| a bug that isn't a bug... BHS please look before acting [message #110010] |
Wed, 25 August 2004 07:23  |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
this is from blazer's sticky on updates being planned...
"Snipers doing excessive damage to light armored vehicles (Apache, Orca, MRLS, Mobart) * "
from what i remember, that isn't a bug. the sniper was chosen as the weapon to counter these long range and hard to target vehicles. i recall westwood specifically mentioning that the sniper would be the counter to the aircraft when they added them. and for the long range vehicles, without fear of a sniper, they will be devastating.
please don't change that, it was intended to be that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| a bug that isn't a bug... BHS please look before acting [message #110060] |
Wed, 25 August 2004 11:54  |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
exactly. they chose the sniper rifle to do that damage.
if BHS were to replace it with something else, then fine. otherwise, the aircraft and longrange artillery will be devastating because no other units can get near enough to them to kill them off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| a bug that isn't a bug... BHS please look before acting [message #110086] |
Wed, 25 August 2004 13:37 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
sure it was their intent. they chose to take the easy way out and do it this way rather than fix their own code and do it right. those vehicles needed a counter and this was the easiest way to do it so they did. they made a conscious choice to do it.
i'm glad that BHS isn't planning to change it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| a bug that isn't a bug... BHS please look before acting [message #110105] |
Wed, 25 August 2004 15:21 |
 |
Toolstyle
Messages: 215
Registered: May 2004
Location: Manchester
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
You know that bullets can do alot of damage to lightly armoured vehicles in real life? The bullet ricochets around inside the vehicle and shreds it.
| Aircraftkiller |
That's irrelevant to this thread.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| a bug that isn't a bug... BHS please look before acting [message #110155] |
Wed, 25 August 2004 18:13 |
cokemaster
Messages: 144
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
PermaGrin, Don't forget Nod do get the Stealth Blackhand which has the laser rifle - that is fairly effective against air. Thinking about that, so is the Laser Chaingun.
The gameplay I am seeing more commonly is just n00bjetting. Not just using them against air (from 300 meters away) but against tanks... in some 40-50 player games, its just a race to get n00bjets (The server will remain nameless but a lot of people can probably guess).
The definition of a sniper (from my translator program) is:
| Quote: |
snip·er n
somebody who shoots at people from a concealed position
|
Now how does dancing in the middle of the map (flickering, another bug BTW) shooting at tanks and aircraft alike hoarding points (and doing little damage for relatively heavy armored units like Medium tanks, APC's, Mammoth tanks and Light tanks) fit the above definition.
People whine about proposed gameplay changes using the reason "It will ruin gameplay". Wake up, with n00bjets the gameplay has already been ruined. Toning snipers has been proven not to 'ruin gameplay' as proven in Renalert, snipers are still used - but they take SKILL to use effectively.
I'd like to see changes to alter the n00bjet, to tone it down. Knowing that there is a flaw is one thing, exploiting it as many people have done is another.
Remember, Friends don't let friends play Reborn!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| a bug that isn't a bug... BHS please look before acting [message #110194] |
Wed, 25 August 2004 20:28 |
 |
YSLMuffins
Messages: 1144
Registered: February 2003
Location: Moved a long time ago (it...
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Moderator - Mod Forum |
|
|
The scoring system is what should be focused on first before such balance changes. You shouldn't get so many points for doing so little damage (ie, with ramjets and tanks in green health). You get the most points from damaging vehicles into yellow, and from that point on you get little to no points until you destroy it.
Is there any real difference between the armor and health of a vehicle besides a drastic difference in the amount of points awarded? As in, do weapons do less damage to vehicles that have armor left than those vehicles that do not have any armor left? Is there some hard-coded difference? (In my experience with the preset library, C&C vehicles have the same shield and health type, unlike infantry.)
-YSLMuffins
The goddess of all (bread products)
See me online as yslcheeze
|
|
|
|
| a bug that isn't a bug... BHS please look before acting [message #110212] |
Wed, 25 August 2004 20:38 |
cokemaster
Messages: 144
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
PermaGrin:
Yes, while they are more expensive than their GDI 'counterparts' but they do have other purposes.
For the Stealth Blackhead, you have the obvious stealth advantage which most people know from experience they are often used to plant nuclear beacons.
Laser Chaingunners on the other hand are excellent at killing tanks, aircraft and men. However, the time it takes to hit the target is comparable to the tracking... you are dealing with near-instant hits from both Stealth and Laser Chaingunner blackhands.
Nod do have a reasonable anti-air units and yes their Rocket Solder should also track. GDI doesn't really have anything to the level of Nod in anti-air (unless their rocket infantry missiles track). Admittedly the range is a bit different, but Gunner and the Rocket Solder Officer are still open to attack by other men.
It is also interesting to point out, that the Personal Ion cannon and the railgun are BOTH effective at downing aircraft.
Remember, Friends don't let friends play Reborn!
|
|
|
|
| a bug that isn't a bug... BHS please look before acting [message #110220] |
Wed, 25 August 2004 20:54 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
Right... There was no easy way out, they had no development time left. They squandered it with the absurdly easy SP missions for about four years, and focused on C&C Mode for about six months.
It was not the intent of WS to make the game turn out to be shoddy and unbalanced. If they had allocated their time to better things, like perfecting C&C Mode, you'd have gameplay that wouldn't have alienated the majority of players in the first year of the game's release.
|
i agree. i'm sure in their minds this was going to be the best game ever and bug free with support indefinetly. unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. just like it didn't work out that way for their other games.
what i find to be funny is how much people bitch about EA games. if you ever read the generals forums, you'll see many people whining about how ea killed westwood and then put out shoddy games with no support. the fact is, westwood's support was never that great either. they also put out games which needed immediate patches and then patches to fix the patches and then within a few months, the support would dwindle to nothing.
what i'd love to see is a small development company which will make only a few games and then stay privately owned and provide the support that we would all love to see. but, i won't hold my breath. besides, i think i've gotten more than my $50 worth out of renegade and the other c&c games(even generals if you can imagine that)
|
|
|
|
| a bug that isn't a bug... BHS please look before acting [message #110317] |
Thu, 26 August 2004 06:28 |
spoonyrat
Messages: 406
Registered: December 2003
Location: England
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
I have actually outlawed "n00bjetting" on my servers. Result: better gameplay by far, no two ways about it.
(Havocs and Sakuras aren't actually disallowed, but players who spend the whole game shooting tanks for points, or buying a ramjet to bodyshot basic infantry, soon find themselves evicted)
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
