Balanced Annihilation 5.5 is OUT

hunterw · Post by **hunterw** » 30 Jul 2007, 20:26

just make it slightly cheaper, or make the build time slightly faster

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 30 Jul 2007, 20:35

There is no real incentive.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 30 Jul 2007, 21:33

imo the buzzsaw should be a complete game ender; crazily powered but easily destroyed

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:05

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:imo the buzzsaw should be a complete game ender; crazily powered but easily destroyed

we already have nukes

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:08

Nukes? yes of course. and its a good thing we dont have anything that would, say stop the nuke from being a total game ender. because then that would greatly reduce the effectiveness of a nuclear launcher as a game ender. it would hopefully cost less, build faster, and be more easily massable than a nuke.

i would, theoretically, call this an "anti nuke". hmmmmm.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:15

Sleksa wrote:Dragon, you can forget high traj as it is not going to happen.

other buffing options are being looked into.

and for the record - i do not want to spend ten minutes and cuntloads of metal and energy into something solely for a "psychological effect".
i've seen people use it correctly (as i mentioned, heze on delta)

just because you think it sucks is not enough reason to buff it the way you want to.

Im not using correctly? what the hell am i suppsoed to do? micro it? FPS? please, tell me. because that neurope game im referring to had my whole goddamn team going "wtf what a waste of metal" after that 5-10 mintues of firing into a Large Packed Base and doing hardly any damage. and give more than one example of it being used correctly, please. in a real game. because i can show you several real games where they sucked ass.

and i just suggested high traj as a possible solution to its insane suckiness. as long as its not a total piece of shit, i dont care. which it is right now - a total. piece. of. shit. i wouldnt build it if it cost as much as two regular LRPCs right now.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:16

go make a mutator if it bothers you so much

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:18

Dragon45 wrote:Nukes? yes of course. and its a good thing we dont have anything that would, say stop the nuke from being a total game ender. because then that would greatly reduce the effectiveness of a nuclear launcher as a game ender. it would hopefully cost less, build faster, and be more easily massable than a nuke.

i would, theoretically, call this an "anti nuke". hmmmmm.

The whole idea of a game-ending unit is retarded too, why do you need a single unit to end the game immediately?

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:18

bit of a puss approach there, sleska

if you tihnk im wrong, say it. if not - then well, ill just wait, and hope its fixed in next ver

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:19

Dragon45 wrote: and i just suggested high traj as a possible solution to its insane suckiness. as long as its not a total piece of shit, i dont care. which it is right now - a total. piece. of. shit. i wouldnt build it if it cost as much as two regular LRPCs right now.

dont build it if you think its complete shit

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:20

Sleksa wrote:
Dragon45 wrote:Nukes? yes of course. and its a good thing we dont have anything that would, say stop the nuke from being a total game ender. because then that would greatly reduce the effectiveness of a nuclear launcher as a game ender. it would hopefully cost less, build faster, and be more easily massable than a nuke.

i would, theoretically, call this an "anti nuke". hmmmmm.

The whole idea of a game-ending unit is retarded too, why do you need a single unit to end the game immediately?

you are *really freaking good* at creating strawmen arguments btw. gj

i wasnt saying single gameending units were good or bad at any point. i was just saying that your notion that nukes are gameends is retarded. because they're not.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:20

i think nukes are game-enders.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:21

Sleksa wrote:
Dragon45 wrote: and i just suggested high traj as a possible solution to its insane suckiness. as long as its not a total piece of shit, i dont care. which it is right now - a total. piece. of. shit. i wouldnt build it if it cost as much as two regular LRPCs right now.

dont build it if you think its complete shit

you're a strange person. of course im not going to build it. why the hell would i? "breathe if you want to live, DM45! I am sleska raaaaaawr"

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:21

Sleksa wrote:i think nukes are game-enders.

kk you rush nook, i rush anti nuke. lets see woh has more resuorces to invest in an army afterwards.

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:22

Dragon45 wrote:ill just wait

I think that is for the best.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:22

and i've already said that we're thinking of ways to buff it,

that, and we thrashed the idea of a high-traj vulcan.

you can cry as long as you want to, things arent going to change because you want them to.

WarC arent your personal devs

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:25

Sleska wrote:and i've already said that we're thinking of ways to buff it,

that, and we thrashed the idea of a high-traj vulcan.

you can cry as long as you want to, things arent going to change because you want them to.

WarC arent your personal devs

you just agreed with my sentiments (vulcan/buzzsaw needs some sort of buff), then said i was crying about it, then when i say ill patiently wait *anyway* - you say im trying to force you to do things.

gg no re

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:28

you just agreed with my sentiments (vulcan/buzzsaw needs some sort of buff), then said i was crying about it, then when i say ill patiently wait *anyway* - you say im trying to force you to do things.

i agreed with some guy in this thread that the unit could indeed use a buff, then someone proposed high trajectory and i said the idea sucks hairy monkey balls like the guy who made the idea.

i dont think you are forcing me to do things, i think you think of warc as your personal balance team.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:33

yikes, it seems i gave feedback..

in a feed back thread..

sorry

Machiosabre · Post by **Machiosabre** » 30 Jul 2007, 22:36

warc go make me a mod where rabbits fight frogs. and make it snappy!

Spring RTS Engine

Balanced Annihilation 5.5 is OUT