Page 6 of 9

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 22 May 2012, 01:50
by aubergine
Regarding HOMING-INDIRECT, would it be worth updating the C++ code so that missiles only do homing once "Search & Destroy Missiles" has been researched?

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 22 May 2012, 06:33
by Shadow Wolf TJC
@aubergine: I'm afraid that we'd need to implement those mutators that Emdek suggested a long time ago in order for such code to be supported. Specifically, we'd need to create a new event that only triggers once a research has been completed (Edit: seems like there's already an eventResearched() so nevermind), and we'd need to be able to adjust stats in-game.

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 22 May 2012, 12:06
by Reg312
since MG and Flamers was nerfed i have question, how resist to hover tanks?
i dont know what to do with army of hover lancers mixed with some AP weapons (MRA or flamers)
that hit&run tactics very annoying

and.. how about some few nice fixes in balance
-improve tank traps (double hp or divide price by 2)
-remove bunker prerequisite for HMG hardpoint

how about to improve wheeled propulsion a bit? :)

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 22 May 2012, 13:24
by Giani
Reg312 wrote: -improve tank traps (double hp or divide price by 2)
And making it difficult to shoot at? (I mean weapons missing lot of shots against tank traps)

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 22 May 2012, 13:31
by Reg312
Giani wrote:
Reg312 wrote: -improve tank traps (double hp or divide price by 2)
And making it difficult to shoot at? (I mean weapons missing lot of shots against tank traps)
i think its impossible decrease accuracy to specified object
or may be you meant that tanks already have lot of missed shot to tank traps? O_o

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 22 May 2012, 14:04
by Giani
Reg312 wrote: or may be you meant that tanks already have lot of missed shot to tank traps? O_o
No, I meant to do that.

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 22 May 2012, 18:19
by Iluvalar
That would be a nice improvement as well : Some body/structure with accuracy decrease attribute (only when the accuracy of course) hmmm

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 25 May 2012, 08:22
by Lord Apocalypse
Yeah tank traps seem to be low enough to the ground to cause tanks an issue when trying to shoot at them, at least at close range. Only so much elevation you can get out of a turret in either direction. Cyborgs or other infantry should not have any problem shooting them though.

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 25 May 2012, 15:43
by Giani
Lord Apocalypse wrote:Yeah tank traps seem to be low enough to the ground to cause tanks an issue when trying to shoot at them, at least at close range. Only so much elevation you can get out of a turret in either direction. Cyborgs or other infantry should not have any problem shooting them though.
Yeah, but I think the best weapon against tank traps should be artillery, and the worst unit against tank traps should be the tanks.

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 25 May 2012, 15:45
by Giani
And what about changing the weight of the plasma cannon, it is too slow and the most useless weapon...
If reducing the weight of the plasma cannon makes it OP, then I think the best is to reduce the damage it makes.
That weapon has very few hp too...

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 25 May 2012, 17:50
by Reg312
Giani wrote:And what about changing the weight of the plasma cannon, it is too slow and the most useless weapon...
If reducing the weight of the plasma cannon makes it OP, then I think the best is to reduce the damage it makes.
That weapon has very few hp too...
we have bad/broken speed/weight system...i think better make all slow tanks a bit faster and make fast tanks slower a bit :)

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 25 May 2012, 18:19
by Giani
Yeah, but the plasma cannon is even useless as defense, because the emplacement is very weak and the hp of the plasma cannon is too low. So the price is too high for something so weak, whit so slow reloading...
The only good thing of it is the damage and the splash damage. But it is useless for any use.

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 25 May 2012, 18:26
by Reg312
i think you can try mix common army of cheap units with 2-3 plasma cannons.. plasma cannon is deadly weapon, but it useless without support army.. i did not tried such tactics because it useless because we have vtols/artillery/fast hovers, but if your enemy have slow army on tracked propulsion - i think plasma cannon can be usable.
my suggestion: improve tracked propulsion.. then you will see more tracked tanks and then your plasma cannons will be useful :)

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 25 May 2012, 18:42
by Shadow Wolf TJC
Reg312 wrote:we have bad/broken speed/weight system...i think better make all slow tanks a bit faster and make fast tanks slower a bit :)
I agree. In fact, for my Contingency mod, I'm planning on actually making Tracked Propulsion lighter than Half-Tracks, Half-Tracks lighter than Wheels, and Wheels lighter than Hover propulsion. Even though, in real-life, the Tracked propulsion would be heavier than wheeled propulsion, they are typically able to support more additional weight (in addition to their own weight, though that would be ignored) than wheeled or hover propulsion without slowing down in the process.

Alternately, we could give propulsions a multiplier in terms of engine power to compensate for their weight. For example, while tracks could still be made heavier than hovercraft, they could receive a much higher engine power multiplier than hovercraft, so that, in the end, they could support heavier weapons before slowing down than hovercraft.

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Posted: 31 May 2012, 14:40
by Giani
The guide says that the EMP mortar pit is more expensive than the cannon fortress and the heavy rocket fortress. And the EMP mortar pits aren't so good...
Shouldn't them have a bit more hp and be cheaper?