|
|
|
|
|
|
| Unit Balance [message #87405] |
Fri, 14 May 2004 04:56   |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
Leaving "snipers" as they are now ends up leaving aircraft in a position where they're useless in 8 out of 10 situations. Making them rearm, not be able to loiter endlessly, and have more armor with more AA weapons makes them able to survive multiple threats without being shot down in three seconds from across a level.
It all comes down to that. You can leave them alone and have nearly useless vehicles, or upgrade the game and have vehicles that can do something useful; while not dominating everything.
|
I can understand that you're contrasting realism and C&C for this, but what exactly is your goal?
And I quote:
| Quote: |
It's not about realism, it's about C&C.
|
Assuming that you are genuinely trying to make Renegade based directly off C&C, then refueling aircraft doesn't make much sense since that was never an aspect OF C&C. If you were going to have the aircraft reload anything, it should be limited to rocket banks (correct me if I'm wrong, but Orcas and Apaches both needed to reload their missles only in C&C). THAT would be realistic to the C&C universe, not refueling... fuel.
And it would be balanced: If an Orca is shot for missles, then it is practically useless when it comes to "loitering" with the exception of normal infantry, so it would be a strategic element to either stay and attempt to fortify (although out of character for the purpose of aircraft) or to leave and reload incase your team needs support.
As for the snipers, when it comes to standard WS maps that were map for flying units, I would argue that snipers and flying vehicles are quite evenly matched. If you read prior posts, you'd understand why, so I'm not going to type it out again.
If the goal of these modifications is to recreate the C&C experience properly for Westwood maps, then snipers should be left alone, because they are a balanced unit for both Walls_Flying and City_Flying (see above).
HOWEVER: If the goal of these modifications is for mod maps, then by all means, do whatever you want. Just don't make those maps part of a standard rotation in a future WS patch (if ever).
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Unit Balance [message #87442] |
Fri, 14 May 2004 07:33 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
When did I say I wanted aircraft to refuel? I've never said they needed to do that. I only said they need to have limited ammunution and *rearm* at Helicopter Pads.
|
Thats my fault, I read "reloaded" as "refueled".
| Quote: |
The Orca had missiles. The Apache had a chain gun. Neither had dual weapons because they were specialized for a purpose.
|
Then for the sake of the C&C goal, you would have to eliminate the chain gun on the Orca and make it reload it's payload. You would also have to eliminate the payload for the Apache, but since that didn't have to reload, it would be given unlimited ammo.
Doesn't sound like fun, does it? But hey, thats how the game was played in C&C.
| Quote: |
Snipers aren't balanced, and saying "they're balanced" isn't a reason why they are or are not.
|
Well, then it's quite obvious that you haven't read a single post prior to your returning, because this issue has been argued over and over again. For that reason, I'm not going to waste my own time restating issues that have been mentioned time and time again.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Unit Balance [message #87609] |
Fri, 14 May 2004 18:57 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I will wager anyone a large sum of money that this thread will never become flame-free from this point.
If only people would stop picking fights with Aircraftkiller we could really get some actual opinions discussed on this thread other than something like this:
Person 1 - "I say snipers are perfect and I am l33t"
Person 2 - "No, snipers should have damage toned down"
Person 1 - "STFU you muther-f^*$ing n00b"
Person 2 - "What's your problem, b&tch?"
Person 1 - "You being a dumwad n00b!"
Person 3 - "ROFL at the b@bi3s!"
Person 2 - "Shut up both of you! NOW NOW NOW!!!"
Person 1 - How am I supposed to shut up with you being such a N00000000b!?!?!?!"
...and on and on and on.
P.S. Flame me if you want, I probably won't be coming back to this thread for a while.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Unit Balance [message #87618] |
Fri, 14 May 2004 19:12 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
NO URS R STFU NOOB U R NOT JUST A BIG JACKAS
|
Although I ould imagine he was being sarcastic, this is a little beyond the bounds of a heated debate. And it seemed pretty obvious that it was going to get worse.
Oh wait, I said I probably wouldn't be coming back to this thread for a while....
Damn!
Oh well...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Unit Balance [message #87626] |
Fri, 14 May 2004 19:24 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Well, I sensed a flame war stirring, as happens so often on these forums.
My personal opinion is snipers should be fr less effective against aircraft, on the basis that aircraft suck with snipers shooting them down all over the place.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Unit Balance [message #87631] |
Fri, 14 May 2004 19:30 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Like planes having to hide behind the big rock in Walls, then pop out for a quick couple rounds before having to duck behind cover? Or how snipers will camp up on top of the hill once barracks/HoN is gone and blow up any chopper that dares to be purchased? I think the idea of homing rockets and other alternative anti-chopper devices are much better and also sound more fun.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Unit Balance [message #87660] |
Fri, 14 May 2004 21:19 |
flyingfox
Messages: 1612
Registered: February 2003
Location: scotland, uk
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Some argue that it should only be poor strategy if the enemy has other anti air weapons besides sniper rifles and ramjet rifles.
I'm sure no-one would disagree that they're asking to be shot down if PICs, Raveshaws, laser gunners, rocket soldiers, multiple standard soldiers etc are afoot. But snipers.. seems shitty when there are proper anti air weapons available, such as rocket launchers that don't even do their intended job at a distance.
What DOES half-defeat the argument is if the aircraft are changed, the orca won't be a unit to remove the hill of snipers since it'll have only missiles.
(Also, thanks for the correction, I'd mistaken 90 health left on an aircraft as 160 damage, forgetting the health was set at 150)
|
|
|
|
| Unit Balance [message #87666] |
Fri, 14 May 2004 22:07 |
 |
m1a1_abrams
Messages: 375
Registered: August 2003
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
I'm confused, are you trying to argue that snipers should be toned down because aircraft (which are lightly armoured, which I'll say again) are being destoried because the top of the rockface is swarming with snipers when the HoN/Barracks are destoried?
If you KNOW the top of Walls_Flying has snipers on it, why would you purchase an aircraft anyway? So the aircraft can fly to the top and kill off the snipers? What if Raveshaws or PICs are up there, and destory the aircraft, or better yet, what if they're on the ground just outside the base? The aircraft can't leave the base without being bombarded by death.
Thats poor strategy, not poor balancing.
|
If you were saying "it's poor strategy to purchase an aircraft and fly into an area where you know there are lots of anti-aircraft units", then I would agree with you. However, that doesn't mean that I think that the presence of anti-aircraft units somewhere, should make the use of aircraft ineffective anywhere. If there are anti-aircraft units in the middle of the map (i.e. the mesa on Walls Flying), why shouldn't you be able to use aircraft in a different area of the map? You might want to use aircraft to defend your base during a ground assault, but using Walls Flying as an example again, a couple of snipers can kill you in seconds even if you are half the map away. That is poor balancing.
Anti-aircraft units shouldn't be able to cover such a large area because it negates the tactics involved, particularly when they have an instant hit weapon that kills in 5 shots, with 4 shots in a clip. You should have to move your counter units into position to deal with the threat, not just sit back and shoot them from halfway across the map.
|
|
|
|
| Unit Balance [message #87668] |
Fri, 14 May 2004 22:10 |
Phoenix - Aeon
Messages: 221
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
Have you noticed that all those that want the damage done to helis by 'snipers' be toned down are mostly flyers? Obviously they have beened own too and now here's the golden grail. They can tone down havoc's damage w00t! they won't be owned anymore w00t.
|
Errm, no. I'm all for the toning down of ranjet vs. aircraft and I never use the buggers, mainly because I just don't like them.
It can be safely said that anyone who is a regular sniper or pilot has a subjective view, well as an objective and impartial viewpoint on this issue I'd just like to add my agreement with the nerfing of ramjets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
