des1206
-
Posts
337 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4 -
Donations
0.00 USD
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Documentation
Bug Tracker
Downloads
Posts posted by des1206
-
-
Can we make these two units nominally a bit more different for the sake of Soviet / Allies gameplay style? Keeping overall DPS the same, but the RPG trooper can get a faster ROF with lower damage per shot to help him miss less against the faster Allied vehicles. RS with its lower ROF but higher damage per shot can adopt more of a "hide-reload-shoot" style versus Soviet heavy vehicles. Same idea for the Starla/Redeye since Longbows move fast while Hind has more armor and you need to hide from its anti-infantry weapon.
Edit: Maybe make the RPG troop run a little faster too to catch Allied vehicles (the RPG does look lighter than the rocket launcher), while the RS has slightly more HP/armor?
2 -
Right now when you hit a tank's rear spot it does more damage vs the front. But what if instead we let the damage directly pass through to internal health? This way if you keep on hitting its rear, a tank can be destroyed without even depleting its armor. Tank battles will involve much more flanking, spinning and attacking from the rear.
0 -
Or we can just cut Dome's health by 33% to make it easier to destroy, and therefore move it up the attack priority chain.
0 -
Vehicle Destruction - You know how when boats and subs get destroyed, you get ejected out and the vehicle lingers for a minute before exploding? And how helis don't explode right away either? I really like this mechanic. Is there an easy way to implement this for land vehicles too?
Mine Limit - Was Soviets on pipeline today when some n00b decided to AP mine the heck out of EVERYTHING in base. Unfortunately the mine limit was hit and we could not longer mine oil rigs offensively. In renegade old mines disappear when new mines above the mine limit are laid. Can there be a similar mechanic to address the problem above?
Thanks PushWall for reading this, I know you have limited time/resource.
1 -
Did nobody get the memo about how major development is over so anything that requires spending ages completely redefining the core gameplay will not happen?
Sometimes at night, when I lay in my bed, I still dream of driving around my chronotank, waiting for the intermittent GPS uplink to reveal AP mines, spy infiltrate the subpen for the one time sonar pulse to reveal Soviet subs, and planting cruiser strike beacons while fighting off paratrooper reinforcements.
2 -
Sounds like a job for Eggman891
Wasn't there a crazy map of some sort back then where units didn't do what they were supposed to do?
0 -
What happened to cruiser strike and mig/yak airstrike beacons? Let them be purchasable but only do 1/3 of damage of nukes so players can weaken enemy bases during attacks.
0 -
How about also make the nader free and available without bar? He will be like a sucky RPG trooper vs. vehicles, sucky rifle in the field (unless you have skill), sucky flame trooper in buildings. Jack of all trades, master of none.
0 -
What, do these pros of the Heavy just not matter?
- Having 115m range compared to the Medium's 110m - making it pretty great at kiting in spite of the speed difference
- Using the same "bad armour tolerance" damage type as the Light Tank, so it's actually getting a ~15% boost against light vehicles compared to the Medium - that means the Ranger, Artillery, Phase Tank and MGG, among other less important ones. Granted, Mediums don't have many light vehicles to fight where their "doesn't care about armour class" damage typing rears its head, but well-protected Tesla Tanks are one of their bigger worries. The only Allied ground vehicle the Heavy's damage type has to worry about (minus ~15% dps)? The Ore Truck. Oh no
Except every other Soviet AT unit (which are all either infantry or costlier than a heavy) doesn't have that penalty. - Having a harder-to-hit weakpoint due to the rear being partially covered by the fuel barrels which are damage neutral, and the front actually having some plates protecting its underbelly.
Not to mention all the crap I've been hearing about how the Heavy is sooooo much better than the Mammoth. Also this is how the Heavy's been since the dawn of APB, except before 3.0 it was $150 pricier than a medium and had harsher turret restrictions. Soviets already have better anti-tank infantry than the Allies, does their MBT really need to be that much better considering they already have a decent win rate?
Didn't know the increase effectiveness vs. non-medium armor. Point taken.
1 -
@Pushwall
Can we talk about the Heavy vs. Med? Currently the Heavy:
Pros:
1. Does ~5% more damage vs. buildings, but same damage as med vs. other vehicles (IF all its shots connect, see #3 below)
2. A bit better vs infantry (?)
Cons:
1. Slower than the medium
2. Can not aim backwards
3. Easier to miss when shooting (due to double barrel and lower ROF)
4. $50 pricer
So the heavy tank is essentially a slower, less wieldy, more expensive and less accurate medium tank. I feel this tank could use a slight buff of some kind. Technically Heavy should > Medium.
0 -
So increase the time gap for larger buildings
?
He means it will take the gunboat even longer to kill a building with more health than barracks, therefore we should use the naval transport and attack (i.e subpen) building with infantry instead.
Also, anyone else bothered by the fact that a $300 RS/RPG anti-armor / anti-air unit does more damage to building exterior than Shock/Flame/(soon-to-be) Volkov?
0 -
Hey guys, because I was bored and got some spare time on my hands, I decided to test out unit damage vs. vehicle and buildings in the game. Check it out:
Interesting to note that:1. Officer superior than Kapitan
2. Shock best vs. MCT
3. Flamer/Shock sucks vs. building exterior, even worse than RPG
4. Grenadier sucks vs. buildings, MCT or not
5. Volkov = RPG vs. building
6. Light tank damage is not bad vs. medium tank
7. Gunboat really effective vs. vehicles
2 -
Do Grenadiers have any good uses in non-infantry only maps? I feel other existing low-tier infantries already fill the unit's niche.
0 -
It had the exact same health and armour type as the med in RA. Giving it more armour is just asking to make allied infantry more useless. Med's price got raised to 900 for a reason. If you want a really bullet-resistant vehicle get a mammoth, that's what they're for.
I just tested it out again, they do the exact same damage to armor, but the heavy does slightly more to buildings than the med. I guess that is okay. Would have preferred for the heavy to do a little more damage to armor as well.
0 -
Can we make power plants do more than just control advanced base and AA defenses? That's all they do now, correct? Can there be scripts that increase build times when PP goes down?
0 -
Unless you're allies and get a spy into the Soviet radar dome.
Yeah what happens in APB if a spy gets into a Soviet radar dome again? If nothing happens, something should happen.
0 -
Can we talk about Medium Tank vs. Heavy Tank balance?
I did some testing and right now the med does the same damage as the heavy vs. vehicles & buildings, but is faster and more versatile. I assume the heavy is better at dealing with infantry with its dual cannons. But shouldn't the heavy have a slight damage or armor superiority vs the med? I mean, afterall it is called the HEAVY tank.
0 -
Chronotanks are different from Phase. They can get pass base defenses.
0 -
Given how the game is effectively done and W3DHUB will only do balance/map updates, I am assuming we will never see the Chronotank/Spy Plane/Mig/Yak in action? It's a shame since at least the Chronotank would have been awesome to play with.
0
Directional Armor
in W3D Hub Discussion
Posted
The reason I proposed this for tanks is because it will be much more noticeable to new players the difference between damage to front armor (armor depletes first), side armor (armor and health) and rear/weak point (health only). Just a thought here, maybe I'm over complicating this.
Also: Holy Hand Grenade Pyryle