Absolute Annihilation 2.11

[Pxtl]

So with the commander will only give you 3000 if you reclaim it,
but his corpse will still give you 15k ?

About the air, I agree that they really can't do damage if people have some anti-air.

Ooh! good find about the comm. Was worried there for half a second! :D

Also, yes and no. Depending. Antiswarm, antibomber and figthers don't do sqwat agsint level 2 air. i had 5 raipers take out an antiswarm with no casulties, while 3-4 figthers patrolled the area. Level 2 figthers, flakkers covering every area and mecruies will stop an air attack in it's tracks.

That's because antiswarmers aren't meant for hitting armoured air targets. That's like using Beamers against Goliaths. An obscene number of MTs (or a few antibomber turrets) do just fine against gunships. Antiswarmers shoot large numbers of fast, low-damage missiles, making them ideal for taking down fighters and peepers (plus they do extra damage v. fighters)... but I expect Caydr is changing the antiswarmer missiles.

[Egarwaen]

In particular, the 2 degrees for the light tanks makes a big difference.

Slope tolerances of all tanks:

Flash: 24
Instigator: 24
Stumpy: 24
Raider: 24
Bulldog: 24
Reaper: 24
Goliath: 25

Note that the Goliath shares a movement class with the Razorback, Bantha, and Krogtaar. All the tanks but the Goliath - which is supposed to be a "super-tank" of sorts - have the same slope tolerance. So what is it that you want? A buff in slope tolerance for everything but the Goliath? Or just the 2x2 tanks? Or just the Flash/Instigator? And why?

And yes, I did know that they were degrees. In fact, I said as much in the post right before yours. I'm not entirely sure why you assumed I didn't.

[Forboding Angel]

In particular, the 2 degrees for the light tanks makes a big difference.

Slope tolerances of all tanks:

Flash: 24
Instigator: 24
Stumpy: 24
Raider: 24
Bulldog: 24
Reaper: 24
Goliath: 25

Note that the Goliath shares a movement class with the Razorback, Bantha, and Krogtaar. All the tanks but the Goliath - which is supposed to be a "super-tank" of sorts - have the same slope tolerance. So what is it that you want? A buff in slope tolerance for everything but the Goliath? Or just the 2x2 tanks? Or just the Flash/Instigator? And why?

And yes, I did know that they were degrees. In fact, I said as much in the post right before yours. I'm not entirely sure why you assumed I didn't.

Buff for the 2x2 tanks to 26.

Swiftspear, you are incorrect. Unfortunately I have no way of explaining it though. As an example. Give a tank a slope tolerance of 30 and it can climb anything, inculding a sheer cliff (just about).

Edit: Egar, sorry about that one.

[Egarwaen]

Buff for the 2x2 tanks to 26.

So you want:

Flash, Instigator, Stumpy, Raider: 26
Bulldog, Reaper: 24
Goliath: 25

That seems... Bizarre and counterintuitive, especially since the larger tanks would probably have much more traction. Again, why?

[BigSteve]

Commander metal value reduced (15000->2500)

May I ask the reasoning behind this/what noob whined for it?

Yeah, what the hell, man? Pardon my uncharacteristic swearing... I mean, I don't usually reclaim them and I think that is insane.

I think the idea is that you can reclaim it faster, so you can put the meatl to use right away instead of having to wait for 10 mins to reclaim the damn thing.
I think 2500 is a little low though, 4000 would be a better number imo

[Pxtl]

That seems... Bizarre and counterintuitive, especially since the larger tanks would probably have much more traction. Again, why?

More traction, but also proportionally more downward pull downslope because of higher mass. Larger vehicles are just as bad, if not worse, than smaller vehicles for negotiating steep slopes. I'm betting the "better traction" of large vehicles only applies to loose turf which gets packed down under their treads.

I think gameplay is the decider... and has anyone seen, in-game, a slope that L1 tanks couldn't climb that L2 tanks could? Imho, L1 tanks should be equal to L2 tanks in terms of climbing ability.

[Forboding Angel]

Buff for the 2x2 tanks to 26.

So you want:

Flash, Instigator, Stumpy, Raider: 26
Bulldog, Reaper: 24
Goliath: 25

That seems... Bizarre and counterintuitive, especially since the larger tanks would probably have much more traction. Again, why?

Larger tanks = more tonnage.

Actually I wanted it to be:

Flash, Instigator, Stumpy, Raider: 26
Bulldog, Reaper: 25
Goliath: 25

Reason being: It makes vehicles more attractive (trust me on this), and it makes mapmaking for AA less ardous (when you have vehicles in mind).

[Cabbage]

and it messes around with game balance, its fine as is.

[Egarwaen]

Reason being: It makes vehicles more attractive (trust me on this), and it makes mapmaking for AA less ardous (when you have vehicles in mind).

More tonnage doesn't always equal worse climbing ability. IIRC, some of the best railway locomotives for routes with steep grades were really heavy. But that's not really relevant to a gameplay discussion, I'm just saying that it's no less plausible than the other way around.

The mapmaking thing I can see, and it's a good point. Spring maps lack the vast stretches of perfectly flat terrain that made vehicles in OTA viable. So why not just buff all vehicles (including the mechs) to 26? Can larger vehicles climb steeper slopes than they "should" be able to?

[Pxtl]

This whole "slope tolerance" thing is such a mess. You almost wish that mappers would just use terrain zones for such things and then crank all the slope-tolerances to 30... but it's not like you can retroactively apply that to all existing maps.

Just set up terrain groups of "shallow/medium/steep/wall" and then denote which units get slowed down how much by which terrain. But mappers would never go for that.

The problem is that some maps need vehicles to handle steeper slopes (such as maps that like to have super-high-cliffs like Castles, so the vehicles need to be able to climb ramps) and other maps need them to be stopped by slopes (to keep them out of the craters on Moon2Q0).

[Dragon45]

There's no need to cut down default comm reclaim metal, at all. If a player is concerned more about time than metal, he can simply dgun the edge of the commwreck to cut its metal value from 15,000 to 3,000 or so; if its his own commander that died, a few Thuds or Hammers forcefiring on top of the commwreck will quickly make it rubble, and make it quicker to pick up.

[Kixxe]

There's no need to cut down default comm reclaim metal, at all. If a player is concerned more about time than metal, he can simply dgun the edge of the commwreck to cut its metal value from 15,000 to 3,000 or so; if its his own commander that died, a few Thuds or Hammers forcefiring on top of the commwreck will quickly make it rubble, and make it quicker to pick up.

Psst, spoiler:

He's changing the COMS metal value, not the wreck. It says nothing of a wreck, and have never done!

[Machiosabre]

(actually it is wreck cost, because a live comm is worth nowhere near 15k metal)

[Egarwaen]

If it is the Comm wreck, I believe it was nerfed because a lot of people commented that 15000 metal was a) absurd and b) unlikely to be useful. Not only does it take forever and a half to reclaim, but you need a load of storage to hold it.

[Machiosabre]

I think it's because it's to usefull, in any teamgame if you're staying in the back it's always the best choice to just kill your comm and reclaim the wreckage, which is a bit stupid.
I do like the huge advantage you could get if someone lost their comm near you, but it'll still be good with 3500 metal, a lot faster anyway.

[Pxtl]

If it is the Comm wreck, I believe it was nerfed because a lot of people commented that 15000 metal was a) absurd and b) unlikely to be useful. Not only does it take forever and a half to reclaim, but you need a load of storage to hold it.

Are the devs fixing the "one reclaimer only" bug? Because that's a big reason to end that. I usually build a dedicated unit for the reclamation project (a nanotower, Fark, something like that) just because it ties up for so long. The worst part is seeing my patrolling conplanes get stuck on the damn thing.

[Forboding Angel]

This whole "slope tolerance" thing is such a mess. You almost wish that mappers would just use terrain zones for such things and then crank all the slope-tolerances to 30... but it's not like you can retroactively apply that to all existing maps.

Just set up terrain groups of "shallow/medium/steep/wall" and then denote which units get slowed down how much by which terrain. But mappers would never go for that.

The problem is that some maps need vehicles to handle steeper slopes (such as maps that like to have super-high-cliffs like Castles, so the vehicles need to be able to climb ramps) and other maps need them to be stopped by slopes (to keep them out of the craters on Moon2Q0).

Well, only a very small part of that falls upon mappers shoulders. Typemaps are retarded except for in special cases. I have proved that time and time again.

Misdemeanor 3 - moderator

[Egarwaen]

@Cabbage
Thorne: "You smell that rabbit?"
Rabbit: "Fear."

I'll ask you again: why do you want this change? Can you demonstrate that it will not make vehicles overpowered compared to KBots? Many games already have a vehicle factory built first, with a KBot factory only built for cheaper mid-game massing. Can you provide any kind of specific justification, other than vague statements about making vehicles "more viable" and mapping "easier"?

[Forboding Angel]

Just because they can climb steeper slopes doesn't mean they can do it well...

Making this change would allow them to make it up a steep slope, but they would do so, slowly.

It will not unbalance anything. Good lord guys come on. If any of you had any experience with mods you would most likely know this.

Egar, I know your intentions are good but, the question your asking is akin to "is the sky blue?".

[Dragon45]

@Cabbage
Thorne: "You smell that rabbit?"
Rabbit: "Fear."

I'll ask you again: why do you want this change? Can you demonstrate that it will not make vehicles overpowered compared to KBots? Many games already have a vehicle factory built first, with a KBot factory only built for cheaper mid-game massing. Can you provide any kind of specific justification, other than vague statements about making vehicles "more viable" and mapping "easier"?

+1


--------------
CompWiZ (IIRC) made a patch that fixed the 'one reclaim only' bug; it allows for either streaming reclaiming (the reverse of how you build a unit), or "chunkal" reclaiming (reclaiming one chunk at a time, of say 500, all modder-specified).