Forged Alliance Forever

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-25T16:06:04+02:00

Ustin wrote:
I have another proposal to change HARMS. Ability to hit everything with everything is one of the main game features, so groundfire immunity isn't the best idea. My suggestion is to give HARMS limited ability to move(with speed 0.5 for example - 10 times slower them t3 subhunter and 5 times slower them battleships). Even such low speed should make groundfire more difficult(but still posssible), they still hardly can be use like regular subs and maybe this can make cybran navy better in late T3 stage.

Statistics: Posted by Resin_Smoker — 25 Jul 2014, 16:06

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-13T00:36:07+02:00

hi

just change change the hit box to the real place of where the harm is no big deal

Regards

Statistics: Posted by dstojkov — 13 Jul 2014, 00:36

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-08T23:48:05+02:00

Wakke wrote:
Ustin wrote:Ability to hit everything with everything is one of the main game features, so groundfire immunity isn't the best idea.

Meh, it's not like an explosion on the water surface damaging submerged units (at full damage) is logical.

At full damage, perhaps not, but given the depth of the units, a lot of damage can still be incurred depending on the size, type, and shape of the explosion. water is an incompressible fluid so it transfers energy rather well, and can be more than enough to damage some sort of underwater device. of course supcom does not need to abide by these rules however. in the scope of things it isnt very logical however because units like submarines are typically deep under water.

Statistics: Posted by BushMaster — 08 Jul 2014, 23:48

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-08T22:46:05+02:00

Ustin wrote:
Ability to hit everything with everything is one of the main game features, so groundfire immunity isn't the best idea.

Meh, it's not like an explosion on the water surface damaging submerged units (at full damage) is logical.

Statistics: Posted by Wakke — 08 Jul 2014, 22:46

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-08T19:13:22+02:00

Too complicated, and it change all game balance.
better try the immunity
fyi asf have some more armor vs czar beam. so you can add a really important armor vs other than torpedo/depth charge weapon.

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 08 Jul 2014, 19:13

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-08T14:47:51+02:00

I have another proposal to change HARMS. Ability to hit everything with everything is one of the main game features, so groundfire immunity isn't the best idea. My suggestion is to give HARMS limited ability to move(with speed 0.5 for example - 10 times slower them t3 subhunter and 5 times slower them battleships). Even such low speed should make groundfire more difficult(but still posssible), they still hardly can be use like regular subs and maybe this can make cybran navy better in late T3 stage.

Statistics: Posted by Ustin — 08 Jul 2014, 14:47

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-07T21:42:17+02:00

Or simply by remaking the game with Spring and adding all the necessary methods to do stuff?

Yes, i know it would be insanely difficult, but as a long-term project it could pay off.

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 07 Jul 2014, 21:42

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-08T08:13:18+02:00

Removing ground fire could be achieved by giving the units an armor class that is immune to all but torpedoes and depth charges.

Statistics: Posted by Wakke — 07 Jul 2014, 21:36

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-07T23:58:43+02:00

ok, just checked, harms indeed have stealth and t3 sonar does not have omni (just looks like it)i guess this is just a product of me playing few naval maps since gpg. EDIT: (i forgot about armour types so irrelevent chatter removed , althuogh im still not a fan a removing ground fireing) however, if it was considered a unit vs a building its stealth would of much greater use (no, not moving harms, still stationary).

Edit: now that i've wrote this i am unsure of what we are trying to accomplish here. it seeems to me we are trying to make it an effective counter vs anything without torps (or t3 navy? which would go against the standard cybran concept of turtling), forcing your opponent to make torp units to counter the harms. this just makes it seem like it would be rather poweful even with nerfed stats. although personally i think the bigger issue would be not having t3 navy yourself. judging by everything i've read, i would roughly equate the harms argument to the t2 stationary artillery argument. although i would consider the t2 arty far more useless at the stage you actually access it, and in need of a stat change more than the harms).

Statistics: Posted by BushMaster — 07 Jul 2014, 20:07

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-07T13:45:19+02:00

why eveone want to nerf harm HP alredy it is easy destroed by destro and subs. try it!

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 07 Jul 2014, 13:45

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-07T13:10:07+02:00

HARMS dont have stealth themselves o.o
lower HARMS hp and remove groundfire for HARMS and subs.

Statistics: Posted by CrayzyNath — 07 Jul 2014, 13:10

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-07T07:13:54+02:00

You know they have stealth already, right? Also, T3 sonars do not have omni.

Do you mean cloaking, perhaps?

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 07 Jul 2014, 07:13

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-07T06:43:53+02:00

ya, no hard caps, they would make absolutely no sense and would be the only unit restricted in this matter.... what if harms were given stealth? i dont play setons alot or maps where true navy battles actually happen, but since t3 sonars have omni and can move it shouldnt make it OP, and would make them a valuable target for the defending harms player, and would make it slightly harder to kill harms. just a thought but sometimes small/simple changes are the best...

Statistics: Posted by BushMaster — 07 Jul 2014, 06:43

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-07T05:07:41+02:00

Gorton wrote:
Hard caps would ruin this game like many others before it. No hard caps.
I would ragequit fa if an hardcap was implemented.

Only for a week though too addicted

Yeah I think there's an overwhelming consensus on this...

Statistics: Posted by sasin — 07 Jul 2014, 05:07

Re: So about HARMS

2014-07-07T04:55:35+02:00

Hard cap is a bad idea, honestly a major increased build time should fix this, and maybe other slight stat changes

Statistics: Posted by Aulex — 07 Jul 2014, 04:55