structures.
I don't think that doing a staged playtest of x unit A vers y unit B and comparing results and metal invested is a good judge of balance. There are so many variables in a game besides metal income. I think that balance should be judged solely by pure playtesting time. If we find that most people are spamming pitbulls and ignoring annis then maybe we suspect there is an imbalance and that annis should be stronger compared to pit bulls. If we find that many games are being bogged down in defence and porcing, then maybe we need to adjust the power of attacks compared to nerfs.
And this judgement depends on how the balance affects game play. Perhaps gameplay is best served by a particular units dominance. The prime example being the commander. This unit tends to dominate game play with its d-gun and explosion. The issue is then whether this is a bad thing (I personally am not a fan), or whether it is a good game (probably the majority view). Also mexes are a very dominant 'spammed' unit, but I think (nearly?) everyone would agree it should stay that way as that is a key part of what the game is about.
So the question is - how does 3 pitbulls taking out 2 goliaths affect game play? Is this giving porcers to much of an advantage? making goliaths useless? Making alternative defense to pitbulls useless?
edit: I'm not saying that pitbulls are not unbalanced. And maybe you've seen them in action in real games and seen a problem there, and tried to validate this with the experiment. I just want to say that the argument needs to consider other factors. I have not done any playtesting on this issue and have no opinion either way.
My testing was for the units actually and then we tested the pitbulls/vipers to see which units would do better against those =).
IMO though, AA has been giving porcers more and more of an advantage lately. Its a trend i've noticed and this latest patch just pushes us further in that direction...Shrug. I thought HLTs were already OP and yet he increases their HP by 350 hehe. Also, like I said previously, I agree defensive units need a higher metal-efficiency ratio than mobile units...Of course =) I just think this 2.5x to 3x ratio is excessive. I'd think more of the 1.5x to 2x...I mean, these vipers/pitbulls have a pretty decent range! Its not like a llt hehe.
-Drexion
IMO though, AA has been giving porcers more and more of an advantage lately. Its a trend i've noticed and this latest patch just pushes us further in that direction...Shrug. I thought HLTs were already OP and yet he increases their HP by 350 hehe. Also, like I said previously, I agree defensive units need a higher metal-efficiency ratio than mobile units...Of course =) I just think this 2.5x to 3x ratio is excessive. I'd think more of the 1.5x to 2x...I mean, these vipers/pitbulls have a pretty decent range! Its not like a llt hehe.
-Drexion
Okay, I'm not sure exactly how they are supposed to act, but the Arm and Core short-range bombardment ships are absolutely crappy right now.
First, I don't know how something can be short-ranged and a bombardment unit at the same time, it seems like an oxymoron. Second, they have abysmal handling characteristics, they must be borked. They can't be any larger than the Cruisers, but they handle worse than the Abel/Caine, or even the flagships. They also have extremely slow moving speeds, but this again is some sort of bug, because if you FPS one, it can go up to a pretty nice top speed.
Also, the Arm bombardment ship (Viking, IIRC) has a floating wreck.
First, I don't know how something can be short-ranged and a bombardment unit at the same time, it seems like an oxymoron. Second, they have abysmal handling characteristics, they must be borked. They can't be any larger than the Cruisers, but they handle worse than the Abel/Caine, or even the flagships. They also have extremely slow moving speeds, but this again is some sort of bug, because if you FPS one, it can go up to a pretty nice top speed.
Also, the Arm bombardment ship (Viking, IIRC) has a floating wreck.
I agree with the aforesaid points on Vipers/Pitbulls, though I have always personally found the former to be more aggravating.
Defensive structures should not be able to hold without active support against a 3x investment in active assault, that is simply illogical. If I wanted overpowered defensive structures, I would still be playing XTA - No offense to anybody.
The HLT pump was also rather excessive.
I believe we should keep the comm with an indestructible, rez-capable, reclaimable corpse. It seems good to me as is now.
I also would like the high-traj mode for Fidos back, or some equivalent added.
Defensive structures should not be able to hold without active support against a 3x investment in active assault, that is simply illogical. If I wanted overpowered defensive structures, I would still be playing XTA - No offense to anybody.
The HLT pump was also rather excessive.
I believe we should keep the comm with an indestructible, rez-capable, reclaimable corpse. It seems good to me as is now.
I also would like the high-traj mode for Fidos back, or some equivalent added.
annis also get another 350 hp increase... didnt they get a 300 pt increase for 1.48 too...
thats a huge increase when they didnt need any in the first place, these thing have huuuge range and massive BLOD stopping powa, backed up with a few units or pitbulls theyre gonna be way to powerful.
Im an arm player too so please dont say im biased
oh yeah and on the viper and pitbull note... they regenerate 5 hp per tick!
and as you know you cant do any meaningful damage unless theyre open more so for the viper.... they really are the pwn all defensive monster now
thats a huge increase when they didnt need any in the first place, these thing have huuuge range and massive BLOD stopping powa, backed up with a few units or pitbulls theyre gonna be way to powerful.
Im an arm player too so please dont say im biased
oh yeah and on the viper and pitbull note... they regenerate 5 hp per tick!
and as you know you cant do any meaningful damage unless theyre open more so for the viper.... they really are the pwn all defensive monster now
Last edited by BigSteve on 11 Jun 2006, 11:10, edited 1 time in total.
2 problems thus far.
#1. The ARM Aegis Mobile EMP missle needs to be renamed to reflect its weapon. Its currently labeled as a mobile Tactical Nuke.
#2. The CORE Gimp lvl2 amphib kbot, its Torpedo launcher is very weak at 50 dmg per hit, could use a little more than 50 DPShot.
I need some more play time to come to any GOOD conclusions about 1.49, and I think the rest of you guys should as well.
#1. The ARM Aegis Mobile EMP missle needs to be renamed to reflect its weapon. Its currently labeled as a mobile Tactical Nuke.
#2. The CORE Gimp lvl2 amphib kbot, its Torpedo launcher is very weak at 50 dmg per hit, could use a little more than 50 DPShot.
I need some more play time to come to any GOOD conclusions about 1.49, and I think the rest of you guys should as well.
Short range bombardment ships were always quite useless, IMO they should be changed into close combat laser ships or something like that. Or at least get accuracy&HP boost.
Minelayers are also never used now as I stated before, but everyone prefers arguing about units that are perfectly OK. And dammit, when did you last use radar kbot/vehicle?
Minelayers are also never used now as I stated before, but everyone prefers arguing about units that are perfectly OK. And dammit, when did you last use radar kbot/vehicle?
-
Dr.InfernO
- Posts: 223
- Joined: 18 Nov 2005, 13:55
Hello folks!
A good thing is, that since 1.48 the anti-sub weapons are working again and are really effective.
But now they seem to be much too effective.
one example:
The l1 destroyer can take out 2 l1 subs! Is this correctly?
The sub seems only to be effective against very weak scout ships. Or is it tought as an "undercover-underwater" scout?
Dr. InfernO's medical advice:
If it's not ok, - fix it.
A good thing is, that since 1.48 the anti-sub weapons are working again and are really effective.
But now they seem to be much too effective.
one example:
The l1 destroyer can take out 2 l1 subs! Is this correctly?
The sub seems only to be effective against very weak scout ships. Or is it tought as an "undercover-underwater" scout?
Dr. InfernO's medical advice:
If it's not ok, - fix it.
Last edited by Dr.InfernO on 11 Jun 2006, 12:07, edited 1 time in total.
i tried to use minelayers a few times but mines suck - instead of building mines you can simply build crawling bombs - they are more flexibleKonane wrote:Minelayers are also never used now as I stated before, but everyone prefers arguing about units that are perfectly OK. And dammit, when did you last use radar kbot/vehicle?
mabye crawling bombs can be altered to be mines - so if you build a crawling bomb and "deploy" it to a specific spot it cant move anymore in later game but got a damage boost - so its easier to make a minefield: just build some in your base, move to some spot where you want to place mines and "deploy" them
jep - the rader kbot is quite useless aswell - at the frontline or on enemy base i use cloaked infiltrator bots to boost my LOS and give the longe range weapons and bombers a better target
the bad news is that i actuallly NEVER EVER in my spring(edit: for AA of course) life seen ANYONE using radar bots/vehicles.
The good news is that we can make them lvl1 and fast-ish or use them as the carriers of the all new shields.
The good news is that we can make them lvl1 and fast-ish or use them as the carriers of the all new shields.
Last edited by krogothe on 11 Jun 2006, 13:03, edited 1 time in total.
Perhaps you ought to have posted that *prior* to the new version being released?Tired wrote:All of that, and people've chosen to complain about a relatively minor change to the Fidos? Removing the "raider" tag alone was huge. ~~
Two changes I was hoping to see were rebalanced Ranger fire rates (closer to half of their current values, both to be more consistent with OTA and respectful of balance as they're OP now), and an increase to Cruiser depth charge damage (100 damage per shot against a L2 sub whereas a L2 sub does 1,000 damage to the Cruiser seems a little skewed, it being a level 2 Destroyer oO).
Ok, I want to make this clear... 1.49 was extremely rushed. Over half of the changes were done in under 15 minutes. There were far too many changes to test in the matter of minutes I had. I should've labelled it as a beta or something. There'll be another new version shortly.
Thus far I've seen:
Pitbulls/Vipers/HLTs all severely overpowered (looking at the stats now I agree. There was a multiplication error on my part)
Crusader needs a looking at.
Destroyers are a little too strong against subs
Short-range bombardment ships are useless
Annihilator didn't need the HP boost
Fidos need high-trajectory back (I didn't realize people used this, my apologies)
Before I post 1.5, could I please have some feedback on the other changes, specifically bulldog/reaper/goliath? Thanks
~~~~~
Ok, after an extensive series of tests, I've come to the conclusion that arm and core cruisers are virtually identical in capability EXCEPT that the Crusader has significantly longer range - I'll fix this. Besides that, the only difference is that core cruisers require energy to fire their weapons, so do you want this eliminated?
Please post any feature requests/bug reports/comments/whatever else asap. I'm idling in both TASClient and MSN right now, so you can talk to me there too. Thus far I have:
1.49 --> 1.5
You can now view anti-nuke coverage radius by holding down shift while
they're selected; this is active for carriers, anti-nuke silos, and
mobile anti-nukes
Implemented small change which might correct occasional reported issues
with anti-nukes not firing at nukes
Fixed an exploit and a bug with heavy air transports
Pitbull/Viper/HLT multiplication errors corrected, they are no longer
insanely powerful
Viper, Core HLT yardmap errors corrected
Fighter unguided heavy rockets removed
Cruise missile ship firing rates halved, damage reduced by 1/4
Cruiser weapons adjusted; Crusader now has shorter range (900->720),
Executioner; both ships' HP reduced by 1000 (5xxx->4xxx)
Destroyer damage vs. submarines reduced (275->200)
Aegis description fixed to reflect its change to EMP missile
Viking, Cronus bombardment ships removed
Annihilator HP reduced 500 units (3500->3000)
Fido gauss/ballistic on/off switch added back in; in ballistic mode it
now fires 50% slower by has 50% greater damage and has 6x the AoE of
gauss mode