Absolute Annihilation 2.11

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 20 Jun 2006, 20:13

Oh, and I like auto-repair in general, because I usually play a fairly tight game in terms of constructors. Well... don't ask Journier, he thinks I have too many idle... but when you're nanostalling on both resources and holding four fronts, each constructor slows the rest intolerably.

Drone_Fragger · Post by **Drone_Fragger** » 20 Jun 2006, 20:20

Just put the High Traj damage down by about a third. That way its actually possible to counter it. At the meoment, very little outranges one. So Building a guardian of your own is usually the only ansewer.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 20 Jun 2006, 20:47

Ever just used good ol' L1 artillery? I buffed them up a bit recently.

Day · Post by **Day** » 20 Jun 2006, 20:47

Caydr, maybe it would be a good idea to boost the advanced fusions a bit
atm, you are better off building regular fusions since the advanced one
gives less E and costs alot more then its equevelent costs in regular fusions
if it would be cost effective maybe that would be good reason to ge adv vehicles in a world where everybody goes adv kbot

PS can i not be ignored like last time?

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 20 Jun 2006, 21:00

Caydr wrote:What I was thinking of was eliminating it from bulldog and reaper (actually reaper never had it, but that was an oversight; it should have), while greatly boosting its effect on the Maverick and allowing the Goliath to retain roughly what it has now. Commanders would still have it as they have now. As much as it makes sense for the Sumo to have this as well, I think I'll probably remove it.

So we'd have only Commanders, Mavericks and Goliaths with autorepair? That sounds reasonable. Though if you really wanted the Sumo to keep it, you could add the Demolisher back in and make it about the same as a Bulldog but with autorepair.

As for Guardians, they're fine. You can counter them with a combination of:

1) Build deep defences. Don't just build a line, build multiple layers. Fall back just out of range and build a Guardian of your own there to prevent your enemy from expanding further.

2) Jammers.

3) Quick raid, if your opponent's neglected to build enough lasers, which is often the case when someone rushes a Guardian.

4) As 3, but walk up to it with your Commander and D-Gun the sucker. If necessary (and viable) CommBomb it. If you manage to catch your enemy's Commander in the blast, so much the better.

5) As 1, but get an air factory and ~5 bombers instead of building your own Guardian. Then bomb the sucker into oblivion.

Comp1337 · Post by **Comp1337** » 20 Jun 2006, 22:06

Guardians are good.

Imo, caydr you should betatest your releases alot more.
And dont be in a hurry to release 2.1. This version is really good..
People should adapt to the game more (where it isnt game-breaking) and whine less.

Not saying that you shouldn't update AA any more, but releases less often. Just when im getting used to the balance in AA, a new version gets released.

*Asbestos suit on*

BigSteve · Post by **BigSteve** » 21 Jun 2006, 00:23

BigSteve · Post by **BigSteve** » 21 Jun 2006, 00:27

Drone_Fragger wrote:
Caydr wrote:Bunker idea is very old, had it back sometime around version 1/2 for OTA. I've been thinking off and on about re-adding it now that it would be more practical (in OTA only units could be transports, and units weren't directly buildable by other units, so it was something like the old nano base -> nano tower thing)

All defense buildings do 2x damage versus commanders. So actually it should be more like 3 direct hits. How exactly one of those things could get a direct hit on a commander boggles my mind though. Sounds like you just weren't paying attention to your frontline-commander, which equals death. Fair.

unpossible wrote:i think they look too imposing - perhaps some more subtle colouring and a smaller size. more like it's part of the structure itself that's been layed onto the terrain. maybe i'll have a play with paintshop tomorrow and see what happens.
As soon as it's possible, I'll be giving them roughly edges and rounded corners. But as it stands, there's no transparency possible on these. I'll reduce their size a bit as was asked, and add them to forges.

One question for you guys, what do you think of current combat-autorepair? I would like to reduce the number of units that have it, since it's just a bit of extra unnecessary detail that I've already seen lead to at least a few accusations of a player being a cheater.

What I was thinking of was eliminating it from bulldog and reaper (actually reaper never had it, but that was an oversight; it should have), while greatly boosting its effect on the Maverick and allowing the Goliath to retain roughly what it has now. Commanders would still have it as they have now. As much as it makes sense for the Sumo to have this as well, I think I'll probably remove it.
Its just the fact taht you have to rush a Gaurdian to win. If you don't, You can't build one, and the enemy shells your defences into the dust. Before it was possible to still win the front, Even if the enemy got a gaurdian, becasue it was actually possible to build one whilke being shelled. now its just completly unbalenced. Sure, Against units it may be fine, But having a unit which is effectivley unkillable when backed up is just wrong.

Sorry but this is total shite. how can you play this game for over 100 hours and say this drone... the first player to build a gaurdian wins? whatever.
Just move your star noob frontline back outside the range of your enemys gaurdian and build units or level2, hes just spent 1000 metal on a static defense...
Caydr please dont change them theyre balanced perfectly now saying the first player to build a gaurdian wins and theyre unkillable when backed up is just absurb, how many replays do you want me to send you to prove drone is talking crap?

Wasp · Post by **Wasp** » 21 Jun 2006, 00:34

Backing up steves comment, only an idiot could make such a statement about gaurdians.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 21 Jun 2006, 00:36

agreed. idiot ~.~

krogothe · Post by **krogothe** » 21 Jun 2006, 00:37

Rockos need a 5% speed reduction...

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 21 Jun 2006, 00:38

krogothe wrote:Rockos need a 5% speed reduction...

Why? Wouldn't that make them slower than Hammers?

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 21 Jun 2006, 00:50

mmm...hammers are still good at base assault, i like the skirmishing rockos!

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 21 Jun 2006, 00:54

I just had an idea. Would a few of you like to link me to the "best" game of AA v2 you've played? (or just the best you can still find)

By watching it, I'll maybe have a good time in the process, but more importantly maybe I'll see some aspects of the game that could be improved upon or emphasized. IE, when I noticed that L1 was getting rushed through rather than being an actual phase of the game, and so on... Would be educational, since I never have enough time to play and therefore am a terrible player and therefore never show my face in public due to fear of humiliation.

DavetheBrave · Post by **DavetheBrave** » 21 Jun 2006, 01:01

I like the autorepairs as they are. It increases the usefulness of the sumo alot(but still not so it is op). Increasing the rate for mavs would be nice though.

krogothe · Post by **krogothe** » 21 Jun 2006, 01:08

Egarwaen wrote:
krogothe wrote:Rockos need a 5% speed reduction...
Why? Wouldn't that make them slower than Hammers?

Think ranges, DPS and cost, then choose. i wont post any further, its pretty blatantly obvious rockos are more powerful than they should at less than 100 metal, being used for general skirmishing, base killing, defense and comm killing, all the while being more cost effective than the other bots if microed properly. Wanna argue for the sake of arguiiing? do it alone, im outta here.

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 21 Jun 2006, 01:26

krogothe wrote:its pretty blatantly obvious rockos are more powerful than they should at less than 100 metal.

They're slightly more efficient in terms of health than Peewees.

They're 75% of the speed of PeeWees and have much shorter sight range.

Their DPS is marginally higher than a PeeWee. (37 vs 34)

Their range is about 2.6 times a PeeWee's.

Their weapon is significantly more inaccurate.

What, exactly, is significantly more powerful than it should be here? Anyone else seen this effect at all?

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 21 Jun 2006, 02:24

comparing a rocko to a pw is silly
a PW is not and cannot be used as a skirmisher
nor a base assault
nor com killing
the hammer should be the better choice in base assault (not sure about killing coms, hammers vs com is fine IMO). But rockos really are a bit too good, a speed reduction...meh i'd rather have hammers cost slightly less

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 21 Jun 2006, 03:05

Isn't the advantage of Hammers over Rockos that they can mass fire much better as they can fire over each other? Thus Hammers are a bit less cost-efficient.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 21 Jun 2006, 04:56

Maybe reverse the hammer vs. rocko speed advantage and increase it a little? If I remember right, it's something like 1.5 vs 1.55 (rocko being the faster one)... how about 1.48 vs 1.57 (hammer being the faster one)?

Fanger wrote:side note.. I think in one of the versions the CORCK is missing its cob file.. you might want to look into it.. believe it is the B version..

It'd be all versions working or none; they all rely on the same base archive, AASpring20.sdz, which contains all the scripts, buildpics, and other common data. Sooo... you're just crazy. Or, as they say in your country, you're queer in the attic. (maybe that's before your time...)

Spring RTS Engine

Absolute Annihilation 2.11