Absolute Annihilation 1.5
Moderator: Moderators
Wow, nobody contesting any of these ideas? That's alright, I'm free.
The nuke was altered to be competitive, the anti-nuke was recalibrated to compensate... you can't have a perfect defense against an attack method or the game becomes unbalanced. Pop-up sounds useful, though even that might be an issue.um...i would just like to ask u to make the anti nuke a little bit more beefy...a popup anti nuke would be awsome... but it is way under protected....
I noticed that as well... is it a local issue, or mod-wide?just got done playing a game and noticed that the scarabs dont fire at nukes anymore.
You can't, true, but for the advantage, it seems effective. I can usually afford it, given some economic play... I consider this fair. Changing it might make the Commander too flexible.Commander cloaking cost when stationary is now 250e, when moving 500e
It's still too much, you can't afford that middle game
Where the hell did that come from? Not a great idea at all, considering mobile units are how AA really works... we don't want to encourage porcing AND a stealth mobile unit is what the Pitbull was made to be in the first place.If you want to keep the pitbull's stealth nature, you could just change them to immobile units, like the dragons claw and maw.
Interesting suggestion, but that's a counter suggestion to increase efficency of the unit, while the reason for nerfing it is to decrease efficency to a equivalent with other units. That said, we should consider it if exploiters prove to be useless after this revision.actually, one small thing I was going to ask as far as the exploiters go:
Now that they're both getting nerfed (lots of HP - effectively - for one and buildtime for the other) would you consider letting them generate the same output as a normal mex of their type?
That way, you'd just be paying a bigger one-off cost for the tougher mex, rather than paying for it for the rest of the game through lost resources...
-
MrSpontaneous
- Posts: 242
- Joined: 09 Sep 2005, 22:39
Where the hell did that come from? Not a great idea at all, considering mobile units are how AA really works... we don't want to encourage porcing AND a stealth mobile unit is what the Pitbull was made to be in the first place.
I think you misunderstood me, and I am not quite sure what you said either. . .
I was talking about the arm defense, the pop up guass cannon. recently got a buff because it did not have good enough DPS. I was mearly mentioning that, if you wanted to keep the sides a bit more diverse, you could keep the turrets stealth ability by making it an imobile unit (like the dragons maw/claw) so that it did not get ghosted.
Last edited by MrSpontaneous on 08 Jun 2006, 11:33, edited 1 time in total.
Um. It's a bomber, not a fighter. Making it unable to kill other aircraft wouldn't make it useless. It's still got high health and great damage against ground targets for a relatively low cost.ginekolog wrote:i also disagree about hurricane AA changes. Cut AA dmage to half (so they need 3-4 shoots to kill lvl1 fig). Dont make another unit useless.
Isn't the whole point of the anti-nuke that it very effectively counters nuke strikes and is nice and cheap, but is vulnerable to conventional attack? (Bombers, gunships, tanks, etc.) This sounds like it'd bring back the problems of the cloakable anti-nuke a few revisions ago.neddiedrow wrote:The nuke was altered to be competitive, the anti-nuke was recalibrated to compensate... you can't have a perfect defense against an attack method or the game becomes unbalanced. Pop-up sounds useful, though even that might be an issue.
I can't give specifics since they aren't worked out yet. Those are just the planned changes based on feedback from the last 31 pages. Note that while the Exploiter is having its buildtime increased a little, it's also getting an armor increase, and its turret is higher so it should be able to use DT as an extra defense.
Regarding anti-nukes acting funny, it's not my doing. No real changes have been made to anti-nukes, only to the nukes themselves. Nukes have only been altered to fly higher (allowing them to avoid mountains), and some other small stuff like higher velocity... but since anti-nukes fire at the same instant nukes fire, none of that should have any effect.
If fixing sub depth wasn't in that changelog, it's an oversight. It's already been fixed.. I'll check the log and if it's not there, I'll add it. (edit: it's on, like, the eighth line, open your eyes man!)
As for Hurricanes, someone a while back said that they have no anti-air missile at all (an idiot apparently), so I just put that there in case they didn't... uh... anyway, I'll be removing the missile but their cost'll stay the same.
Regarding anti-nukes acting funny, it's not my doing. No real changes have been made to anti-nukes, only to the nukes themselves. Nukes have only been altered to fly higher (allowing them to avoid mountains), and some other small stuff like higher velocity... but since anti-nukes fire at the same instant nukes fire, none of that should have any effect.
If fixing sub depth wasn't in that changelog, it's an oversight. It's already been fixed.. I'll check the log and if it's not there, I'll add it. (edit: it's on, like, the eighth line, open your eyes man!)
As for Hurricanes, someone a while back said that they have no anti-air missile at all (an idiot apparently), so I just put that there in case they didn't... uh... anyway, I'll be removing the missile but their cost'll stay the same.
Okay cool, two things, in somewhat reverse order 
Thing the first:
Yeah that was me, I said I thought they didn't have one, and then someone else 'confirmed' it for me a few posts later...I then made the mistake of stating said 'fact' in front of min3mat heh. Whoops.
Still, the change seems fair enough
Thing the second:
Thing the first:
OuchCaydr wrote: As for Hurricanes, someone a while back said that they have no anti-air missile at all (an idiot apparently), so I just put that there in case they didn't... uh... anyway, I'll be removing the missile but their cost'll stay the same.
Yeah that was me, I said I thought they didn't have one, and then someone else 'confirmed' it for me a few posts later...I then made the mistake of stating said 'fact' in front of min3mat heh. Whoops.
Still, the change seems fair enough
Thing the second:
I wonder...could this be another occurance of the 'apparent range' bug you fixed for the tacnuke launchers etc? IE, the range of the antinuke is actually less than indicated on the minimap... I could see how it might have been overlooked for antinukes since they don't fire on their own...Caydr wrote: Regarding anti-nukes acting funny, it's not my doing. No real changes have been made to anti-nukes, only to the nukes themselves. Nukes have only been altered to fly higher (allowing them to avoid mountains), and some other small stuff like higher velocity... but since anti-nukes fire at the same instant nukes fire, none of that should have any effect.
Idunno, I wouldn't mind an "invincible antinuke" thing like that (cloaked or popup, whatever). Simply make it cost substantially more than a nuke + nuke launcher to build. Thus, a player can handle the "invincible antinuke" simply through the fact that a single antinuke can't stop 3 or 4 simultaneous nuke strikes. So, the "invincible antinuke" becomes only useful to a porcer with god's own economy.Egarwaen wrote: Isn't the whole point of the anti-nuke that it very effectively counters nuke strikes and is nice and cheap, but is vulnerable to conventional attack? (Bombers, gunships, tanks, etc.) This sounds like it'd bring back the problems of the cloakable anti-nuke a few revisions ago.
But at that point the unit becomes only useful on Speedmetal.
Never mind.
(okay i give up giving up on balance T.T)
Idunno, I wouldn't mind an "invincible antinuke" thing like that (cloaked or popup, whatever). Simply make it cost substantially more than a nuke + nuke launcher to build. Thus, a player can handle the "invincible antinuke" simply through the fact that a single antinuke can't stop 3 or 4 simultaneous nuke strikes. So, the "invincible antinuke" becomes only useful to a porcer with god's own economy.
yeah a pop-up krogoth would be sweet.
FFS A antinuke is a FRACTION of the M/E/BT of a nuke. FASTER reload. CHEAPER missiles, and enough range that 2-3 will cover your entire base!!!
I like the aesthetics of the bomber having a AA turret, a nerfed one would be fine (tbh i just want the visuals :D) say 1/10 of a T1 fighter damage and fairly rapid firing and lethal looking flak gun? (but crap of course, just pretty <3)
turret mounted weapons on non gunship class aircraft dont look good at all.. the turret has problems updateing its aim direction whilst tracking a target so what you get is a turret that is not facing its target yet still firing at the target.. this is hardly noticed on the Hurricane due to its small turret and not to fast rate of fire, increase the rate of fire and it will become much more noticable...
Nice how you left out the last two lines in your quote there, m3m...Min3mat wrote:(okay i give up giving up on balance T.T)
Idunno, I wouldn't mind an "invincible antinuke" thing like that (cloaked or popup, whatever). Simply make it cost substantially more than a nuke + nuke launcher to build. Thus, a player can handle the "invincible antinuke" simply through the fact that a single antinuke can't stop 3 or 4 simultaneous nuke strikes. So, the "invincible antinuke" becomes only useful to a porcer with god's own economy.
yeah a pop-up krogoth would be sweet.
FFS A antinuke is a FRACTION of the M/E/BT of a nuke. FASTER reload. CHEAPER missiles, and enough range that 2-3 will cover your entire base!!!
I like the aesthetics of the bomber having a AA turret, a nerfed one would be fine (tbh i just want the visuals :D) say 1/10 of a T1 fighter damage and fairly rapid firing and lethal looking flak gun? (but crap of course, just pretty <3)
