AoAGeneral1 wrote: ↑ OpenRA is all one program with mods inside of it. We may disagree on how the game plays in other mods but its all apart of OpenRA. No reason to put people down just because they play RA. All feedback is welcomed.
feedback is important IF it is backed by evidence (in-game situations) as well as carefully considered thought based on playing experience (multi-scenario) and balance knowledge. Of course players of other mods will bring up new ideas cross-mod wise, ideas which originate from different plays from other mods. This is all good.
Let's make the example of a TD player (who never to almost never plays RA) would say: the RA Allies Hind should be much faster or have less hp or RA Allies artillery less range or anything which is more like in the mod he plays more often (the TD player) ... this "suggestion" is in no way backed by the mod-related entire picture of current balance settings in RA.
If i miss something here please correct me, but i can't see any useful value in the fictional example above.
It's not about putting other players down, it's about how much it can help.
@JAZZ: thanks for the technical support, this should help keeping track of evidences, ideas, progress, cross-references, ect... in a much more convenient way than by interpreting interpretable language.
All feedback is welcomed is not a fictional example. Its feedback. That I like to collect from anywhere.
You can use me by the way on RA suggestions and ideas for balances because I used to do that on and off.
--------
As far as evidence goes its not required unless its a critical piece. IE: If one says chem troopers need more HP because of artillery fire then I would say "Chem troopers are not the counter to artillery."
If the individual says Chem troopers need more HP because of grenadiers then I would look into the gameplay first then make a decision.
Not all has to be hard coded evidence.
------
Back onto topic as far as the air goes im already liking their turn speed increase a lot since they can face targets more quickly for firing.
Major Kusanagi Motoko, please stop trying to derail the discussion. If you don't want the TD aircraft to change then you should argue for that point on its own merits, not by shitposting the thread to distract the real topic.
Sleipnir wrote: ↑Major Kusanagi Motoko, please stop trying to derail the discussion.
excuse me, where / how did i do that ???
Sleipnir wrote: ↑ If you don't want the TD aircraft to change then you should argue for that point on its own merits, not by shitposting the thread to distract the real topic.
Dear Sleipnir, TD aircraft is among the units in TD which need profound changes since a very long time. I have no idea how you arrived at your interpretation on what i think though ... i consider your post as something i would define as shit post, because it discourages players who actually use TD air a lot.
Also, if you could do me a favor: please quote any of my posts you would define as shit-post, so i can actually contribute more effectively.
Back to the topic: This thread needs obviously more TD players to contribute in TD air balance. Posts by players who either never use air nor play TD often wont help this thread go anywhere is what im desperately trying to say. It seems you have missed that point as well...
Last edited by Major Kusanagi Motoko on Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
AoAGeneral1 wrote: ↑
Currently so far the unlimited ammo pool is ahead.
You shot yourself in the foot with your choice of poll options, because I intepret this the other way: 11 votes for keeping aircraft reloading the way it is vs 13 votes for changing the current behaviour. In any case the absolute number of votes is close enough to be meaningless, showing that the community who voted is evenly split on the idea.
It seems i have to ask this trivial question again:
What results are to be expected by collecting information about a topic from an audience who has very limited - if any at all - information about TD Aircraft ?
-----
I have to ask this question once again, because it seems that nobody here knows what happens if you have a combined airforce of apaches and orcas (due to engi cap a different faction's mcv (ally or foe) in teamgames).
Besides that, does the option of re-arming (flying back to a pad to reload just 1 air unit per pad at a time) harmonize with the current dynamics of TD ?
(TD game-play-speed, TD eco mechanics, TD maps, typical TD unit numbers, TD unit movement speeds, TD anti-air, basically everything in TD)
How will you implement the option for such a modified air unit that it should NOT fire its "higher valuable" rocket ammo on infantry, but just use the machine guns on lower priority targets and the rockets on higher priority / different armor class targets if you only have one right click attack order mechanic?
Major Kusanagi Motoko wrote: ↑
What results are to be expected by collecting information about a topic from an audience who has very limited - if any at all - information about TD Aircraft ?
They might become more interested in playing the game rather than think its a circle jerk
Major Kusanagi Motoko wrote: ↑
I have to ask this question once again, because it seems that nobody here knows what happens if you have a combined airforce of apaches and orcas (due to engi cap a different faction's mcv (ally or foe) in teamgames).
You have never asked this question on the forums but its a good question for big games. Possibly a point to test
Major Kusanagi Motoko wrote: ↑
Besides that, does the option of re-arming (flying back to a pad to reload just 1 air unit per pad at a time) harmonize with the current dynamics of TD ?
(TD game-play-speed, TD eco mechanics, TD maps, typical TD unit numbers, TD unit movement speeds, TD anti-air, basically everything in TD)
I personally don't think so but you never really know unless you try it out.
Major Kusanagi Motoko wrote: ↑
How will you implement the option for such a modified air unit that it should NOT fire its "higher valuable" rocket ammo on infantry, but just use the machine guns on lower priority targets and the rockets on higher priority / different armor class targets if you only have one right click attack order mechanic?
Pretty sure you are able to code this into the unit.
Sleipnir wrote: ↑
In any case the absolute number of votes is close enough to be meaningless, showing that the community who voted is evenly split on the idea.
I agree, I think right now this poll is inconclusive. Unless quite a few people come out of the woodwork to vote before January, I propose either releasing more aircraft mod maps or putting it into the playtest and implementing based on feedback
Mod map testing would be a nice thing but I haven't been able to figure out how to do it. Everytime I make the adjustment it says the map isn't compatible. So ive resulted into doing the altered file instead.
If the vote becomes inconclusive though I will keep the aircraft as non re-arming. But I recently started seeing as both the MG unlimited but rockets and the answer yes as both wanting to have a re-arm system. I do agree the re-arm should be tested though so I can alter the balances further.
