Absolute Annihilation 2.11

Day · Post by **Day** » 12 Jul 2006, 00:37

let me remind you this is the ===AA THREAD===

Cabbage · Post by **Cabbage** » 12 Jul 2006, 00:39

bah, seems a few others replied before i did

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 12 Jul 2006, 01:45

just to say Cabbage and Egwardian (a man to respect IMO) are utterly right, and to concur with the 'go to hell n0b' sentiment as well as pointing out that my paint skillz pwn that lame owl.
on-topic: Interesting idea Caydr but what we REALLY want to hear is changes to the sea balance. Personally I think that removing the targetting facility in favour of giving it to the hyper radar not all that good a idea, besides which a targetting facility will not be used in a game. I mean he gets berthas and a targetting facility, you get that much in air/ground units and own him, or get a shield or 8 (targetting facilities are pretty damn expensive) to stop him having any effect. Maybe with a low unit limit it could be vaguely viable although the sort of gameplay that encourages is despicable. Still it is nice to know the smackdowns are there, and that they are expensive and therefore unlikely to be used in a regular game! so keep them the way they are please,.

j5mello · Post by **j5mello** » 12 Jul 2006, 01:48

after reading all that i have one thing to say...

EVERYONE SHUT UP!!!

take this online pissing contest into pms or at least out of the public forum. Leave it out of a mod thread. For the love of ARM no one wants to or needs to read this SH*T.

And as everyone else has said:

Put up or shut up. Post a replay or don't post a response.

P.S. throwing around fancy terms like logical fallacy means nothing to this group. Nothing. If you can't prove your right trying, to prove us wrong isn't a substitue. Again, post a replay or don't post a response.

P.P.S. could a mod skin this thread of the blantant retarded crap that was just posted plz. i thank whomever in advance.

On topic: leave the targeting as is. I never build the hyper radars cause (at least for me) they never get me the coverage i need. Also sea balance definetly seems better this version than in previous and i thank you for that.

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 12 Jul 2006, 02:29

j5mello wrote:On topic: leave the targeting as is. I never build the hyper radars cause (at least for me) they never get me the coverage i need. Also sea balance definetly seems better this version than in previous and i thank you for that.

Actually, that's a good point. How useful do others find the larger-range radars? I find that I usually build more basic radars with maybe a single advanced radar because terrain means you can't really use the range of the bigger radars. Are these one of the things that becomes more useful at higher levels of play, or are they just mostly redundant?

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 12 Jul 2006, 02:31

I find myself building advanced radar because the regular ones die when you burp on them. But only a few per game, on well entrentched defensive lines. In locations where my lines are fluid I stick to the L1 ones. I've never used a hyper radar.

Cabbage · Post by **Cabbage** » 12 Jul 2006, 02:34

I usualy stick to the advanced radars, the hyperones tend to take a bit too much time and effort to build. And on most maps, one or two of the advanced ones in strategic locations usually allows yoot to see pretty much everything you need.

I'd also keep the targetting facility as a seperate building. Only use it rarely, and tends to be when i've build 10 or so berthas to destroy someone porcing in a corcer

LordMatt · Post by **LordMatt** » 12 Jul 2006, 03:16

I tend to only build the hyperadar on maps like Supreme Battlefield or DeltasiegeRev that's mostly flat water so I can see air attacks and scouts in time to intercept with fighters.

BoredJoe · Post by **BoredJoe** » 12 Jul 2006, 03:37

SNIP- wasn't worth it

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 12 Jul 2006, 04:07

Cabbage wrote:I usualy stick to the advanced radars, the hyperones tend to take a bit too much time and effort to build. And on most maps, one or two of the advanced ones in strategic locations usually allows yoot to see pretty much everything you need.

I'd also keep the targetting facility as a seperate building. Only use it rarely, and tends to be when i've build 10 or so berthas to destroy someone porcing in a corcer

Keep the targeting facility a seperate building, I agree. AA already has too many units that wear too many hats, making it confusing for a new player to realise all the many functions of a single unit.

There are very few maps that are both big enough and have few enough obstructions to justify a hyper radar. On big, superscalar battlefields - particularly naval ones (water tends to be pretty flat) they become useful, but there are damn few in Spring.

What I'm curious is whether a building could be made freakishly tall? If the hyperradar was extremely tall, so that it could see over most natural barriers, then it would be cool - particularly with a beefy sight range. Really, a new model would be needed for a unit that vertically dwarfs vulcans... but it would be handy to have something that can see over smaller hills. The big problem would be the bounding box.

edit: you could probably reduce the price. After all, isn't the high price a holdover from the TA days? In TA, one hyper could see the whole map. Now that no longer happens, so their price could probably be dropped.

FolCan · Post by **FolCan** » 12 Jul 2006, 04:15

I built a hyper radar on comet catch and it allowed me to see the whole one side of the map.. im not sure about the other side of it as it was where I had already have LOS cus my base was there.. but I could see the whole of the enemies base as dots

Elmokki · Post by **Elmokki** » 12 Jul 2006, 05:26

Even though the balance in construction costs and combat performance between vehicles and kbots would be good the problem is that many of the players prefer kbots over vehicles most of the time even in the maps where vehicles would be a perfectly viable choice since there aren't any significant hills preventing thier movement or something like that.

I don't know how to get people use vehicles more and still keep kbots viable and I'm not even trying to guess, but it's a shame.

Sgt Doom · Post by **Sgt Doom** » 12 Jul 2006, 06:58

Kbots don't have the penetrator, also called the mobile ownage turret :D
Infact, vehicle class has some pretty damn kick-ass units which is why I use a mixture of both.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 12 Jul 2006, 07:07

I have never built hyperradar in serious online game. The LOS obstructions in it's way on pretty much any map mean that it is never giogn to be as efficient as a few adv radar scattered intelligently.

However, maybe if you gave the hyper radar a really really really high LOS?

*shurg*

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 12 Jul 2006, 08:34

I don't think that'll work, Spring appears to have a maximum LOS size.

MR.D · Post by **MR.D** » 12 Jul 2006, 09:23

On the subject of people playing the uber large maps, I would tend to agree that the bigger the map, the more likely LVL2 techrush is easier to achieve, and using air power becomes a very strong alternative to normal ground combat.

Smaller maps are more combat intense, and require alot more attention to early combat, simply because of travel times and speeds of land based units.

When it takes 5-7 minutes for a group of units to reach the other side of the map, what is the point of even using ground units?

Air quickly becomes the best alternative on these huge maps mostly because of speed, Transports also become a much more viable option to get light troops where they need to be much faster.

Once transports start being used in a game, using your own fighters to start patrolls to intercept the enemy transports is really your best option, unless you have a sufficient Anti-air division within your own assault force.

As for me, I prefer to play the 16x16 and smaller maps because its more intense and alot more fun and challenging.

Air forces on smaller maps are still usefull, but it doesn't become the only real option for assault.

LOrDo · Post by **LOrDo** » 12 Jul 2006, 10:10

I repeat again, AA NEEDS a lvl 2 aa kbot, I dont want any BS about forcing people to go vechs to get AA, every side should have a counter to every side. I dont think air should have an advantage because kbtos have shit AA.

ginekolog · Post by **ginekolog** » 12 Jul 2006, 11:10

1. how about giving targeting facility real role, like increasing accuricy of BB and intimidator? (or give them enoug XP to be more accurate) That way ppl would use it.

2. pelicans are shiet. 700 helath and low range weapon. Yes they are cheap but what idiot would mass weak unit with 275 range? Increase cost and make them much better so they will be viable for amhib assult. (give better AA and laser weapon etc)

Machiosabre · Post by **Machiosabre** » 12 Jul 2006, 12:47

pelicans are alright, they're more like the zippers of an amphibious assault, nothing to throw against defences.

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 12 Jul 2006, 12:49

Me and a friend lost a game yesterday becasue of aircraft. We've had tons of mixed AA (flak, antibomber, pack0, screamer, etc) spread all over the base with several concentration points (~150 AA turrets in total) and 30+ fighters patroling. Anyway there wasn't much we could do against 30-50 Liche. They were appr. 2 or 3 minutes in our base and turned everything upside down. I assume there is no general strategy against that.

Spring RTS Engine

Absolute Annihilation 2.11