Spring RTS Engine

I find the most effective counter to shield-porc is, when playing Logos, to jump a bunch of Jacks right in. I've never seen anything Jacks couldn't handle once they get into striking range. The hard part is getting them there.

Perhaps such an option could be made available to Nova? Move the hybrid-Stun-power from the Zeus to the Crabe (the crabe-turtle action is never used anyways) and give the Zeus a Sprint button to let it get into close range quickly like the Jack can.

sprinting zeus would not make to much sense they are not very mobile assault bots.

zipper already has Sprint

Arm/Nova doesnt really have a problem beating down shields + you can cloak walk into short range with zeus and start singling out the shields and they fall like flies its a very different approach to the Core/logos way of just beating down the shield with sheer force.

But thats faction diversity for you

Pxtl wrote:I find the most effective counter to shield-porc is, when playing Logos, to jump a bunch of Jacks right in. I've never seen anything Jacks couldn't handle once they get into striking range. The hard part is getting them there.

Perhaps such an option could be made available to Nova? Move the hybrid-Stun-power from the Zeus to the Crabe (the crabe-turtle action is never used anyways) and give the Zeus a Sprint button to let it get into close range quickly like the Jack can.

I don't see Nova having that much of a problem to be honest, Cloaking up and walking under the shield with Zeuses, a squadron of Pennies precision shooting shields out of range of return fire, EMP missiles/drones followed up by precision bombers/ground pound/pennies/artie strikes/gunships. Seeing that their is no counter to EMP static defenses such as shields are easy targets once they're spotted.

lurker wrote:

luckywaldo7 wrote:never remember seeing intentionally abused

luckywaldo7 wrote:det raped me with krow/aegis mix.

Riiiiight.

Judging by how surprised he was at its effectiveness I doubt he was exploiting it intentionally.I don't understand why you being so belligerent about this topic. I'm not trying to personally attack you or belittle you accomplishments; the shield link was a great idea. I just think currently it is exploitable.




You guys seem to miss entirely what im worried about. With linked shields you dont need to put you shields on the front line anymore, you can spread them out to cover literally every inch of your territory, and they will all link together to provide a combined protection at every point. There is not any weak spot in it to exploit; you cant send bombers against his eco and you cant directly assault any spot in his front lines anymore. It doesnt matter if you kill one shield or five he will just have the rest of the shields backed up.

I know, in a game where both sides have equal economy this isn't a big deal. But it just made the slippery slope potentially a hundred times more slippery. A stronger team can just spam out these shields, combined with their own artillery, and there is nothing the weaker team can do.

On the other hand, my play style usually involves seeking out weak spots and exploiting them. So this might just be a personal problem.

Afterthought:
Sure shields rape energy but advanced fusions are incredibly cost effective. The biggest trade-off is that it has relatively low hp and explodes like a nuke, so its dangerous to have in your base but also dangerous to have it where its unprotected. But really all you need to do to make one invincible is terraform around it and a shield above, both of which only need energy. It allows you a self-sustaining circle of energy and protection.

luckywaldo7 wrote: Afterthought:
Sure shields rape energy but advanced fusions are incredibly cost effective. The biggest trade-off is that it has relatively low hp and explodes like a nuke, so its dangerous to have in your base but also dangerous to have it where its unprotected. But really all you need to do to make one invincible is terraform around it and a shield above, both of which only need energy. It allows you a self-sustaining circle of energy and protection.

I guess that's my major beef with terraform, indestructible barricades that aren't that thick are a bit meh for me. Still you could emp bomb the shield and Precision bomb the Advanced. I guess.

Do minelayer bombers get through the shields?

Raxxman wrote:

luckywaldo7 wrote: Afterthought:
Sure shields rape energy but advanced fusions are incredibly cost effective. The biggest trade-off is that it has relatively low hp and explodes like a nuke, so its dangerous to have in your base but also dangerous to have it where its unprotected. But really all you need to do to make one invincible is terraform around it and a shield above, both of which only need energy. It allows you a self-sustaining circle of energy and protection.

I guess that's my major beef with terraform, indestructible barricades that aren't that thick are a bit meh for me. Still you could emp bomb the shield and Precision bomb the Advanced. I guess.

Do minelayer bombers get through the shields?

Yea, emp bombers do rape to shields so arm does have a good way to punish shield spam. The core bomber you are thinking about though lays impulse mines, which basically just throw units around a bit. The mines go right through shields but do insignificant damage.

luckywaldo7 wrote:I don't understand why you being so belligerent about this topic. I'm not trying to personally attack you or belittle you accomplishments; the shield link was a great idea. I just think currently it is exploitable.

I am? Except the single line to sak about a tangential issue, where do I come across that way?

luckywaldo7 wrote:You guys seem to miss entirely what im worried about. With linked shields you dont need to put you shields on the front line anymore, you can spread them out to cover literally every inch of your territory, and they will all link together to provide a combined protection at every point. There is not any weak spot in it to exploit; you cant send bombers against his eco and you cant directly assault any spot in his front lines anymore. It doesnt matter if you kill one shield or five he will just have the rest of the shields backed up.

It's only going to matter against very fast attacks, or they could have just moved the shields in response, so I don't see that issue being very big. And the advanced fusion may be cost effective, but if you can't afford something much cheaper in response, like a tremor, you're dead anyway. How well does it work to have strike and run by arty on one side before you attack on another? And how do you decide what's a weak point? Shields don't stop you from running through a weak weapons line.


Terraform walls don't take any significant energy, just constructor time, unless somebody has drastically changed it. And an advanced fusion in a deep wall is better off than one in a shallow wall with a shield. Not really a cycle there.

I'd like to interject here, that with the shield linking for logos they also lost all jamming ability! Take this into account for overall balance.

It was that one word I quoted you on lurker. Not anything substantial i'm just being thin-skinned.

Anyway, somewhere along the lines I feel like I lost my focus, so let me lay everything out again.

Much of playing this game is making choices. These choices, at least ideally, are balanced so that nothing is simply better then the other, they are just different because each choice comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, you can choose to build solar or wind. Solar is dependable in its survivability and energy output. Energy is riskier but taking that risk gives you greater overall energy output for cost. So either choice comes with a trade-off.

Thats why I don't (at least yet) consider dropping your comm with boost to be op. There are trade-offs that come with it. To be sufficiently aggressive you must sacrifice almost all mobile units and defense of your own base. A smart opponent can take advantage of this.

The same is true with units. Stumpy are more cost effective then bulldogs. But bulldogs are more efficient for size, so if space is more of a concern then metal then bulldogs are a better choice. Also, stumpy are produced faster so you can use them sooner but bulldogs have more survivability.

The way the shields used to be you could choose to build them closer together for more effectiveness. Or you could spread them out more for less charge but more area protected. That way, there would be trade-offs that would force you to choose between options.

The new shields don't have these trade-offs. You can spread them out more and cover plenty of territory, while still increasing the overall effectiveness the same amount. Its kind of like having your cake and eating it too. I was suggesting that somehow the charge be linked to the distance between them so that they are less effective when spread out.

Of course, I'm not sure this is even possible to do, and if it is I would have no idea on how to go about implementing it. I was just putting out the idea to see what other people thought of it, although it seems most people disagreed with me.

CarRepairer wrote:I'd like to interject here, that with the shield linking for logos they also lost all jamming ability! Take this into account for overall balance.

Arm lost its plasma deflector

But you ignore the fact that with the old shields and a bit of micro you get most of the benefits of unmoving shields and linking.

luckywaldo7 wrote:Thats why I don't (at least yet) consider dropping your comm with boost to be op. There are trade-offs that come with it. To be sufficiently aggressive you must sacrifice almost all mobile units and defense of your own base. A smart opponent can take advantage of this.

No one is denying the trade-off, and that trade-offs are good. But this trade-off is too strong and makes the game not fun if used.

Let's make up an extreme example. You have a button and if you push it within the first 10 seconds of the game, there's a 50/50 chance that all your units will blow up or all your enemy's will. Sure it's a risk, but it's a fair trade-off and not OP at all. But it makes the game suck.

Try not to take in the big picture without zooming in to the individual level. Even if in a team game one person boostrushes one other person and they are both eliminated, the game is balanced out. That provides little comfort for the poor person who is now out of the game they barely began to play.

I made this same argument for planetwars upgrades. They kept telling me "overall, the entire campaign is balanced by these upgrades" but that didn't change the fact that as a casual player I was always greeted by raiding armies before I could build my first unit - resulting in my swift demise. I took no comfort in the fact that "core would fight on without me." I am here to play for my enjoyment.

Ridiculously OP in FFA.

Actually, wait, you said my units, not my side's units. Ridiculously OP in anything but 1v1.

Sounds like everyone should be using cloakers to get Cans into range then jump into shields.

Wall terraform costs a lot more E than it used to but it's still barely anything, maybe it should cost M. I think the best solution for terraform is to change the hardness of the wall so it's much easier to knock down.

CarRepairer wrote: I made this same argument for planetwars upgrades. They kept telling me "overall, the entire campaign is balanced by these upgrades" but that didn't change the fact that as a casual player I was always greeted by raiding armies before I could build my first unit - resulting in my swift demise. I took no comfort in the fact that "core would fight on without me." I am here to play for my enjoyment.

Yeah I feel you on that one. Upgrades were only really good for rushing anyway because once unit production got going they became insignificant. Something better would be units that appeared after a countdown relative to cost, so that you had to wait a bit after ordering it to arrive. You could make upgrades cheaper then because they wouldn't be so dominating early game but more of a way to get certain units without a factory.

I'm not convinced that boostrushing is over-powered but I can understand how it can not be fun. tbh it was probably just a fad anyway, it was too risky to pull off most of the time anyway.

lurker wrote:But you ignore the fact that with the old shields and a bit of micro you get most of the benefits of unmoving shields and linking.

In certain circumstances, yes. But like where we had a ffa on energy spire plain, we all spammed shields because they could cover both our frontlines and our economy and still share charge between them (or however the hell it works). Our bases were covered under layouts of linked shields.

Lurker: I donno the luaz, i would have to go through and re-do all the armour categories, so that AA does less damage to 'not air' rather than more damage to air, so that it would do its default damage to shields.

Your solution was much more elegant.

Shields are an ubar porc option. Yes, adv fusions are incredibly effecient (probably too effecient in my mind actually) but how often do you see adv fusion in anything but FFA? You need 4k cost overhead just to get one up, and dont forget the 400 cost of the shields- for every shield you build its a HLT you dont.

Shields are still a big 'stall me' button. But if someone is going to make 4 adv fusions and cover his whole base, just make a beacon or a krog and watch him cry. Its not that far from the DDM + shield porc to the krog and beacons.

What i dont like about shield linking is that they are these ultra late game weapons. Id like to see people just throw them up in a quick and dirty DSD game to stop artillery and bombing on the frontline, rather than building these massive map-long walls of shields or being a purely FFA thing. I think linking encourages that, over a sort of tactical shield use to protect a vulnerable spot, but if one shield is made good enough to be useful/viable, that makes lots of linked shields even better.

Car: Great example on 'Balanced' vs 'Fun'. Boostrush and comdrops often arent.

a little proposal:
not sure if it's a good idea or not, but would add some more faction difference.

nova loses all land vehicles. all vehicles become hovers.
so no more flash, samson, shellshocker, jeffy, janus, pioneer, stumpy,
phalanx, panther, merl, bulldog, penetrator, consul, mumbo or gremlin.

the only one of these with a new model so far is the samson.

instead we get
flash/jeffy -> skimmer
samson -> poison arrow
shellshocker -> anaconda (high trajectory)
janus -> convert to hover
pioneer/consul -> hovercon
stumpy -> anaconda (low trajectory)
phalanx -> convert to hover
panther -> convert to hover
merl -> convert to hover
bulldog -> convert to hover
penetrator -> convert to hover
mumbo -> convert to hover
gremlin -> convert to hover

logos loses all hovers.

no more slinger, scrubber, hovercon, turtle, halberd
perhaps to compensate make more of their tanks amphibious.

this will make Nova/Arm more in keeping with it's slick speedy futuristic image
and assert Logos/Core's image as solid and powerful.

thoughts anyone?

thesleepless wrote:thoughts anyone?

Yes. Everyone plays Nova on sea maps and Logos on land maps.

If we wanted to do something as crazy as that we'd remove one of the sides and turn all the old Nova vehicles and tanks into hovers.

Google_Frog wrote:

thesleepless wrote:thoughts anyone?

Yes. Everyone plays Nova on sea maps and Logos on land maps.

If we wanted to do something as crazy as that we'd remove one of the sides and turn all the old Nova vehicles and tanks into hovers.

yes it could make nova OP on water maps, hence giving logos tanks amphibious abilities to counter that. huge surprise logos tank assaults from the beaches could be devastating. but the problem would be ships swarmed by hovers.
could give logos ships some secondary antihover weapons to limit the impact.
mainly it hugely cuts down on the amount of different yet nearly identical units in the game and helps to differentiate the factions.

but yeah i'll conceed that it's probably a silly idea, but i it has enough merit to worth discussion.

If the only real difference was that Nova tanks went over the water and Logos went under the water... Well I dunno tbh.

Not really that much help huh :)

Making the factions crazy different like this is way over the top. Both factions need a counter strategy to any strategy, and for faction difference those strategies should be different enough to be uniquely interesting. Making one faction only hover and one faction only amphib is worth discussion, but there are oodles of unseen consequences that are too difficult to even brainstorm. Look at this thread - the "logos is shield, nova is jamming/cloaker" difference is much less significant than the hover/amphib idea yet we have a whole long thread about working out the kinks.