5127 replies to this topic

[Zharakov]

So did anyone else see Speeder's tweet three days ago? It was about the Tesla boat. Perhaps we will see the Stingray as a new soviet naval unit next patch ;D

 

Mmmm remember that back in MO.1, was a really funny unit to use

[Zharakov]

Dev's remember this?

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=6uMuxMxFP5Q

 

We need this in Epsilon playlist 

Edited by Zharakov, 31 March 2017 - 12:46 PM.

[Bernadiroe]

We need to give Foehn their own gates.

 

For the gate itself could be:

1. Teal, flat and 25% translucent barrier with no pattern.

2. Teal, flat and 25% translucent barrier with hexagon pattern.

3. Teal, flat and 25% translucent 2 parallel barriers.

4. Grey, rectangular, joined 2 piece of metal gates with some teal patterns. The gates itself is not covering the whole bottom part.

 

For the opening animation could be:

1. The entire barrier dissolving starting from the top and bottom, towards the middle.

2. Hexagonal-dissolving pattern from the middle to the left and right.

3. Upper barrier dissolving to the left and lower barrier dissolving to the right. (or vice versa)

4. The gate slides all the way from left to the right (not from the middle).

 

Also maybe add a spy-detecting T1 unit for Foehn..? The one that can damage the spies.

Or not being able to detect and kill spies (can only stun using clairvoyance) is one of Foehn's unique points..?

[Atomic_Noodles]

Foehn already have gates. Check the early teasers, back when Foehn had Wind Belts they also had gates to go along with them. They have mines instead to supplement their lack of gates.

[doctormedic]

If i remember correcly doesnt ares support gates replacing walls?

[Handepsilon]

And indeed Gates can replace wall. Grids technically aren't wall, but they do work as one

[Bernadiroe]

Hmm I never used it since from the description it appears as if you need to repair it each time enemy stepped on it..?

Since you attack the trapped enemy and thus damaging the grids.

 

Also I do remember about Foehn's original wall-power plant, but at that time I thought the gate/wall seem far too similar to Epsilon's.

And then it end up non-existent in the final release... (I was mostly just disappointed about the gate tho, not the power plant since I was so confused on how to effectively use it)

[NorthFireZ]

Is it at all possible to reduce the costs of the Cryo copter or make it an Air pad + Mercury/Shield/Robot control center unit? For the tech unlock it should be, War Factory, Air pad, Control center. As it stands right now, the Cyrocopter does not slow the unit it is targeting until the half-frozen state, and it does not fire on the move. Making any unit able to quickly outrun the Copter's range before being frozen, with the exceptions of Nuwa cannons. At the cost of 1800 and arriving at tier 3, the Cyrocopter's usefulness is woefully low. Only by amassing three to five copters can a singular target be reliably frozen. However, why would anyone in a PVP scenario choose Cyrocopters, which are expensive to produce, over another tier 3 tank? The Charon tank, one of the best tier three monsters tanks, has the same cost as the Cyrocopter. 

I suggest reducing the price of the Cyrocopters to 1200, same as a Stormchild/Harrier, and THEN moving the unit down a tech level. Perhaps as a way to balance the unit's now reduced costs, reduce the health of the Chopper. 

Edited by NorthFireZ, 26 March 2017 - 11:54 PM.

[Damfoos]

Well, they still apply their armor debuff instantly even on first freezing stage. It is about 0.8 or 0.9, can't recall exactly, but you don't have to wait until real freezing kicks in. I agree though, it is hardly possible to freeze certain targets (like infantry) because they outrun the cryocopter, and the whole process takes quite a lot of time, and freezing buildings isn't easy either because enemy will quickly bring some AA, unless the base/expansion is being heavily assaulted already, but in this case standard units will be able to kill the base on their own anyway. Ideally the whole cryo mechanic would work differently, and instead of applying short debuff effects to the target based on current weapon stage of the Cryocopter (it uses gattling logic, its beam "speeds up" as it continues firing, and each new beam stage has a stronger armor/speed debuff) it would consider the state of target, so if it is already half-frozen you would only need few more seconds to completely freeze it, regardless of when the cryocopter begins to do its job. Right now once the beam is off, the target immediately restores its normal state, so you have to stay on target for quite a while, otherwise you will never freeze it. But I don't think it is possible to rework the beam so it would work closer to RA3 version, so either it needs a faster speed-up to make deeper freezing possible, or a price/tech level reduction indeed.

[NorthFireZ]

Ha, I wish it worked alike the Cyro Copter in RA3. That unit had a whole myriad of usefulness. Five of those bad babies can freeze an MCV in seconds. Not to mention units stay frozen after the beam breaks off. Funny thing is, that unit only cost 1600 credits.

[Gameman112358]

The Cryocopter in MO isn't nearly as useful as it is in RA3. If you ask me, I can understand why they'd weaken it (like you mentioned NorthFireZ, 5 Cryocopters in RA3 can freeze your MCV, your most important vehicle, in a couple of seconds. And it only needs one shot to take it out after that. That screams balance problems, right there, especially since I remember people would often play Allies because of the Cryocopter alone), but I think they went overboard nerfing the Cryocopter in MO.

 

The main problems are:

1. In RA3, it required Heightened Clearance, which is essentially T2. In MO, it requires the Allied Tech Center, which is T3 (Good luck getting there if your enemy has been harassing you all game...).

2. The freeze ray is overnerfed compared to RA3's freeze ray; RA3's Cryocopter freezes infantry near instantly, taking longer for vehicles and buildings, and it's really damn fast, meaning that not many units are going to outrun it. MO's Cryocopter can't even freeze basic infantry without a long period of time, and it's really freaking slow (Can it fire on the move, at least?).

3. Cryobeams don't stack, meaning multiple Cryocopters on a target won't freeze it faster, unlike in RA3, where having multiple cryobeams on a target will make it freeze faster. This might be one of the main problems for MO's Cryocopter; it's essentially what happens if you use only 1 Cryocopter in RA3 to freeze a target.

4. The effect of freezing wears off near instantly if the Cryocopter redirects its beam. That doesn't really make much sense, and it makes it difficult to keep a target locked down for a long period of time. Not mentioning trying to do it in the heat of battle. 

 

Solutions for each respective problem:

1. Make it require War Factory + subfaction Control Center instead of an Allied Tech Lab. Adding the airpad as an additional requirement is a little overkill if you ask me. 

 

2 & 3. Substantially increase the cryobeam's freezing speed. You don't have to make the debuff stronger; just make the cryobeam reach that debuff much faster. Since you can't stack Cryocopter beams in MO, the weapon needs buffs to account for this loss (Though thinking about it, increasing the cryobeam's effectiveness against one type of unit will make it overall better against everything due to the mechanics of it; say we buff it to the point that it instantly freezes infantry, right? Wouldn't that mean it could also do the same to every other unit in the game? Or am I missing something here?). Also, make the Cryocopter much faster; the Cryocopter is not a Wolfhound; it's not laden down with tons of bullets, missiles, and armor. It seriously shouldn't be almost as slow as one.

 

4. Make the effect last for a very long time, to the point that even if you redirect the beam, it will take quite a while for that unit to get back in the fight. Make the effect last for 30-35 seconds with the beam gone, or something like that. Means that you can use it to lock down really dangerous targets and keep them out of the fight for a while. Perhaps also make the effect gradually go away, instead of instantly disappearing (not sure how to code that in though).

 

It's not $1800, btw. The price, according to the wiki, is actually $1400. So it's actually slightly cheaper than its incarnation in RA3. But yeah, I never see people use this thing, and I myself struggle to find a use for it. I'm almost tempted to try modifying it to freeze much faster and seeing if it's really OP enough that the devs are hesitant to buff this thing. As it stands though, it's about as useful as Eureka, which is NOT AT ALL.

 

Also, thinking about it, it leads to a bit of a unit comparison (and possibly lore) problem when you compare the Cryocopter to the PF's Norio and Blizzard Tanks; those things freeze units instantly; Norio's freeze ray instantly makes infantry slow to a crawl (essentially freezing them), and Blizzard Tanks instantly slow down whatever gets hit by its cryobeam (again, essentially freezing them), why can't the Cryocopter, which is dedicated to freezing targets, be better than those two things at freezing targets? The Cryocopter not doing damage is bad enough, but it can't freeze stuff better than Blizzards and Norio... that doesn't sound right, don't you think? (Is it due to balance that they can't buff them? I'd be surprised if that's the case, since no one uses Cryocopters because they're weak, slow, and not doing their job properly.)

[Asylum]

Speaking of the Cryocopter, I had an idea recently. 

 

Since the Pacific Front controlled the Mercury Uplink in S08: Death From Above, how about giving them some space-based weaponry of their own — by reviving 3.0's Cryofield, which could be a lot cooler (no pun intended... honest ) with 3.3's freezing effect.  Aside from slowing targets (which could make Zephyrobot, something I currently find utterly useless, potentially a lot more interesting), it could apply a similar logic and animation to the Cryocopter -- and then you could fly in a few of those to finish (or maintain) freezing of the targets.  Hell, maybe it could even apply a buff to nearby Cryocopters, like the Mercury strike does for Athenas.  For that matter, if the slowing effect was allowed to stack with a Hummingbird... but now I'm just getting ahead of myself. 

 

Seriously, although I'm ripping off a few ideas from the US tech tree, I think this could be a nifty way to make the Zephyrobot useful for once (without totally relying on the enemy not paying attention to their tanks), and Cryocopters more useful than they already are. 

 

I disagree with the previous post, since I doubt Gamerman has ever tried grouping a few Cryocopters with a pack of Rocketeers, and the Blizzard's freeze effect is completely different.  That said, I am kind of surprised if the Cryocopter beam actually doesn't stack.  One could possibly also make the case that they would be used a lot more often if made available with just an AFCHQ and/or MU/SC/ROCC — particularly since, by the time an Allied player reaches T3, Cryocopters will almost certainly be the last thing (if included at all) in their build order, a much lower-priority than monster tanks, AA, and artillery.  I could certainly imagine building them on T2/T2.5 though, since they're likely to be a lot more influential when the enemy hasn't deployed their T3 AA yet. 

 

* * *

 

On an unrelated note: the Black Widow disabling radar is ridiculously annoying — not even because I care that much about my minimap to begin with, but because of the noise of it going on and off every few seconds.  If there's a way for it to just make all friendly air units radar-invisible, maybe that might work better.  Also, I think the radar deactivating is mostly counterproductive, since it actually serves as a cue to the targeted player that a major airstrike is incoming (thus making the radar-invisibility of Barracudas and Stormchildren a completely useless advantage, whereas it might otherwise provide an element of surprise — and making the stealth effect of the Black Widow less handy, since it's immediately clear that it was deployed nearby your radar).  Other than that, it's an extremely useful SW. 

 

* * *

 

Wallbusters are also damned annoying, and ridiculously OP in terms of cost if defenses are massed at all — which means, forget about even bothering to build a Coordnode, or blocking a chokepoint with walls and defenses, or even taking the time and effort to wall your ****ing ConYard at the beginning.  That last one, alone, is incredibly frustrating, since it makes defending the Conyard, Radar, and T3 lab from engineer rushes or infiltration *much* more difficult — not to mention what absolutely inevitably happens if the Chinese player has an ally with a driller.  And as though walls were overused in other situations to begin with.  I guess it's frustrating in general and discourages players from building any defensive structures at all, since those can only be built one at a time and have to be placed individually, before being erased in two clicks by someone playing China. 

 

I'm also not sure the Wallbuster really solves China's need for long-range artillery, considering it's still a single SW with a cooldown, just like the Centy is a single unit.  One possible alternative is a seismic tank (iirc WW did concept art for something like that) working something like the hammer defense.  Another is a mortar infantry.  Incidentally, I personally find Mortar Quads almost useless in their current role — since their weapon is practically guaranteed to miss if the target is moving, and they're easy to counter with a few anti-infantry units.  Tesla Troopers, Flakkies, and Catas are so much more reliable in practically all situations, so I'd tentatively suggest moving Mortar Quads to China as an anti-structure artillery unit. 

[Asylum]

Oh yeah, some map-related questions/thoughts:

 

Could some of the maps for singleplayer and co-op missions be converted to skirmish/MP maps?  With some adjustments to resource distribution and player start locations, I think several of them could make for interesting battles, albeit not fully balanced ones.  Plus it would be cool to fight massive battles over cities like Chicago (before and after the MIDAS), or London (before and after being wrecked by Irkalla), or Washington/Stalington... particularly if those maps could be expanded to incorporate the different parts of the city that were used for different missions.  Just an idea, though it would be a bit of work to design those properly... plus it might be worth waiting until the end of Act Two, and/or FA2 compatibility (since I imagine various members of the community such as myself might gleefully take care of that project themselves). 

 

Anyway, converted/redesigned mission maps could be placed in a separate Asymmetric game mode, along with the few current non-fortress maps which actually appear imperfectly balanced (such as May Day, Sedona Pass, Heck Freezes Over, and several of the 3p maps).  Personally I find it a little boring if *all* the maps are exactly identical on both sides — and asymmetric maps could be used primarily for comp-stomp anyway.  That could also enable the return of maps which were in MO2 or YR, but excluded from MO3 due to imbalance. 

 

Which reminds me, I believe Speeder asked at some point for map suggestions, so I have to say that I was surprised so many of the 2.0psi maps were left out — I had a lot of favourites from that bunch. 

 

* * *

 

By the way, could this map be added to MO3.3?  It's a remake of Sub-Zero (6) from RA3 — and with the new tech buildings, it could become an even more accurate recreation by placing a tech machinery, academy, aeronautics, and/or defense bureau on each side, possibly along with some tech defenses.  The uploader made a bunch of other interesting-looking maps. 
 

* * *

 

Would it be possible for to have a tickable option to allow a wider colour selection in MP?  While I agree with the concerns over minimap visibility, it seems like a lot of players are unfazed by that and would rather pick from more colours anyway. 

 

* * *

 

Speaking of maps, I'll just throw this out there.... 

 

I think it's safe to guess that the Coronia is supposed to be some kind of massive airborne battlestation (like the SHIELD Helicarrier or the Valiant in Doctor Who).  But it occurred to me a while ago that, thanks to OmegaBolt's LTX, it could actually be feasible to create maps for battles to be set ON BOARD THE CORONIA.  

I can imagine it already: thin air fading to hues of light orange and mauve as the sun sets on the flying fortress... steam rising around the edges of the station from the gargantuan engines underneath... clouds floating serenely beyond, as far as the eye can see... and of course a ****ing enormous fleet of Salamanders, Basilisks, and mind-controlled Kirovs and Thors approaching from the distance. 

It's just too bad I have no artistic talent. 

[NorthFireZ]

My bad on the pricing, the Cyrocopter just felt more expensive that it is. I think I can summarize the proposed changes to the Cyrocopter here.

1: Reduce the tech level required to build the Cyrocopter. Either Warfactory + Airfield + subfaction building. Or warfactory + subfaction building.
2: Increase the fire rate of the Cyrocopter and give it an effect similar to the Gatling tank. Thus, no more infantry walking out of Cyro beam range with no concern.
3: Make the Frozen state last longer. Not the half frozen state, just the fully frozen effect. I do believe this can be done because in the PF challenge, there was a status effect where all units were affect by the frozen state for a long period of time.
4: Improve the speed of the Cyrocopter, maybe to a similar speed to the Warhawk.

With these changes we can #makealliesgreatagain

[X1Destroy]

Whenever I play US, I wonder why Cryocopter exist at all. There is already the targeteer friendly ROF buff from warhawk. And unlike the cryocopter it can kill stuffs by itself.
In 3.0 we didn't need a debuff unit like this and it's the same for now. Why should I waste so much time trying to freeze an infantry or turret when I can just destroy it by using more of the usual units?

[aethiraes]

Someone needs to do the math. Maybe the Cryocopter becomes more cost-effective after a certain number of units are built.

[CLAlstar]

Warhawk wont allow you to make surgical strikes. Warhawks wont allow you to disable enemy defenses and buildings. Warhawk wont make a single jet destroy any buildings in the game.

Cryocopter can do all of those. I always add them to my air groups.

[Gameman112358]

Can someone confirm if the Cryocopter's weapon stacks? Basically, do multiple Cryocopters increase the rate the enemy freezes? Because if it doesn't, then it needs a buff to its cryobeam in terms of freezing speed. Right now, no one uses them, and quite frankly, I can't exactly fault them, given that its performance from my experiences is pretty bad.

 

It takes a while to disable anything with the cryocopter, quite frankly. If the enemy somehow doesn't notice the Cryocopter slowly freezing something in the time it takes and respond accordingly, that's the opponent's problem for not paying attention, not because the Cryocopter's weapon is actually good. And by the time you get it, the enemy could probably down it pretty easily, since T3 AA (Aeroblazes, Sentinels, Oxis+Gatlings, etc) are available at that point and can bring it down fast. Doesn't help that it's not very fast, meaning they can't turn tail and run (RA3's Cryocopter was actually pretty damn fast, now that I think about it).

[DarkEmblem]

Can someone confirm if the Cryocopter's weapon stacks? Basically, do multiple Cryocopters increase the rate the enemy freezes? Because if it doesn't, then it needs a buff to its cryobeam in terms of freezing speed. Right now, no one uses them, and quite frankly, I can't exactly fault them, given that its performance from my experiences is pretty bad.

 

It takes a while to disable anything with the cryocopter, quite frankly. If the enemy somehow doesn't notice the Cryocopter slowly freezing something in the time it takes and respond accordingly, that's the opponent's problem for not paying attention, not because the Cryocopter's weapon is actually good. And by the time you get it, the enemy could probably down it pretty easily, since T3 AA (Aeroblazes, Sentinels, Oxis+Gatlings, etc) are available at that point and can bring it down fast. Doesn't help that it's not very fast, meaning they can't turn tail and run (RA3's Cryocopter was actually pretty damn fast, now that I think about it).

 It doesn't stack.

[doctormedic]

Since when did we have a defeat theme for the score screen?