Page 7 of 177
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 04:15
by Fanger
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..
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 04:49
by MR.D
I like the decals for the baseplate of factories as well, but after playing with them for a while now they could be scaled better to the sizes of each factory.
So far AA 2.0 is freaking awesome!!
With the exception of the Deflector shields needing tweak, this is the best version yet.
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 05:09
by Erom
Baseplates are excellent, but as has been said, they could be scaled down a touch to better fit with the buildings they are under.
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 07:30
by wazzledoozle
I had an idea for a new building, it would be like a transport ship but as a building with a little more storage. Would be good for maps like speedmetal when you are running out of room, just pack up some units for later
It could be called a Bunker...
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 09:11
by Comp1337
also dont forget the firestorm, which has 17007 hp atm IIRC.
I'd
guess its a typo, if its not.. Ignore this post.
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 11:14
by unpossible
can the .dds's used for the baseplates have transparency or not?
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 12:03
by Neddie
You know, I finally played Forged... and damn, is that a fun alternative.
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 13:49
by Ishach
It seems like at a certain level of metal income you can shift your economy to major metal making and have enough income to do battle, but not have to manage expansions.
Obviously lotsa people are going to be disagreeing with me, but I think anything that makes it so you dont need to expand kinda takes half the gameplay elements out.
Edit: What does everyone think of the metal cost of all terrain mechs?
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 16:33
by Erom
So... I was playing sub cleanup the other night, trying to find a place to build a shipyard that wasn't infested with subs, and I got to thinking. As long as torpedo bombers don't work, we really need a land-buildable anti-sub unit (as differenciated from the land based depthcharge launchers).
What about a T2 amphib vehicle that fires depthcharges? I wouldn't even give it a surface weapon, just the depthcharger and enough armor to actually take a few of the (absurdly powerful) submarine torpedoes.
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 16:37
by Min3mat
if your opponents only in the water he is screwed. nuke or bertha the fool after taking out all his surface units with adv air.
IIRC torpedo bombers work fine now, however to get sonar you need a seaplane platform i think
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 17:07
by Cabbage
Tordpedo bombers work now. If the target if next to the coast, just make sure that they approch from the water, otherwise the torpedos will just drop on the land
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 17:09
by Egarwaen
Min3mat wrote:IIRC torpedo bombers work fine now, however to get sonar you need a seaplane platform i think
The T2 radar planes have sonar.
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 18:19
by FizWizz
Egarwaen wrote:Min3mat wrote:IIRC torpedo bombers work fine now, however to get sonar you need a seaplane platform i think
The T2 radar planes have sonar.
correct.
IIRC, the adv. radar plane has large radar and small sonar, and the sonar plane has large sonar and small radar. (just an FYI).
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 18:37
by Drone_Fragger
The guardian (and possibly) ambusher (and the core equivilents) High traj is ridiculasly powerfull. It becomes a "Whoever gets a Guardian up first wins" typoe game, As once a guardian is built, Enemy defences die pretty damn fast. Seriously, One time, it killed my commander in 6 hits.
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 18:41
by NOiZE
Drone_Fragger wrote:The guardian (and possibly) ambusher (and the core equivilents) High traj is ridiculasly powerfull. It becomes a "Whoever gets a Guardian up first wins" typoe game, As once a guardian is built, Enemy defences die pretty damn fast. Seriously, One time, it killed my commander in 6 hits.
Run Forest Run!
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 19:44
by Caydr
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 rough 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.
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 20:03
by Neddie
Once again, I must say that a Hovercraft that dropped depth charges would be a great balancing addition to deal with the sea, and make that neglected support wing of units much more viable.
Also, my earlier proposal for a longer range depth charge launcher? That wouldn't be a good idea, in retrospect. However, I have some interesting ideas gestating that involve heating the water.
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 20:07
by NOiZE
in a other thread:
SJ wrote:It already supports transparency in alpha channel just fine
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 20:08
by Drone_Fragger
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.
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 20:11
by Caydr
I was just about to shoot the depth charge hover idea down again, but realized that the reason I'd never implemented them in the first place no longer applies. Count on seeing one in the next version.
Also thanks for letting me know about that, Noize. I'll be fixing up the groundplates in the next version for sure then.
Drone, what do you suggest then? I'm open to whatever input you can give me about changes to Guardians.