There's no reason the radius has to be invisible though. The expanding radius kinda "feels" more natural to me as well.1v0ry_k1ng wrote:what is wrong with a timer rather than an obscure radius you wont be able to see ingame?
DGun limit suggestion
Moderator: Content Developer
Re: DGun limit suggestion
Re: DGun limit suggestion
Feeling important?SirArtturi wrote:If BA is not going to make anything about the combomb/dgun issue, but making it even worse, I will be leaving the mod soon...

- Spawn_Retard
- Posts: 1248
- Joined: 21 Dec 2006, 14:36
Re: DGun limit suggestion
> makes a thread about com pushing in BA
HAHA next joke.
coms are pathetically paper thin with most stuff doing special damages to it.
HAHA next joke.
coms are pathetically paper thin with most stuff doing special damages to it.
-
- Posts: 86
- Joined: 23 Dec 2008, 20:26
Re: DGun limit suggestion
anything that fixes the silly situation right now is fine
Re: DGun limit suggestion
But the possibility of a combomb also discourages excessive porc, which is a good thing. If you see an enemy com pushing too hard, just withdraw your units and make sure to dgun first.SirArtturi wrote:The biggest flaw in BA is the deal with com explosions and wrecks. Atm com dgunner gets his comwreck flied towards himself and leaves halved wreck for the dgunned. As much as that is for realism, it instigates dgunning and combombing the enemy com, which I find very bad feature of the mod.
Re: DGun limit suggestion
T1 atlas should move slower with huge mass transported. (like commanders) commanders could make half damages when exploding in the air too.
Dgunning others commanders could be like in 1vs1s, the commander who dgun die (yea, in fact all commanders have an anti-dgun shield ^^)
Commanders could be protected against others commanders, com explosion would make only 50% hp damages to others com.
Dgunning others commanders could be like in 1vs1s, the commander who dgun die (yea, in fact all commanders have an anti-dgun shield ^^)
Commanders could be protected against others commanders, com explosion would make only 50% hp damages to others com.
Re: DGun limit suggestion
It actually does less damage when exploding in the air. It is all about the distance to the ground. Transports also fly higher than before, which reduces damage further.triton wrote:commanders could make half damages when exploding in the air too.
But it is still "enough" to do its job haha.
Re: DGun limit suggestion
Commander explosion: 50,000 damage
Last edited by Niobium on 07 May 2010, 19:53, edited 1 time in total.
Re: DGun limit suggestion
No, actually all aoe approaches zero at max rangeNiobium wrote:Commander explosion: 50,000 damage at center, falling off to 12,500 at max range
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p251180
- 1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Re: DGun limit suggestion
if XTA has taught us anything, it is that this is not a road you want to go downtriton wrote: Commanders could be protected against others commanders, com explosion would make only 50% hp damages to others com.
Re: DGun limit suggestion
1v0ry_k1ng wrote:what is wrong with a timer rather than an obscure radius you wont be able to see ingame?
Great idea.
-
- Posts: 86
- Joined: 23 Dec 2008, 20:26
Re: DGun limit suggestion
how about you just make t1 trans unable to lift coms? would be a very simple solution
Re: DGun limit suggestion
hackfresser your solution is retarded because people always use atlases to take the middle or to take all the mexes or to drop at the front to build your defences etc
and everyone elses ideas are also retarded because this isnt even a problem that needs fixing
and everyone elses ideas are also retarded because this isnt even a problem that needs fixing
Re: DGun limit suggestion
Personally, I think that the comm-drop to a front-line base is far more annoying for everyone involved and really doesn't make the game *fun*. I mean, it's a cute stunt, but I don't think it really adds to the enjoyment of the game all that much, and wouldn't shed a tear if it were a casualty of moving comm-transporting to L2.Sausage wrote:hackfresser your solution is retarded because people always use atlases to take the middle or to take all the mexes or to drop at the front to build your defences etc
and everyone elses ideas are also retarded because this isnt even a problem that needs fixing
I mean hell, if you took the comm out of the T1 transport, you could actually buff the T1 transports to actually be, k'know, good. Right now they're kinda slow and made of paper, but you can't change that or they'll be uber-comm-bomber units.
But again, I know that I'm in the minority here - this isn't a change that is gonna happen.
Last edited by Pxtl on 17 May 2010, 18:38, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 86
- Joined: 23 Dec 2008, 20:26
Re: DGun limit suggestion
this taking the middle instantly is also something i dont like.
to take dsd as an example yet again, not using this tactic in a 8vs8 game is just a bad choice. there is no reason not to do it. (it is not done often enough, imo. poeple seem to overlook how strong this is.)
now if 2 players decide to go for the same thing, you end up in a weird situation with 2 coms sitting on the middle hill, threatening each other with llts and aa towers. noone can back off. the outcome of this can change the whole game - 2 coms blowing with one side being able to claim them both (out of pure coincidence normally - 1 guy just happens to have units nearby) is just game changing. winning this way is boring; losing this way is frustrating.
btw, all of these "there is no problem since im awesome enough to counter ALL of that" comments aren't helping this discussion at all.
to take dsd as an example yet again, not using this tactic in a 8vs8 game is just a bad choice. there is no reason not to do it. (it is not done often enough, imo. poeple seem to overlook how strong this is.)
now if 2 players decide to go for the same thing, you end up in a weird situation with 2 coms sitting on the middle hill, threatening each other with llts and aa towers. noone can back off. the outcome of this can change the whole game - 2 coms blowing with one side being able to claim them both (out of pure coincidence normally - 1 guy just happens to have units nearby) is just game changing. winning this way is boring; losing this way is frustrating.
btw, all of these "there is no problem since im awesome enough to counter ALL of that" comments aren't helping this discussion at all.
- Sucky_Lord
- Posts: 531
- Joined: 22 Aug 2008, 16:29
Re: DGun limit suggestion
+1Hackfresser wrote:btw, all of these "there is no problem since im awesome enough to counter ALL of that" comments aren't helping this discussion at all.
Re: DGun limit suggestion
If you're so awful that you can't stop a simple comdrop then you won't bring much valuable thought into the discussion
Ofc its very important point to keep in mind that comdropping indeed can be stopped, so it's quite understandable that everybody don't see it as a problem.
Ofc its very important point to keep in mind that comdropping indeed can be stopped, so it's quite understandable that everybody don't see it as a problem.
-
- Posts: 86
- Joined: 23 Dec 2008, 20:26
Re: DGun limit suggestion
i have outlined before that NOT building the correct counter to an attack that might never come is a viable option
again, this is NOT an issue of either l2p or me so awesome.
again, this is NOT an issue of either l2p or me so awesome.
- 1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Re: DGun limit suggestion
that the BA community mostly only play a single map and ignore all other mods should probably alert you to the obvious:Hackfresser wrote:i have outlined before that NOT building the correct counter to an attack that might never come is a viable option
again, this is NOT an issue of either l2p or me so awesome.
BA players dont like -or want- change. of any kind. ever!