Absolute Annihilation 2.11

FireCrack · Post by **FireCrack** » 22 Jun 2006, 05:13

^that might be good, but i'd personaly rather see hammers be slightly faster, so they can "catch" the rockos. I'm not talking about alot faster, just very slightly.

hpkuarg · Post by **hpkuarg** » 22 Jun 2006, 05:14

Okay, I don't know if it's only me or not, but Arm Mavericks seems to be a bit buggy -- they can't/won't fire at anything close to them. For example, say an enemy Construction KBot is within reclaiming range of my Maverick. I order my Maverick to fire at it and it just stands there vibrating (!), as if it can't decide on which turret to fire from.

Same problem with the Maverick in first-person mode -- if I aim at a nearby piece of ground, it won't fire.

Any insights welcome.

Acidd_UK · Post by **Acidd_UK** » 22 Jun 2006, 05:59

I have seen the same problem with the maverick repeatedly turning a small way past the target, then turning back, and again, and again. It's as if its fire arc is set too tight or something...

As for the rocko/hammer debate - I think hammers need a *slight* buff to make them competetive with rockos. I'd probably just make their weapon a little bit better, proably buff the overall dps while nerfing the rof. That way they become more useful vs buildings but less so vs faster units like rockos/peewees. As it is I agree that rockos+micro beat hammers in all but the worst wreckage. If hammers were buffed a tiny bit, then they'd be worth building for a decent assault on multiple hlt/guardian emplacements. As it is, you need a *lot* of them to take down a heavily fortified level 1 firebase.

But it's not like rockos are omgwtf imba! or anything. Obviously my comments are duplicated for the core equivalents.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 22 Jun 2006, 06:09

Acidd_UK wrote:I have seen the same problem with the maverick repeatedly turning a small way past the target, then turning back, and again, and again. It's as if its fire arc is set too tight or something...

As for the rocko/hammer debate - I think hammers need a *slight* buff to make them competetive with rockos. I'd probably just make their weapon a little bit better, proably buff the overall dps while nerfing the rof. That way they become more useful vs buildings but less so vs faster units like rockos/peewees. As it is I agree that rockos+micro beat hammers in all but the worst wreckage. If hammers were buffed a tiny bit, then they'd be worth building for a decent assault on multiple hlt/guardian emplacements. As it is, you need a *lot* of them to take down a heavily fortified level 1 firebase.

But it's not like rockos are omgwtf imba! or anything. Obviously my comments are duplicated for the core equivalents.

Well, one option would be to return the hammers to being base assault vehicles. Just slow down their projectile a ton - maybe even make it high-trajectory (but still accurate, unlike most HT weapons). Then you could buff the damage extensively, as the Hammers would be pretty useless against mobile targets. At that point you'd get the original OTA purposing of the units back - hammers = demolitions, rockos = anti-unit. Unfortunately, then you would also lose the hammers' current role as an L1 "swarming" unit for cases where your numbers are larger and denser than usable with rockos, so that option has a serious drawback.

Machiosabre · Post by **Machiosabre** » 22 Jun 2006, 12:18

I think rockos and hammers are fine, once someone is defended from rockos with a few dragonsteeth hammers are always the better choice, people just don't seem to make any dt anymore.

Day · Post by **Day** » 22 Jun 2006, 13:28

Seriously, i got ignored 2 times now, do you guys seriously think there is nothing wrong with the advanced fusion?
its only buildable by veh, and you are better off building regular fusions...
either remove it.. or buff it so that it is ALOT better then regular fusions
the things is already a risk to build.. big target.. not much armor
and only buildable by vehicles so please can i not be ignored this time?

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 22 Jun 2006, 13:46

original OTA purposing of the units back - hammers = demolitions, rockos = anti-unit.

erm...lol? OTA balance hammers = useless. rockos = useful!
rockos MUST be faster than hammers otherwise they can't skirmish. you SHOULD be rewarded for microing your rocks, HOWEVER a slight nerf would balance it out a bit more

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 22 Jun 2006, 13:56

Day wrote:Seriously, i got ignored 2 times now, do you guys seriously think there is nothing wrong with the advanced fusion?
its only buildable by veh, and you are better off building regular fusions...
either remove it.. or buff it so that it is ALOT better then regular fusions
the things is already a risk to build.. big target.. not much armor
and only buildable by vehicles so please can i not be ignored this time?

I think that it's just because nobody ever builds them, not because of the reasons you cite, but just because a field of 5-10 cloakable fusions isn't a big burden for space at endgame. Fusions are generally "good enough".

Also, am I the only player who never ever builds standard fusions? Cloakables are almost as good a deal and offer the advantage of being cloakable.

Day · Post by **Day** » 22 Jun 2006, 13:59

ever compared costs? your better off building regular fusions in EVERY way

the advanced one costs MORE E MORE M and has MORE BT

that isnt right is it?
and ontop of THAT its only buildable by Vehicles!!

BigSteve · Post by **BigSteve** » 22 Jun 2006, 14:05

Pxtl wrote:
Day wrote:Seriously, i got ignored 2 times now, do you guys seriously think there is nothing wrong with the advanced fusion?
its only buildable by veh, and you are better off building regular fusions...
either remove it.. or buff it so that it is ALOT better then regular fusions
the things is already a risk to build.. big target.. not much armor
and only buildable by vehicles so please can i not be ignored this time?
I think that it's just because nobody ever builds them, not because of the reasons you cite, but just because a field of 5-10 cloakable fusions isn't a big burden for space at endgame. Fusions are generally "good enough".

Also, am I the only player who never ever builds standard fusions? Cloakables are almost as good a deal and offer the advantage of being cloakable.

I never build adv fusions for the reasons day mentioned, whats the point?
just build regular fusions, it costs you less to get more energy if you add up the numbers. The adv fusion is supposed to be a useful added extra for going vehicles, its not at the moment as theres no point in building it.

ginekolog · Post by **ginekolog** » 22 Jun 2006, 14:28

Dragoon teeth stop rockos cold. Try it around llt/beamer/hlt and rockos will never be able to touch it. But hammers can, big difirence.

Could you maybe reduce DT's metal cost a bit? 8dt to put around llt cost 80 M, thats a lot. Maybe 5-7M would be better?

Learn and master it.

Vanguard is not op, leave it.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 22 Jun 2006, 15:06

ginekolog wrote:Dragoon teeth stop rockos cold. Try it around llt/beamer/hlt and rockos will never be able to touch it. But hammers can, big difirence.

Could you maybe reduce DT's metal cost a bit? 8dt to put around llt cost 80 M, thats a lot. Maybe 5-7M would be better?

Learn and master it.

the rockos shoot the first volley to the DT yes, but then they start to target the unit behind the DT, meaning they will hit directly to the LLT . . .

And you say you attack the enemy by building DT lines and beamers/hlt etc behind them?

OK, sounds like a good idea

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 22 Jun 2006, 16:52

Sleksa wrote:And you say you attack the enemy by building DT lines and beamers/hlt etc behind them?

I don't think anyone said that. Merely that using a few DTs around your lasers makes Rockos much less useful for assault roles.

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 22 Jun 2006, 17:14

If rockos are so dangerus, why not just nerf health and possibly a slight nerf on speed and turning speed.

Cheesecan · Post by **Cheesecan** » 22 Jun 2006, 18:36

Day wrote:ever compared costs? your better off building regular fusions in EVERY way

the advanced one costs MORE E MORE M and has MORE BT

that isnt right is it?
and ontop of THAT its only buildable by Vehicles!!

Plus you get E while you're building all the regular fusions, so it becomes useful way earlier. Adv fusion = teh gimp.
On the other hand I hate the very idea of advanced fusion reactors and god forbid advanced metal extractors(ughh TAUCP economy blew !) so I'm not complaining.

ginekolog: I wipe my ass with 80 M. Anything cheaper and the game would become a DT-spammage.

[Aars]R_Rockefeller · Post by **[Aars]R_Rockefeller** » 22 Jun 2006, 18:39

Hiya

Yesterday i made a unit (just for fun). i want to know what you think of it

i just made it for fun so everything can still be changed

i know its to blingy:P

,Robin

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 22 Jun 2006, 18:40

It's not the metal cost, it's the freaking buildtime, especially with the open and close animation on most con units.

Could we maybe make the DT's build in a single tick if you have 80 spare metal? Can you change build time separate from metal cost?

knorke · Post by **knorke** » 22 Jun 2006, 19:02

maybe construction vehicles should have the advantage of not doing the stupid open-close-open-close dance

Maybe then going vehicles would be a interessting alternative to the usual kbot start?

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 22 Jun 2006, 19:03

play XTA or OTA
then complain about the open/close time O,o

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 22 Jun 2006, 19:13

Min3mat wrote:play XTA or OTA
then complain about the open/close time O,o

Yes, well, just because it is worse in other things is not really a reason to not make improvements.

Spring RTS Engine

Absolute Annihilation 2.11

Buggy Mavericks