Script changes (including new bio cannon)

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by Sgt.Security, Aug 5, 2016.

  1. Sgt.Security

    Sgt.Security Member

    Messages:
    3,136
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing is final yet.

    Coming soon :
    tier-3 weapons for most of our tier-2 weapons.

    Owing to the fact that Biology does not have a cannon, this is the new bio cannon that I am working on.
    This is NOT final version.

    I would like Bio ML to be a little less hostile against infantry.
    It shouldn't be : Boom, you are dead.

    Other than that, I'd like Bio ML to be a little more "intense" against vehicle.
    I think intense weapons will speed up our vehicle combat interestingly.

    Don't have to explain this. But I really don't want to go any further.
    Lower guaranteed DPS will make our vehicle combat even more sluggish.

    For reference, SMG1 has 1.4.
    Courtesy of Lamer.
    A slight nerf for BEAR.

    I don't think BEAR is OP, it's strong but it has an obvious weak point (20 clipsize).

    Make it look less stupid.
    I don't think medium tanks are very imbalanced, but I feel that NF medium tank has a very slight advantage.

    Rework part 2, slight buff for SMG3.

    Falloff works all the time, so this is buffing SMG3's overall damage output.
    So max ammo would be a multiple of clip size.
    Same as above.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2016
  2. Avatarix

    Avatarix Member

    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, the Bio CN for sure will be an interesting addition to tank combat, but I'm not sure how will they work against buildings. Bio ML change is pretty good on infantry side, but will weaken it greatly in vehicle combat.
    HEMG buff? I always thought it should be NERFED (and what about this temporary change in weapon damage type to 1 from 2?). The gun should be against infantry and armor, there are still shrapnels, right?
    Weapon balances are actually pretty good, but SMG3 needs something else than damage buffing.
    And the NFmed tank nerf, very nice idea. It was too strong in mid-early game witht that extra plate of armor, and the weight decrease will be pretty helpful (what about 1079 weight?).
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2016
  3. Donald Trump

    Donald Trump Member

    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since there is a bio cannon, does that mean bio artillery? IF so, can you make bio clouds linger for like 30-45 seconds and then SOMEHOW give us gas masks to fight with? Have it be an equippable to prevent taking damage from bio. This would solve your Bio-ML being potent against infantry as well.

    Really, they are tanks. They should be strong against Infantry.
     
  4. Lazybum

    Lazybum :D Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    4,827
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What? Bio ml sounds like a nerf(it is by about 10 damage over time) but it's actually a rather nice buff. When you hit something with bio damage in the same place you reset the bio timer, not extend nor stack the damage. By making it hit twice as often(that's what that 0.5 interval means) you end up hitting for more damage in a shorter timespan, which means you can get more out of spamming bio ml at the same place. A more aggressive bio ml will actually help end fights I think.

    Bio damage does nothing against buildings, so bio cannon is pretty bad against buildings assuming security is keeping that .85 resist that most buildings have. This is fine to be honest, weapons shouldn't be able to do everything well.

    Where you getting this hemg buff? The only thing listed is hemg does .5 less damage now.

    You know you could also lower armor hp for all armors, then it would be fine if we didn't have amazing hitscan weapons. So empires could go back to being a little more skilled base with people having to actually aim cannons and missiles. Would help the whole infantry sucking against tanks thing too. It's been awhile since I last played but I swear hemg and the like account for like 50% of the damage people do anymore. Obviously not as much on heavy tanks, but if it's on there it's doing a lot of work.
     
  5. Avatarix

    Avatarix Member

    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I didn't know that one Bum, thanks for that.
    Aaand i misread this HEMG buff, kinda
     
  6. complete_

    complete_ lamer

    Messages:
    6,436
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    0
    oh man that smg2 change im jizzing buckets
    in months i might be able to get 2 values changed and decades from now i can be in charge of the entire SMG2 (this is what i would call it)


    i think biological cannon is the wrong direction to take.
    brenodi has many choices for cannons already, with plasma being the only one that is useless.
    bio ml, although a ml, is more of a universal weapon than one for nf. is it actually that good when two are on a heavy?
    i see bio ml like the nuke. something that can be used by both factions easily. you can technically fit 2 nukes on a nf heavy now but with the weight limit, can you really?

    i think a new ml is a better path to take. if you're actually interested in hearing an idea that may or may not be good i can post one but otherwise i dont want to waste my time typing something
     
  7. Varbles

    Varbles Simply Maptastic. Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree about bio ml being a somewhat universal weapon for either side, but I think having a bio cannon is good because it's exact use for each team is reversed. NF can add bio to their arsenal without having to load it in their pivotal missile slots, BE get another cannon option if they want to diversify one cannon slot on their heavies or suddenly switch research tactics to count an armor. Basically a mirror image of bio ml now.
     
  8. Sgt.Security

    Sgt.Security Member

    Messages:
    3,136
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well nothing is final. Headshot modifier is just something that I'll 100% change, that's certainly not all I have for SMG2.

    I have to admit that dual Bio ML is probably the worst build for NF heavy tank, especially if the user doesn't use different buttons for each bio ML, technically if you can hit.
    But NF has dual Guided and Homing, that's some decent choices too.

    We can certainly add a new ML along with Bio CN, not like we have a lot of weapons anyway.
     
  9. Sgt.Security

    Sgt.Security Member

    Messages:
    3,136
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bump to clarify that the changes mentioned in this thread are NOT for 2.9.X.
    Those changes will be implemented in next patch.

    Works in progress :
    1: The cost of most vehicle weapons will be increased (-10~+55), 3-slot weapons would be much more expensive.
    2: Most 2-slot weapons will have a 3-slot version, vice versa, the research would be separated.
    3: Bio CN and Plasma ML.
     
  10. Donald Trump

    Donald Trump Member

    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're going to need some version of Rail Gun in ML form.
     
  11. Sgt.Security

    Sgt.Security Member

    Messages:
    3,136
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Super fast ML?
    It can be 3-slot UML.
     
  12. Donald Trump

    Donald Trump Member

    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sounds good, could Railgun and that "Hyper-sonic Missile" be hitscan by chance so their projectile speed won't be affected by physics?
     
  13. VulcanStorm

    VulcanStorm Developer Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why?

    This seems dangerously close to just making both teams symmetrical in terms of tank combat...
    Here's how i see it:
    Firstly Railguns are flawed, they are rarely used by either team. This needs to be fixed.
    Secondly, railguns are viable for both teams, just in different ways... But my analysis of that is for a different thread,

    Haven't we already got uml and salvo that perform the same function as railguns, does the projectile speed really matter that much?

    But as a thought experiment? lets push this to the extremes....

    How far will this go? Is it just bio and rails that will cross disciplines? how about plasma? and perhaps even a salvo cannon? HE missile(not nukes)? it seems like the first part of a slippery slope to me...


    No. Not if you still want the weapons to be affected by physics... Might as well just make a buffed copy of HEMG...
     
  14. Sgt.Security

    Sgt.Security Member

    Messages:
    3,136
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am in for a super fast ML, because it's still ML.
    Also because it gives 3-slot UML a role.

    But I won't give it 3500+ speed.
    For reference, cannons have 3000~3600 speed, UML has 2500 speed.
     
  15. NekoBaron

    NekoBaron Member

    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I find hemg still retardedly OP, lowering the accuracy hardly makes a difference when hemg is usually used at close range anyway, its the damage output that is broken for it.
     
  16. Donald Trump

    Donald Trump Member

    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is symmetrical asymmetry. I am all for keeping the models big and clunky to promote asymmetry, as well as the types of weapons they use. There is a big difference in how missiles and cannons perform allowing for this type of asymmetry to still be present and come down to skill/situational. Having a cannon for every ml and vice versa is just a step to balance, but making the tanks fundamentally the same removes total asymmetry. This keeps asymmetry while essentially making it "symmetrical".
     
  17. Awpolt

    Awpolt Member

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think we'll ever be able to make everyone content with how the scripts are. Everyone has a different opinion on how it should be. In regards to balancing values, are we looking at what it would be like in RL, or exclusively for Empires?
     
  18. Avatarix

    Avatarix Member

    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well, empires looks like videogame which isn't focused on realism so yeah, point in balancing is to make game fun for most of the people playing
     
  19. Awpolt

    Awpolt Member

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are simulators out there but yeah, Empires is not one of them. As for "fun", that depends on who you ask and what they look for and/or want in the game. You could have 100 versions of Empires and each would have their own flavor of "fun". I agree, though, that we need to come together and collectively balance so that the majority of the playerbase can enjoy what this game has to offer. It is also in our interest to make it as such that we can recruit new players with relative ease.
     
  20. Devourawr

    Devourawr Member

    Messages:
    1,970
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am totally against making the vehicles size symmetrical. I like super lights, I like AFVs being big and fat with more armour. I like clunky mediums and sleek heavies.

    But maybe we should look at making both teams' heavies have 2x3 slots of MLs and Cannons. I really tried to argue hard against this idea, but really, it actually limits research options by a lot. A looooot. If it were just this change towards symmetry, would anybody really disagree?
     

Share This Page