I'd love to see you "spam" Krogoths against a decently skilled player on a normal map.Rudirogdt wrote:please not to much discussion you could get your brain blown...
Absolute Annihilation 2.11
Moderator: Moderators
i think mines should be considerably cheaper to maintain and to build and maybe small decreases in buildtime too, if only there was some way to get them to not count as the unit count! it would be great if in spring you could have unit caps, i.e. 250 units / structures then a 100-150 mine allowance (they dont have to path so they will be a lot less costly!)
and they shouldn't gib t1 units! make the light mines do considerable damage though, 2/3 of their health or so, forcing attackers to retreat or to carry on and give you free metal :3 and if you wanted a killing minefield you could simply whack 2 light mines together to kill any t1 units that cross or use the medium or heavy mines
But light mines should be fairly cheap and spammable IMO
Medium mines should be a option midgame by having fairly large build costs but low maintenance costs still as well as good damage and not taking too much longer to build than t1 mines
Heavy mines should cost a good chunk to maintain (30 ish per mine or more) and have a longish buildtime and moderate cost, to make them more of a option lategame or for guarding important areas / chokepoints
and they shouldn't gib t1 units! make the light mines do considerable damage though, 2/3 of their health or so, forcing attackers to retreat or to carry on and give you free metal :3 and if you wanted a killing minefield you could simply whack 2 light mines together to kill any t1 units that cross or use the medium or heavy mines
But light mines should be fairly cheap and spammable IMO
Medium mines should be a option midgame by having fairly large build costs but low maintenance costs still as well as good damage and not taking too much longer to build than t1 mines
Heavy mines should cost a good chunk to maintain (30 ish per mine or more) and have a longish buildtime and moderate cost, to make them more of a option lategame or for guarding important areas / chokepoints
-
el_matarife
- Posts: 933
- Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04
You know, just because nuke mines were taken off the level 1 mine layer doesn't mean they have to be out of the game period. Why not just put the land nuke mines on the level 2 combat engineers? That's how it is implemented with the naval nuke mines. (Of course there is no sea level one minelayer etc) Since the combat engineers have decent build speed compared to the minelayer, this might make them build in less than 10 minutes unassisted.MR.D wrote:nuke mines were fun, R.I.P. Nuke mines.
...
With Nuke mines I was in bliss, those things were amazing for busting a swarm to hell, and did some impressive damage even to T3 units.
Nuke mines were pretty costly, mostly in build time, and even more so because they would barely ever leave wreckage and that hurts you more.
As for the rest of the mine problems, why not just make the light mines build faster? Also, move or add the medium mine to the level 1 minelayer. It's pretty weird that the heavy mine does more damage but takes less time to build and is on the level 1 minelayer, rather than the combat engineers. I'd suggest making the medium mine (650 damage) the best T1 mine, and the heavy (1000) and nuke mines be the mines available on the level 2 combat engineers. Ideally light mines shouldn't take more than 15 seconds each to deploy so each minelayer could lay down 4 a minute. The medium mines could take 30 seconds, the heavy mines could take about a minute or a little less on the combat engineer, and the nuke mines could be about 2 minutes or so. That would make each pretty viable for laying down some deterrents in the path of stuff you know will be incoming, given that the type of unit each mine is designed to counter is progressively slower (T1 kbots / light vehicles -> T1 vehicles -> T2 kbots / most T2 vehicles -> heavy T2 or T3 stuff). I'd bet if you lured some gunships into an area with a nuke mine, you could kill those too, but it probably wouldn't be a good trade.
Edit:Redid the post when I realized there was a medium mine etc...
+1Day wrote:BTW does anybody here agree that 1300E for a jeffy/weasel is a bit to much? its even more then flashes/instigators its kinda hard to actually use them in the only time their usefull because of that cost + they die to anything they cant even kill a convehicle, because it will reclaim the jeffy
-
Foxomaniac
- Posts: 691
- Joined: 18 Jan 2006, 16:59
-
Foxomaniac
- Posts: 691
- Joined: 18 Jan 2006, 16:59
-
EXit_W0und
- Posts: 164
- Joined: 22 Dec 2005, 01:33
I would have small mines do 2/3rds the damage of the current medium mine but same explosion radius as the current small, very fast build time (about a second at most), give them the cloak cost only just above 0 and have their damage done against other mines set to 0.
Make medium mines have twice the damage and explosion radius again + a large impulse for stopping heavy units in their tracks if it doesn't take them out. These can have twice or thrice the cost of the small mine.
Also it would be nice if the podger was given a longer nano spray range so they could be used as saboteurs without dying (crawl behind enemy lines using a jammer and set a medium mine or 2 next to their energy :)
They're pish for assisting other units so make them good at mine laying/sabotage!
Make medium mines have twice the damage and explosion radius again + a large impulse for stopping heavy units in their tracks if it doesn't take them out. These can have twice or thrice the cost of the small mine.
Also it would be nice if the podger was given a longer nano spray range so they could be used as saboteurs without dying (crawl behind enemy lines using a jammer and set a medium mine or 2 next to their energy :)
They're pish for assisting other units so make them good at mine laying/sabotage!
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
-
EXit_W0und
- Posts: 164
- Joined: 22 Dec 2005, 01:33
can you have EMP + conventional explosion?- the purpose is to stop heavy units moving not send them flying.
definately agreed, especially since my favourite map is comet catcher remake. OP gollys and levellers d:<remember kids, large impulse is BAD. WHEEEEE FLYING KBOTS!
don't like the sound of the rest of it but that sounds like a VERY good ideaAlso it would be nice if the podger was given a longer nano spray range so they could be used as saboteurs without dying (crawl behind enemy lines using a jammer and set a medium mine or 2 next to their energy :)
They're pish for assisting other units so make them good at mine laying/sabotage!
-
EXit_W0und
- Posts: 164
- Joined: 22 Dec 2005, 01:33
Well perhaps emp + damage would be a better alternative if possible - i have witnessed the results of excess impulse. However I just don't see why you all seem to think some moderate impulse is a bad thing. For it will only affect large units - since smaller units will be completely incinerated by the initial damage anyway. (ideally)
The reason for a very fast build time is to make minefields a realistic option for temporary defence - its meant for light defence over a large area and should be deployable on a large area quickly. Currently llts are cheaper and quicker to deploy as well as being more cost effective.
Reducing the energy cost of mines both to build and maintain should also make them more viable for large area defence.
The reason i suggest increasing the damage is the same - they need to be cost effective.
The 2 mines i suggest fit roles ideally - one is a focused moderate damage mine for killing small kbots/tanks outright or severely damaging the larger ones. The second is for killing small groups as well as displacing heavier units - stopping their advance for a second or 2.
So for these reasons i maintain that the changes i mentioned need to be made. Remember theses are diposable & immobile weapons - i think it would be quite unlikely the changes i suggest are overpowering. Particularly if podgers are so easy to kill.
The reason for a very fast build time is to make minefields a realistic option for temporary defence - its meant for light defence over a large area and should be deployable on a large area quickly. Currently llts are cheaper and quicker to deploy as well as being more cost effective.
Reducing the energy cost of mines both to build and maintain should also make them more viable for large area defence.
The reason i suggest increasing the damage is the same - they need to be cost effective.
The 2 mines i suggest fit roles ideally - one is a focused moderate damage mine for killing small kbots/tanks outright or severely damaging the larger ones. The second is for killing small groups as well as displacing heavier units - stopping their advance for a second or 2.
So for these reasons i maintain that the changes i mentioned need to be made. Remember theses are diposable & immobile weapons - i think it would be quite unlikely the changes i suggest are overpowering. Particularly if podgers are so easy to kill.
EXit_W0und wrote:Well perhaps emp + damage would be a better alternative if possible
A weapon is either paralyze or conventional damage can't have both
no matter what impluse u use if a unit hits a mine at the right angle it can still go flying.- i have witnessed the results of excess impulse. However I just don't see why you all seem to think some moderate impulse is a bad thing. For it will only affect large units - since smaller units will be completely incinerated by the initial damage anyway. (ideally)
The rest of this boils down to making defense cheaper and easier than offense which doesn't seem like such a sound idea. Having mines (except the nuke) kill outright would make me less likely to risk my units in an attack. you would instead see more siege gameplay with mass use of arty and LRPCs to crush your foe.The reason for a very fast build time is to make minefields a realistic option for temporary defence - its meant for light defence over a large area and should be deployable on a large area quickly. Currently llts are cheaper and quicker to deploy as well as being more cost effective.
Reducing the energy cost of mines both to build and maintain should also make them more viable for large area defence.
The reason i suggest increasing the damage is the same - they need to be cost effective.
The 2 mines i suggest fit roles ideally - one is a focused moderate damage mine for killing small kbots/tanks outright or severely damaging the larger ones. The second is for killing small groups as well as displacing heavier units - stopping their advance for a second or 2.
So for these reasons i maintain that the changes i mentioned need to be made. Remember theses are diposable & immobile weapons - i think it would be quite unlikely the changes i suggest are overpowering. Particularly if podgers are so easy to kill.
-
esteroth12
- Posts: 501
- Joined: 18 May 2006, 21:19
can't you set up 2 explosions? if not, then a paralyser mine would still be nice...j5mello wrote:EXit_W0und wrote:Well perhaps emp + damage would be a better alternative if possible
A weapon is either paralyze or conventional damage can't have both
and who doesn't love arty?The rest of this boils down to making defense cheaper and easier than offense which doesn't seem like such a sound idea. Having mines (except the nuke) kill outright would make me less likely to risk my units in an attack. you would instead see more siege gameplay with mass use of arty and LRPCs to crush your foe.The reason for a very fast build time is to make minefields a realistic option for temporary defence - its meant for light defence over a large area and should be deployable on a large area quickly. Currently llts are cheaper and quicker to deploy as well as being more cost effective.
Reducing the energy cost of mines both to build and maintain should also make them more viable for large area defence.
The reason i suggest increasing the damage is the same - they need to be cost effective.
The 2 mines i suggest fit roles ideally - one is a focused moderate damage mine for killing small kbots/tanks outright or severely damaging the larger ones. The second is for killing small groups as well as displacing heavier units - stopping their advance for a second or 2.
So for these reasons i maintain that the changes i mentioned need to be made. Remember theses are diposable & immobile weapons - i think it would be quite unlikely the changes i suggest are overpowering. Particularly if podgers are so easy to kill.
