Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread
-
@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
You think the laser coming from that is about as strong as the laser coming from ACU chest?
Meanwhile when I use same logic for things that in fact matter you dismiss them as "real life lore". Your response.
For context the topic was: underwater units should not be able to get damaged by manually groundfiring surface of water above them, which is far bigger and more unintuitive problem than maser upgrade doing same damage as monkey (considering they are the same weapon).
-
Bro is unaware my problem is when people use realism as the central component of their justification
There is nothing being stated about laser on ACU being worse for gameplay, it's just whether it's intuitive or not. And my argument is that it is intuitive because ML has a fat ass gun that obviously looks intimidating compared to an ACU getting a dinner plate on its chest.
-
@mach said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
You think the laser coming from that is about as strong as the laser coming from ACU chest?
Meanwhile when I use same logic for things that in fact matter you dismiss them as "real life lore". Your response.
For context the topic was: underwater units should not be able to get damaged by manually groundfiring surface of water above them, which is far bigger and more unintuitive problem than maser upgrade doing same damage as monkey (considering they are the same weapon).
And you still somehow can't understand that applying 2010 logic to 3576 year weaponry is just stupid. I said it hundred times but why can't the payload used be capable of damaging or straight up diving underwater?
Also, there's way better case here considering how the weapons look lmao. Small laser on chest vs massive rotating gun on ML.
-
@cheeseberry this is now fixed on beta
-
@xiaomao said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
I said it hundred times but why can't the payload used be capable of damaging or straight up diving underwater?
Thrustless ballistic projectiles rapidly lose speed underwater, and explosions on the boundary between a gas and a liquid will put most of their energy into the comparatively less dense gas. Both of those statements will be as true in 3576 as they are now, which is why the battleship-sub groundfire debacle is so goofy.
Edit: Just to address the original topic it's silly to think you'll intuitively know how much damage any weapon does. It's a number you look at. Damage-per-second is the dominant metric, not time-to-kill.
-
@slicknixon hello, but in 3576 projectiles explosions are not what they are now, they affect matter at fundamental scale through quantum fields, so your argument is invalid, water will not protect subs from the shell.
-
I have not been able to test a few of the changes yet, but on paper a lot of them look like they're turning the game into a homogenized grey goo.
-
@tankenabard said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
I have not been able to test a few of the changes yet, but on paper a lot of them look like they're turning the game into a homogenized grey goo.
I actually liked Grey Goo. Was a good RTS despite how short lived it was
But yea, I don't like most of the recent changes. HARM no longer unique, mercies kind of a joke, Cybran nano, and more...
-
@slicknixon said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
@xiaomao said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
I said it hundred times but why can't the payload used be capable of damaging or straight up diving underwater?
Thrustless ballistic projectiles rapidly lose speed underwater, and explosions on the boundary between a gas and a liquid will put most of their energy into the comparatively less dense gas. Both of those statements will be as true in 3576 as they are now, which is why the battleship-sub groundfire debacle is so goofy.
Edit: Just to address the original topic it's silly to think you'll intuitively know how much damage any weapon does. It's a number you look at. Damage-per-second is the dominant metric, not time-to-kill.
How do you know it's thrustless? For all I know I was always sure that BS ammunition in SC used 2 phase propellant design. First it was the payload used for propelling it out of the gun and then second stage being activate upon impact with surface of a ship or water to push it even deeper inside. So that it can deal proper damage.
As such I have to rebute your statement about them being thrustless as to my knowledge they are not. All thanks to the nanite cybran design from 3439 implementing nano molecules which then nano-vibrate to propel the cybran shells deeper into the target or into specified water levels. With this idea being later on implemented by other factions in a ranging manner of designs.
-
@xiaomao
I kinda figured you'd go that route. My followup question is:
Is all the nonsense you just spouted intuitive to the player, or supported by/consistent with anything else in the game?
-
@slicknixon Yes. For all we know, game simulates everything, and all explosions are spheres, which will deal damage to anything in radius. So this behaviour is consistent with the knowledge about the game. It is expected that explosion will damage underwater targets because thats how simulation works in any other area of thr game.
-
It's also to note that only bigger explosions hit the underwater targets. And even then not all of them as some mexes tend to be effin deep on the bottom of the sea. So only tactical/strategic weaponry can reach them.
So yeah, it makes sense with how everything behaves.
-
Do you expect an explosion to damage what's inside a shield?
-
Shield is but a magical sci-fi device that somehow stops all projectiles from enemies(be they inside or not) while somehow letting your units shoot through it without problem(be it from insider or outside). Sound like magic to me compared to some good old H2O.
-
My question wasn't if the shields were magic or not.
Carrying on: if the shells don't go through the water, why do you expect the explosion to?
-
@slicknixon shields are the only exception, they make sense because they are designed to look like barriers that wont be penetrated by explosions and projectiles. And since water is not shield, it doesnt make sense for it to block explosions.
-
@tomma said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
And since water is not shield, it doesnt make sense for it to block explosions.
Are you familiar with what happens when objects hit water at high speed?
-
Y-yes. And why can we have lasers, teleporting ACU and stuff but not battleships being able to fire at targets that are slightly under the surface of water?
-
@slicknixon i dont care about what happens, its consistent with other behaviours in the game, its intuitive for me, so its good.
-
@xiaomao
Why not have them shoot through mountains and other terrain?
