Absolute Annihilation 2.11 - Page 27

Absolute Annihilation 2.11

All game release threads should be posted here

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Post by Pxtl »

Egarwaen wrote:
Pxtl wrote:
Egarwaen wrote: 1-3 flakkers per area of the base + 2-4 LRMTs in strategic positions. Or 1-3 flakkers per area + 1-3 LRMTs + 10 fighters on patrol = GG Gunships.
Good god, the game should've already ended before you get that amount of hardware up. That's like saying "oh, just take out his berthas by attacking them with 3 Orcones".
I think we must be using different definitions. I can cover the vital bits of what I consider a "normal-sized" base on a 16x16 map with six-eight Flakkers and a handful of LRMTs. It doesn't seem to tie up my con units particularly long. Of course, fighters are still among your best choices - cheap, mobile, and hideously effective.

How big is your "sprawling base"? And if it's that large, why don't you have an economy to support enough cons to build defences faster?
I never said flakkers don't make short work of Gunships. I was complaining that they can shrug off most other defenses - and because of the "they get shot more often" because they hover and attack the target, it means you have to defend every point within your base in case they just bypass part of it or push through. Once you get a decent L2 economy going, the flak guns make the gunship swarm less of a worry. I just don't think the player should _have_ to spam out flakkers as the primary defense against gunships. And I've tried using fighters against them - yes, the fighters rip them apart, but not before the gunships hollow out the base. I just don't like the "anti-nuke" gameplay of gunships. It's the same reason that players complain about needing an L2 flak bot - it's not bombers they're worried about, it's gunships.
Rayden wrote:Normally if build up your air defense step by step and know by scouting that air will come you have enough time to start building a decent air defense. Gunships are pretty expensive.

And if you have no good air defense when game goes to end level 2 stage it's your fault.
End-level 2 stage? Have you played a teamgame? In half of those there's one guy who, first thing he does is spam out gunships. That's _beginning_ L2.
User avatar
Drone_Fragger
Posts: 1341
Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49

Post by Drone_Fragger »

Indeed. I ignore air defence now. If soemones building Gunships hordes, And you can't get to them, You lose. I mean, Some games i've played, Mainly 2 v 2s, One player acts a meat shield, While the other whores gunships. Game over.
Egarwaen
Posts: 1207
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 21:19

Post by Egarwaen »

Pxtl wrote:I never said flakkers don't make short work of Gunships.
Ahem:
Flakkers is just about it, and flakkers aren't long enough ranged so it's hard to defend a spread-out base with flakkers.
If you'll actually, y'know, read my post, that's what I was addressing.
I was complaining that they can shrug off most other defenses - and because of the "they get shot more often" because they hover and attack the target, it means you have to defend every point within your base in case they just bypass part of it or push through.
Yes, that's true of AA of any stripe. You can't just have perimeter AA, you need it spread through your base, because any airstrike - bombers or gunships - will push past a line of AA and go straight for their target. Hell, it's true of any defences. As min3mat pointed out to me, building a line of defences is dumb, because if your opponent builds a swarm and saunters by instead of engaging it, you're screwed. You always need to defend in depth.
And I've tried using fighters against them - yes, the fighters rip them apart, but not before the gunships hollow out the base.
How many gunships are we talking here? 10 L1 fighters will do a number on 10 Gunships before the do any significant damage. If your enemy gets enough Gunships to wipe out your base past 5-10 L1 fighters before you've got flak, you're doing something wrong.
I just don't like the "anti-nuke" gameplay of gunships. It's the same reason that players complain about needing an L2 flak bot - it's not bombers they're worried about, it's gunships.
Uh. No, not really. It's gunships and Bladewings and L2 bombers. Have you ever seen what a properly-microed L2 bomber does to a mob of units? Not pretty. But even leaving that aside, yes, they are worried about Gunships. Why? Because Gunships are a very effective way of bringing lots of firepower to bear against mobile units. It's not "anti-nuke gameplay", it's natural counters. Exactly the same reason you don't throw artillery at Goliaths, or expect Mavericks to defeat defence structures.

In fact, all defences work like this to some degree. BLoDs versus big, slow targets of any kind, for example.
End-level 2 stage? Have you played a teamgame? In half of those there's one guy who, first thing he does is spam out gunships. That's _beginning_ L2.
And your second factory should've been an air factory. From which you pumped a bunch of L1 fighters (before moving on to scouts and bombers), which you set on patrol near the back of your base. Which then promptly ate the Gunship spam, which your enemy had spent a load of resources on, leaving him weak and vulnerable to your ground assault.

Right?
Drone_Fragger wrote:Indeed. I ignore air defence now. If soemones building Gunships hordes, And you can't get to them, You lose. I mean, Some games i've played, Mainly 2 v 2s, One player acts a meat shield, While the other whores gunships. Game over.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You need a comedy act or something. Noob Theatre, perhaps?
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Post by Pxtl »

/me looks up price of L1 air factory.

:oops:

/still thinks that it would be nice if beamlasers did at least _half_ damage to gunships.
User avatar
FireCrack
Posts: 676
Joined: 19 Jul 2005, 09:33

Post by FireCrack »

Cadyr, could you look at the EMP Missile explosion effect? It sems a tad small...
User avatar
Cabbage
Posts: 1548
Joined: 12 Mar 2006, 22:34

Post by Cabbage »

Pxtl Wrote:
still thinks that it would be nice if beamlasers did at least _half_ damage to gunships.
What would be the point? How many would you ever have? 3 or 4 at most in a specific area i should image, it's not going to add up to much.... And lvl 1 missile towers ARE effective at taking out gunship swarms (all aircraft for that matter) a big patch of spreadout missile towers simply easts them up, thats just how it is. Layered missile towers pwn pretty much eberything. I even prefer them over flakkers myself, much more effective (unless your opponent is tupid enough to attack with their gunships all grouped together, but then that wouldn't happen as your long range missile tower would have taken them all out in one shoty, wouldn't it?)
Egarwaen
Posts: 1207
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 21:19

Post by Egarwaen »

Cabbage wrote: big patch of spreadout missile towers simply easts them up, thats just how it is.
To prevent confusion here, just how big are we talking? 4x4 with spacing 2 or 3?
User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Post by Caydr »

It is IMPOSSIBLE - that's as in, "not possible" - to have this auto-reclaim-then-build-X-structure thing. It's been asked for by the myriads, and the devs always reply (and I agree with this): don't be such a lazy arse. They take 1 second to self-destruct.

Fixing nano towers so they don't self-d instantly (a holdover from OTA base/turret system)

So what's the concensus here? Should missiles have their reduced damage versus gunships removed? I have no problem with trying this, but remember there's a reason this damage reduction was there in the first place.
At any rate, I know that Caydr probably isn't going to pay attention to any of this
I read everything. Don't base your ideas about L3 on anything you're seeing right now; wait until you've seen the next version.
Egarwaen
Posts: 1207
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 21:19

Post by Egarwaen »

Caydr wrote:So what's the concensus here? Should missiles have their reduced damage versus gunships removed? I have no problem with trying this, but remember there's a reason this damage reduction was there in the first place.
What was the reason?

I think Cabbage's point is good - L1 missile towers are already excellent anti-Gunship weapons, though I'd like to know how many are necessary for that role...
User avatar
Drone_Fragger
Posts: 1341
Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49

Post by Drone_Fragger »

They die rather quick, and a lone flea can kill them all no problem.
Egarwaen
Posts: 1207
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 21:19

Post by Egarwaen »

Drone_Fragger wrote:They die rather quick, and a lone flea can kill them all no problem.
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL :lol: Stop it, you're killing me!
User avatar
Drone_Fragger
Posts: 1341
Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49

Post by Drone_Fragger »

What? Missle towers have like what is it. 200 hp? A falling piece of debris can kill that for gods sake. Brawlers can basically fly through them and kill them all.

On a side note, The no-dmg-reduction-V-gunshops sounds good. I don't know why they had it in the first place. They dodge half the incoming missles anyways.
User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Post by Caydr »

The reason they have the reduction is to help them survive a little longer against the easily-spammed missile towers, and to make them a little harder to kill in general. Gunships were once quite useless, and this was one of the measures I took to fix that.

While you're discussing this, if anyone would like to suggest some structures to be given ground decals, now's the time. So far, I've decided to add them to:

AAFUS
ARMAMD
ARMEMP
ARMFUS
ARMSILO
CAFUS
CORFMD
CORFUS
CORSILO
CORTRON

No common or cloaking structures, please.
User avatar
Comp1337
Posts: 2434
Joined: 12 Oct 2005, 17:32

Post by Comp1337 »

Oh please. MTs v Gunship balance is FINE.
just spread out ten to fifteen SAMs in your base and the gunships will be dead meat in my experience.
Egarwaen
Posts: 1207
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 21:19

Post by Egarwaen »

Caydr wrote:The reason they have the reduction is to help them survive a little longer against the easily-spammed missile towers, and to make them a little harder to kill in general. Gunships were once quite useless, and this was one of the measures I took to fix that.
Then I say keep the reduction. As Cabbage quite rightly points out, spammed missile towers can still be very effective against Gunships.

Edit: Also, there are other reasons why the rush-to-L2-Gunships strategy is so effective in team games:

1) Many players simply do not build enough anti-air weapons. Far too many players simply don't build any at all until they get hit by aircraft or see a construction plane or scout plane.

2) Many teams will allow one player to act as a meat shield and keep hammering on him even when one could stalemate him and the others head around and shred his lightly-defended allies. Even highly defensive maps like Center Rock allow for this.

3) Many people do not realize just how cheap and effective the L1 aircraft plant is. It lets you exploit problem #1 with bombers or gunships, a really good AA unit, a half-decent support constructor, and one of the best scouts in the game.
Last edited by Egarwaen on 28 Jun 2006, 00:08, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FizWizz
Posts: 1998
Joined: 17 Aug 2005, 11:42

Post by FizWizz »

I would suggest adding decals to the storage buildings (T3, but preferably T1 as well), they are not very common or spammed. Also, ARMAMD, CORFMD? I just can't think of what those are right now.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Post by Pxtl »

Caydr wrote:The reason they have the reduction is to help them survive a little longer against the easily-spammed missile towers, and to make them a little harder to kill in general. Gunships were once quite useless, and this was one of the measures I took to fix that.

While you're discussing this, if anyone would like to suggest some structures to be given ground decals, now's the time. So far, I've decided to add them to:

AAFUS
ARMAMD
ARMEMP
ARMFUS
ARMSILO
CAFUS
CORFMD
CORFUS
CORSILO
CORTRON

No common or cloaking structures, please.
Not sure I'd like the fus to get a ground decal - it would make it look too different from the cloaking fus. Edit: how about moho makers & generators? Heck, even regular makers could have a little decal since no (sane) player builds those closely clustered?

As for the gunship issue - MT performance is fine, my problem with them fighting MTs is that they blow up MTs too quickly, not that the MTs don't kill them fast enough... but I don't like the idea of playing with the MTs stats, so leave them as is. I'm just annoyed when I see Gunships flying around a field of HLTs and LLTs and shrugging off 10 blasts a second... but obviously my opinion there is in the minority. That, and the massive laundry-list of weapon-specific damages involved in anti-air weapons just bewilders me. I understand the justifications, but damn they're a mess.
Last edited by Pxtl on 28 Jun 2006, 00:13, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Post by Caydr »

Can you give me an example of these messy specific damage things?
FizWizz wrote:I would suggest adding decals to the storage buildings (T3, but preferably T1 as well), they are not very common or spammed. Also, ARMAMD, CORFMD? I just can't think of what those are right now.
antinukes

Think they should be added to moho metal makers?
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Post by Neddie »

Caydr wrote:Can you give me an example of these messy specific damage things?
FizWizz wrote:I would suggest adding decals to the storage buildings (T3, but preferably T1 as well), they are not very common or spammed. Also, ARMAMD, CORFMD? I just can't think of what those are right now.
antinukes

Think they should be added to moho metal makers?
Yes. And Juno.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Post by Pxtl »

Caydr wrote:Can you give me an example of these messy specific damage things?
FizWizz wrote:I would suggest adding decals to the storage buildings (T3, but preferably T1 as well), they are not very common or spammed. Also, ARMAMD, CORFMD? I just can't think of what those are right now.
antinukes

Think they should be added to moho metal makers?
Oh, just things like how the Pack0 does different damage to L2 fighters than L1... which is kinda redundant when it already kills an L1 fighter in a single shot. Really, that was just my initial reaction... looking it over it adds up now - every AA unit does 2/3rds damage vs. gunships, the anti-bomber turret does extra to bombers, the swarm turret likewise v. fighters, the fighters do extra damage to other fighters and bombers at their level or lower, etc. It's just is a lot to keep track of, that's all.

And I was thinking: the groundplates could be used as a nice way to show their blast radius. If you did, say, ground plate = 1/2 blast radius you could use them to know how close to pack your buildings. Obviously you don't want to do this for something common like the Wind Gens, but it could be nice for the mohomakers and suchlike... except that the Mohogeo would have a supersized groundplate.
Locked

Return to “Game Releases”