Spring RTS Engine

ginekolog wrote: What might need change is ARM nuke. It should load 180 sec like core, giving players extra minute to prepare. Fast nuking in 5v5 is not fun way to end game tbh, just boring.

When a player manages to embezzle 7.7k m (+1k for the missile) and about 4k for fusion or has to take the risk of doing moho geo you should be able to make a 1.4k anti or 1.1k mobile anti in time. Even if you didn't scout all that time you should have noticed that a shitload of m disappeared.

The problem is that nukes are just really boring concept to start with. If there's anti you lose, if there is not, you win.

I'd actually rather change anti, make it still cheaper, but reduce the range by a good amount. Then you're in a situation where, most of the time, it's less binary whether a nuke works or not - you can almost always nuke something, but usually never the main base unless you take measures to disable anti. And you have to scout carefully since new antis are cheap to pop up anywhere, if they can anticipate where you'll hit.

Hi Klap.

Johannes was however. If you didn't think I was talking to you, I probably wasn't talking to you.

Your post was mostly a quote from one of my posts, which was the post immediately before it, and neither post mentioned Johannes anywhere. If you didn't mean to talk to me, you should probably have indicated it in some way.

To be honest, I think Behe summed up what you had to say with

... mentioning 8v8 dsd are a bit out of touch.

Johannes: I like your idea for shorter anti range.

Silentwings wrote:Hi Klap.

Johannes was however. If you didn't think I was talking to you, I probably wasn't talking to you.

Your post was mostly a quote from one of my posts, which was the post immediately before it, and neither post mentioned Johannes anywhere. If you didn't mean to talk to me, you should probably have indicated it in some way.

To be honest, I think Behe summed up what you had to say with

... mentioning 8v8 dsd are a bit out of touch.

Johannes: I like your idea for shorter anti range.

Lol, saying that i'm out of touch pretty much qualifies you for being out of touch so it is unlikely that behe was referring to me. More likely is that he was referring to johannes, and perhaps you.

Air still better than nuke and you dont have to wait for construciton plus loading

/done

2.5k for com is mandatory, otherwise noone is afraid to use it to combom ennemy base. As a result, I am completely against decreasing that value even a bit.

Behe said the references to dsd 8v8 were out of touch. The only person bringing 8v8dsd into the discussion was you, klap.

Silentwings wrote:Behe said the references to dsd 8v8 were out of touch. The only person bringing 8v8dsd into the discussion was you, klap.

Your 1st post here:

Silentwings wrote:I'd like to see com metal reduced a bit, say to 1.5k. Afaik the only big effect would be to slow the techers down by a 3-4 minutes.

If "techers" in that context is supposed to allude to anything but 8v8 DSD, you never really were in touch.

Not at all - 8v8 dsd is rare now. Perhaps you haven't played recently enough to see this.

Much more common is 6v6 games on a variety of maps, usually with 1 (sometimes 2) people choosing to tech. My suggestion is aimed at 6v6+ or thereabouts, on all maps. If you measure if in terms of people playing, this is the vast majority of B.A. at the moment.

we start to talk about thud and hammers balance, and then now we are on Nukes? btw if u think to rush a nuke on 5v5, well ok, only if u are against a noob Team, senseless on 5v5 u just get comdroped or t1 bombed pretty easy.

About core and arm nuke, i did core nuke load at 2 min in one old dsd moding, core nuke was loading at 2 min but needs more res, and it was imba.

The best for anti its when anti its done, u get 1 extra missile, that works pretty nice, but then nuke became useless

And Lets talk about hammers and thuds first, for me thuds are pretty ok, just hammer is roled by warriors

Silentwings wrote:Behe said the references to dsd 8v8 were out of touch. The only person bringing 8v8dsd into the discussion was you, klap.

Except that... johannes talked about dsd before my post (which was actually the post i was responding to).

This part of the discussion is getting useless. No one is going to reduce comm metal now. My work is done.

Silentwings wrote:Not at all - 8v8 dsd is rare now. Perhaps you haven't played recently enough to see this.

Much more common is 6v6 games on a variety of maps, usually with 1 (sometimes 2) people choosing to tech. My suggestion is aimed at 6v6+ or thereabouts, on all maps. If you measure if in terms of people playing, this is the vast majority of B.A. at the moment.

So people now really self-d comms in 6v6 and actually think it's good?

That's just ridiculous. Of course if the enemy has a similar guy it all evens out, but the amount of wrecks your team loses due to it is huge, much more than 2,5k by the point your moho mexes are done. If it hadn't become the norm on DSD, where it worked to an extent (tho blowing enemy units along with your comm would be better even there), nobody would tolerate shitty builds like that...

So people now really self-d comms in 6v6 and actually think it's good?

Yep . Or also, lots of people make t1 for a while and then self d their com later on when they want to tech.

Except that... johannes talked about dsd before my post (which was actually the post i was responding to).

So klap... you were replying to a post Johannes made, after he had made 3 more posts since. Your post contained a huge quote from mine with a reply relevent to what I said. Your post made no refence to Johanne's post, or to any of the 3 posts Johannes had made since. You must be really good at this message board stuff, lol.

I can see why people sometimes struggle to follow your infalliable arguments.

Silentwings wrote:

Except that... johannes talked about dsd before my post (which was actually the post i was responding to).

So klap... you were replying to a post Johannes made, after he had made 3 more posts since. Your post contained a huge quote from mine with a reply relevent to what I said. Your post made no refence to Johanne's post, or to any of the 3 posts Johannes had made since. You must be really good at this message board stuff, lol.

I can see why people sometimes struggle to follow your infalliable arguments.

I did not quote you in that post. Johannes made 1 post since the 'DSD' post, which happened to discuss the very same topic. Your posts, which oddly enough discuss a non-existing problem, happened to be in between ours.

Klap, your first post about dsd:

klapmongool wrote: Righht.... So the problem you want to fix is teching on DSD. Let me guess. DSD with a lot of players... perhaps 8 or more per team?

(etc etc)

and your other post about dsd:

klapmongool wrote:

Silentwings wrote:

klapmongool wrote: Righht.... So the problem you want to fix is teching on DSD.

I was not trying to 'fix a problem' and did not mention any specific map. You might regard teching on DSD a problem - I don't. I was suggesting a way to slightly lengthen the t1 phase of large games, not a way to abolish teching.

Well, outside of 8v8+ dsd 2.5k comm metal is no problem.

Apart from re-quoting your previous ones, these are the only posts you made which mention dsd. As you can plainly see, they were both addressed to me.

(You did make a post in between which was addressed to Johannes, was not about dsd, which I didn't reply to or ever mention - I think you're confused.)

Silentwings wrote:Klap, your first post about dsd:

klapmongool wrote: Righht.... So the problem you want to fix is teching on DSD. Let me guess. DSD with a lot of players... perhaps 8 or more per team?

(etc etc)

and your other post about dsd:

klapmongool wrote:

Silentwings wrote:
I was not trying to 'fix a problem' and did not mention any specific map. You might regard teching on DSD a problem - I don't. I was suggesting a way to slightly lengthen the t1 phase of large games, not a way to abolish teching.

Well, outside of 8v8+ dsd 2.5k comm metal is no problem.

Apart from re-quoting your previous ones, these are the only posts you made which mention dsd. As you can plainly see, they were both addressed to me.

(You did make a post in between which was addressed to Johannes, was not about dsd, which I didn't reply to or ever mention - I think you're confused.)

Where is the discussion about thud in those last posts ?

sorry alba

Silentwings wrote:Klap, your first post about dsd:

klapmongool wrote: Righht.... So the problem you want to fix is teching on DSD. Let me guess. DSD with a lot of players... perhaps 8 or more per team?

(etc etc)

and your other post about dsd:

klapmongool wrote:

Silentwings wrote:
I was not trying to 'fix a problem' and did not mention any specific map. You might regard teching on DSD a problem - I don't. I was suggesting a way to slightly lengthen the t1 phase of large games, not a way to abolish teching.

Well, outside of 8v8+ dsd 2.5k comm metal is no problem.

Apart from re-quoting your previous ones, these are the only posts you made which mention dsd. As you can plainly see, they were both addressed to me.

(You did make a post in between which was addressed to Johannes, was not about dsd, which I didn't reply to or ever mention - I think you're confused.)

klapmongool wrote: I did not quote you in that post. Johannes made 1 post since the 'DSD' post, which happened to discuss the very same topic. Your posts, which oddly enough discuss a non-existing problem, happened to be in between ours.

World does not revolve around you. Get over it.

lol.