Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Forum index  > General discussion   >

Hypothetical AA Setup

11 posts, 509 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

USrankRyMarq
10 years ago
(edited 10 years ago)
Alright, so hear me out here. This isn't a suggestion, not a strong one at least, but I would appreciate some help brainstorming some problems with this setup.

Step 1: Anti-air is simplified.

There are now only 2 AA turrets.

Turret 1: Cobra (remade) AA Sniper (instant hit, perfect accuracy laser battery)
Metal Cost: 100
Range: 1000
Damage: 300 (20 second reload time)
Health: 480

Turret 2: Razor (remade)
Metal Cost: 180
Range: 710
Damage per second: 170 (0.1 Refire time)
Health: 900


Mobile AA: Unit specific alterations, but generally
20% cost drop.
Either range decreased by 10-20% if DPS based, or DPS decreased by 20-30% additional if burst-based.
Health decreased by an average of 50%.


I believe these changes, or something resembling would allow a healthier balance that would allow both gunships and Airplanes to be valid with a bit more diversity. Airplanes, and many gunships would need HP nerfs to compensate. That said, I believe it would open up room for them to be powerful in more diverse ways, without as much of a looming problem of AA.


Where is this idea crazy, and what problems do people foresee with such a plan?
+0 / -2

PLrankAdminSprung
10 years ago
An explanation for the chosen values would be cool.

Like, stat-wise the new Cobra is basically Defender plus range minus antiground; why such overlap? Why no high weight static AA? Why the mobile AA health ubernerf?
+1 / -0
FIrankFFC
10 years ago
(edited 10 years ago)
yay lets make gunship ball op!

also, NO.
+0 / -1

USrankRyMarq
10 years ago
The numbers come come from my estimates of the weakest possible AA with it still being clearly preferable to the defender. One being preferably for its burst, another being preferable for its sustained damage.

Mobile AA was estimated in much the same way. That said, I doubt anyone would care to read a full post of every mobile AA unit changed, nor would they remember the current numbers enough for it to mean much. The core of the idea is that air is balanced relative to these two turrets I described.
+0 / -0
AUrankLyth
10 years ago
(edited 10 years ago)
Maybe this would work - three anti air static turrets.

1) Short range anti-gunship (high dps) (razor)
2) Short range anti-planes (burst fire x 6 then long reload) (use chainsaw model it looks like it should fire burst)
3) Long range general AA for attrition (low dps) (nerfed screamer)

The short range is 500-700 range so its more like umbrella. Other static AA is removed making simple to balance. We can add again later if there is a specific role.

Mobile ground AA can get a buff to speed so it has a reasonable chance to respond and be useful.
+0 / -0
GBrankTheSponge
10 years ago
I think the air-ground system is pretty much fine as-is. Some ground AA units are too weak (crashers come to mind) but other than that it is mostly fine.
+0 / -0
AUrankLyth
10 years ago
For me there are problems:

1) Com sniping too easy
2) Static AA renders large areas no-go
3) Mobile AA useless vs planes in large map
4) Planes need stronger and better defined roles mid-late game, other than sending a billion ravens to bomb their singus.
+1 / -0

DErankAdminmojjj
10 years ago
quote:
1) Com sniping too easy

the com unit is a feature. the game does not depend on it (hopefully. if wrong, then the com unit is too strong.). com sniping is a valid and justified part of the game in my eyes.

quote:
2) Static AA renders large areas no-go

cannot see why this is bad. teamwork with your ground player or do commando pushes with specialized units to free static AAs. this is a game flavour, not a negative point. once successful, cluster the fields with death from above. the emphasis on teamwork IS rewarding and makes the game interesting.

quote:
3) Mobile AA useless vs planes in large map

mobile AA should be able to beat air with less cost. it does not have to fly, so the metal expenses for the wings are converted in firepower or armour. NEVER EVER air should make cost killing AA. if so, planes are too cheap. but i guess you are refering here to the "large maps" part. the advantage of planes are their mobility/speed. it is okay to outrun ground. that speed difference and all-terrain property of planes is as it is (coming with either higher cost or low hp, see answer to 2) )

quote:
4) Planes need stronger and better defined roles mid-late game, other than sending a billion ravens to bomb their singus.

agree. planes roles right now are very weired and could use a rework. i would recomend increasing weight and cost for bombers. shadows are just too spammable and phoenix is pretty useless, need a tweak. fighters are fine to my opinion. its ok to have clusters of them.

however, thats just me.
+2 / -0

CArankPxtl
10 years ago
I like the spammable shadows. That's a huge jump from the old layout now that we have a low-ish-weight spammable bomber and see some real attrition in the bomber game instead of the old "winner takes all" approach to bombing.

Phoenix and up could use some TLC, obviously, but I think the shadow and fighter game is good.

I still want a built-in AA weapon (not a weapon-replacement module) on the Comm, though.
+0 / -0
AUrankLyth
10 years ago
DErankAdminmojjj Looks like you agree on 4 and I think 3?

Com sniping is a problem because in some circumstances coms may be the main early source of income. It destabilises resources too much considering it is really hard to counter.

Static AA sometimes renders teamwork impossible because screamer sized areas mean air players can't participate in joint operations. Smaller areas would make for more interesting tactical decisions and gameplay.

To elaborate on 3 I think some mobile AA could use a buff to alpha and speed to make it also useful vs planes.
+1 / -0

AUrankSortale
10 years ago
Comm sniping is only problematic at the first 5-7 mins, a small range [slightly smaller than lotus] high alpha, low reload umbrella like AA may do the job of early anti bomber to prevent sniping. [basically a smaller range, lower cost than current hacksaw]

argument as follow:

radar/raider see plane, high value target [comm] run behind this AA, bomber lose 1-2 if try to bomb -> fail

low range make total coverage expensive -> emphasis on scouting and predicting enemies movement to select optimal tactic.

bomber can ignore relatively small area denied and attack other target or achieve power through number and sacrifice a few bomber to attack target.
+0 / -0