Page 21 of 52

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 02:29
by Caydr
If AA had its own forum here, that'd be ideal... but I don't think it'd be fair if only AA had one. Since PHPBB has categories, maybe there could be a Main category for everything that currently exists, and another category with forums for each of the mods actively in development?

The way I see zeus vs. maverick is this: mavericks are for anti-unit. They have reasonable speed (compared with the units they'd often be attacking), a fast-moving weapon for attacking units that are faster than them, decent enough range and huge damage per shot to obliterate any enemy skirmishers before they can get close enough to do any real damage... etc. They're ideal. They're a unit highly representive of Arm. They can't take very much of a beating, but they only need a few moments to be back at top performance.

Zeus are more like the Arm's enforcers. Arm knows that they can't always have the high ground, better recon, and the opportunity for better planning, so here lies the necessity for a unit like the Zeus. The way I see this unit being developed is in the realization that Arm will have to play dirty every now and then. The Zeus was designed as being the closest to the Core philosiphy as Arm has ever been. It has great firepower and incredibly high HP for its cost, while still remaining somewhat more mobile and than its Core counterpart, the Can. Zeus are best used in large numbers in a wide formation - you can't stop 'em all, and when a couple of them finally do get within range, they'll make you hurt.

Yes, all things being equal, you'd want Mavericks over Zeus any day. But all things aren't equal, and Mavericks are really expensive (in more ways than one) in comparison and don't have the battlefield longevity to survive long enough to actually attack a base's defenses and come out on top when cost to both sides has been considered. In order to be economically feasible, a Maverick must survive several battles in order to be worth building - they are not "throw away" units like Pyros, Cans, Zeus, Hammers, etc. In an evenly-matched game, you cannot use Mavericks in an assault role - every single one lost is like losing a half dozen lesser units, and against the firepower of HLTs, plasma batteries, etc, they can't last.

Gotta get that new hard drive soon :(

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 04:37
by Egarwaen
FireCrack wrote:1 and a half zeus's for the cost of one maverick
So it's more like, adjusted for cost:

Zeus: 2775 HP, 175 DPS
Maverick 1500 HP, 260 DPS

In other words they're fine. Mavericks have a higher DPS and move faster, but die faster too.

Caydr: Demolisher. Repurpose please, don't drop it!

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 06:21
by FireCrack
Hmm, i have run some tests, and it turns out, cost-for-cost zeuses are much better against heavy enemy forces

On the demolisher, I thnk that could be made to fill a role similar to the zeus. THat is an arm take on core philosiphy, with the changes being made to the reaper/goliath it could be made usefull...

And why are you taking the twinkly stars away from the marauder?

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 12:35
by Soulless1
does core ever have units that use the arm philosophy?


actually, I think pyros qualify, and reapers would if they were anything but useless ;)


Looks like both sides have a couple of units in their opponent's style, but both of the vehicle versions (demolisher and reaper) aren't any good :P

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 12:49
by MR.D
Can Chain lighting exist in spring? or persistant damage such as the sniper shot?

What if the demolisher was given some area effect? or its lighting blast was a beamer style weapon?

Put some ideas on the table guys if you're really concerned about keeping the unit in..

Personally I would rather see a unit get an overhaul instead of being decomissioned.

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 14:52
by Min3mat
i'd rather be rid of it

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 14:58
by krogothe
Min3mat wrote:i'd rather be rid of it
qft

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 15:07
by NOiZE
Well AA HAS it own forums on AA's site... it would be better if we used that i guess...

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 15:15
by Machiosabre
Min3mat wrote:i'd rather be rid of it
But if it was made to have a purpose it might give some more reason to go vehicles.

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 15:27
by Kixxe
Make it faster firing so it we got a counter to getting overwhellmed by k-bots?

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 15:31
by NOiZE
low range, high firing rate

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 18:02
by Pxtl
NOiZE wrote:low range, high firing rate
Wasn't there a rapidfire Core beamtank in old AA for just that purpose? That could be a good concept here.

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 18:24
by NOiZE
one other change i would like :

get rid of the specific raider damages they suck IMO

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 18:27
by Caydr
I guess that's doable... v_v

I'll see what I can do with the demolisher. If I can make a decent tank of it, I'll keep it in.

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 18:40
by Machiosabre
Pxtl wrote:
NOiZE wrote:low range, high firing rate
Wasn't there a rapidfire Core beamtank in old AA for just that purpose? That could be a good concept here.
That thing was awesome and should definetly make a comeback :wink:

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 18:42
by krogothe
NOiZE wrote:one other change i would like :

get rid of the specific raider damages they suck IMO
agreed

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 19:05
by Comp1337
NOiZE wrote:one other change i would like :

get rid of the specific raider damages they suck IMO
Seriously, you should adapt to the mod, not make it adapt to you.
No offence intended.

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 19:29
by NOiZE
Comp1337 wrote:
NOiZE wrote:one other change i would like :

get rid of the specific raider damages they suck IMO
Seriously, you should adapt to the mod, not make it adapt to you.
No offence intended.
OKay

Caydr stop updating please..

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 21:48
by Drexion
I don't know how long its been since i've built a maverick. Fact is, its damage is great but its so fragile that its not worth the cost. That whole "must survive multiple battles" thing doesn't work that well because frankly, thats hard to do with it dying so easily. Caydr says its not a unit built for attacking defenses but its more of a "anti unit"... So are we delegating the maverick as a "defensive unit" that we only use when someone attacks *us*? Whenever we are attacking someone, they do tend to have defenses there somewhere splashing against our units...If Mavs can't handle those well, its kinda useless to me.

Having a "middle ground" between defensive lines where units can fight would give the Maverick a useful "offensive" role...But frankly, defensive lines *always* tend to get next to each other when good players play... So its either "defense" for the maverick, or "fight while being hit by enemy's defenses". Its obviously not good at the second.

I refuse to build units designed for defense. Defenses are better for that. If I need mobile defenses, i'd rather use an offensive designed army which I can then use to attack.

All in all, with all the changes to the last few versions of AA, I think arm Kbots are too weak (Partially because defenses, specially HLTs are overpowered). I tend to play core now, or use vehicles if I go arm. Arm vehicles at least can be used to overwhelm defenses...Arm kbots really cannot. Not effectively anyhow.

My 2 cents =).

-Drexion

Posted: 03 Jun 2006, 21:57
by Min3mat
drexion wrote:funny stuff
lol!