| 1 |
The problems with planes as I see it are:
|
1 |
The problems with planes as I see it are:
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
1. Plane vs Plane is boring.
|
3 |
1. Plane vs Plane is boring.
|
| 4 |
-a. Plane is almost mandatory to counter enemy planes.
|
4 |
-a. Plane is almost mandatory to counter enemy planes.
|
| 5 |
-b. It degenerates to fighter vs fighter, which is unfun.
|
5 |
-b. It degenerates to fighter vs fighter, which is unfun.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
2. Bombers are strong early, but diminish in usefulness into mid game as AA is established.
|
7 |
2. Bombers are strong early, but diminish in usefulness into mid game as AA is established.
|
| 8 |
-a. AA is hard to invest in early.
|
8 |
-a. AA is hard to invest in early.
|
| 9 |
-b. Until you get enough AA to shoot down one bomber, you're not doing any damage.
|
9 |
-b. Until you get enough AA to shoot down one bomber, you're not doing any damage.
|
| 10 |
-c. Once you get enough AA to start killing bombers, they take too much attrition to be viable, so must be used only in areas where there is no AA (mostly defensively).
|
10 |
-c. Once you get enough AA to start killing bombers, they take too much attrition to be viable, so must be used only in areas where there is no AA (mostly defensively).
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
I'd
like
to
hear
primarily
if
people
agree
that
these
are
the
problems,
and
to
expand/clarify
this
list,
so
we
can
start
talking
causes
and
solutions.
The
discussion
below
from
the
other
thread
can
be
continued
though.
|
12 |
I'd
like
to
hear
primarily
if
people
agree
that
these
are
the
problems,
and
to
expand/clarify
this
list,
so
we
can
start
talking
causes
and
solutions.
The
discussion
below
from
the
other
thread
can
be
continued
though.
This
is
the
development
forum
so
expect
heavy
moderation
to
keep
it
on-topic.
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
@Saktoth
|
14 |
@Saktoth
|
| 15 |
[quote]When planes went to the reload style and got roughly doubled speed, AA was balanced to be able to hurt bombers in the tiny window they spend over AA. So fighters have seen their HP just inflate and inflate and still not be enough (to the point fighters can spoof AA fire), and AA/plane damage/HP ratios were cut to 1/4th to make gunships viable. AA is designed to reduce bombers from 100%-0% in the fraction of a second they spend in it's coverage (and the ranges are huge, to increase the coverage), because anything else is simply not real damage and will just be healed through.
|
15 |
[quote]When planes went to the reload style and got roughly doubled speed, AA was balanced to be able to hurt bombers in the tiny window they spend over AA. So fighters have seen their HP just inflate and inflate and still not be enough (to the point fighters can spoof AA fire), and AA/plane damage/HP ratios were cut to 1/4th to make gunships viable. AA is designed to reduce bombers from 100%-0% in the fraction of a second they spend in it's coverage (and the ranges are huge, to increase the coverage), because anything else is simply not real damage and will just be healed through.
|
| 16 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 17 |
These are some pretty incredible problems. It might be simpler to fix this if we just slowed down planes.[/quote]
|
17 |
These are some pretty incredible problems. It might be simpler to fix this if we just slowed down planes.[/quote]
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
@Kingraptor
|
19 |
@Kingraptor
|
| 20 |
[quote]I'm not opposed to it, but it doesn't really solve the problem of bombers being either shot down for massive loss or escaping and repairing for next to nothing.
|
20 |
[quote]I'm not opposed to it, but it doesn't really solve the problem of bombers being either shot down for massive loss or escaping and repairing for next to nothing.
|
| 21 |
\n
|
21 |
\n
|
| 22 |
Well, if bombers were cheaper and died more often, they'd probably be used more like the silo missiles, with calculations of expected tradeoff and such. That wouldn't be so bad, actually.[/quote]
|
22 |
Well, if bombers were cheaper and died more often, they'd probably be used more like the silo missiles, with calculations of expected tradeoff and such. That wouldn't be so bad, actually.[/quote]
|
| 23 |
@GoogleFrog
|
23 |
@GoogleFrog
|
| 24 |
[quote]Would you halve bomber stats? We're moving into 'redo bombers' territory but that might not be a bad idea.[/quote]
|
24 |
[quote]Would you halve bomber stats? We're moving into 'redo bombers' territory but that might not be a bad idea.[/quote]
|
| 25 |
@Saktoth [quote]I'd do the opposite. Raise the cost and HP, but keep the damage the same. This lowers the DPS potential from early unopposed bomber rushes but allows them to scale better into the mid game vs AA. The Licho demonstrates how this works quite well, it's for-cost comparisons are just terrible (like 4x-2x worse) but because it can get a volley back and repair it's still worth making.
|
25 |
@Saktoth [quote]I'd do the opposite. Raise the cost and HP, but keep the damage the same. This lowers the DPS potential from early unopposed bomber rushes but allows them to scale better into the mid game vs AA. The Licho demonstrates how this works quite well, it's for-cost comparisons are just terrible (like 4x-2x worse) but because it can get a volley back and repair it's still worth making.
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
Think about it. You halve bomber costs, and now you can rush an early pheonix twice as fast (and it can still kill windgens/mexes with half damage). But the point at which you can no longer make pheonixes now comes twice as fast (and it's pretty fast now!). With this change you'd need only a razors kiss and pheonixes are useless.
|
27 |
Think about it. You halve bomber costs, and now you can rush an early pheonix twice as fast (and it can still kill windgens/mexes with half damage). But the point at which you can no longer make pheonixes now comes twice as fast (and it's pretty fast now!). With this change you'd need only a razors kiss and pheonixes are useless.
|
| 28 |
\n
|
28 |
\n
|
| 29 |
Once you actually have enough AA to kill the first bomber in the pack, your AA can switch focus and kill the second, third, fifth, etc. I designed units like the Hacksaw to ONLY do limited attrition damage, but most AA still doesn't operate this way.
|
29 |
Once you actually have enough AA to kill the first bomber in the pack, your AA can switch focus and kill the second, third, fifth, etc. I designed units like the Hacksaw to ONLY do limited attrition damage, but most AA still doesn't operate this way.
|
| 30 |
\n
|
30 |
\n
|
| 31 |
Which is the reasoning behind lowering bomber speed. It means AA can be less instagib, it gives you reaction time and planning, it allows fighters to actually dogfight over AA without having ridiculous HP values. There are less dramatic ways to solve the issue, but this is where the problem was first created.[/quote]
|
31 |
Which is the reasoning behind lowering bomber speed. It means AA can be less instagib, it gives you reaction time and planning, it allows fighters to actually dogfight over AA without having ridiculous HP values. There are less dramatic ways to solve the issue, but this is where the problem was first created.[/quote]
|
Air Rebalance