Patch Suggestions

Information and discussion about Omega's patches for EE and EE:AoC (no longer in use or under development)
Locked
taco
Civ Nazi
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:46 pm
Lobby Username: taco

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by taco »

this thread should really b moved to aoc discussion or basement even..
at > tanks
marines > at
tanks > marines.. duh!(now at might not kill tanks as quick becouse of the cost difference between marines at's andtanks.
now upgrading attack or hp on the weaker/countered unit will better then chances, and to upgrade it in civ, and ingame meyb even beat it. every age has this triangle, some with larger triangles and some with smaller(figuratively speaking)
common sense, u should both use it imo

unless ur 1 of the following ppl who have proven themselves incapable of possessing it "peow silence xworrior faith"

User avatar
X warrior411
Nemesis
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:47 pm
Lobby Username: X Warrior411
Location: The Internet

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by X warrior411 »

At least I can spell Warrior right.

But yea,this thing has turned into a flame fest.
Image
Image

User avatar
Ghost
Administrator
Posts: 1894
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:25 am
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ghost
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by Ghost »

I think that with both Bonescorpion's stubbornness and retardation combined, 1000 people telling him that he's wrong won't stop him from arguing with us.
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."
-•¤Lazy Bone¤•-: we had to double ghost or we had no chance
•§ITHLORD§•(surfer): artylery give no many domage on aa mobile since 3 day

Bonescorpion
Basic Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:06 pm
Lobby Username: Bonescorpion

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by Bonescorpion »

Hey asshole, maybe you are the problem. I have proven all my shit. M1's can beat AT, and Marines can beat Tanks. Is it counterable? Yes. Does it take certain upgrades? Yes, but it is in within the simple confines of the game and because you cant get it through your thick fucking skull you call me retarded.
Just because the World told Columbus that the Earth was round didnt make them right.

taco
Civ Nazi
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:46 pm
Lobby Username: taco

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by taco »

i no ghost, but meyb its just me but there arguing over common sense, its not as if marines can never beat tanks, nor can tanks never beat at's etc, different upgrades and variables will either make it worse, or better for the countered unit, any1 who has played mod knows this.. just like any1 who plays mid knows that with the right upgrades knights can > ca, however if there is alot of hills in the map, the favor is still tipped towards the ca player even after knights become uber knights.
i only ask, if u are going to continue to post in this thread, say something constructive, non of this bs

User avatar
DJay
Full Member
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by DJay »

hi!

what about a popcap patch for multiplayer????

4vs4 on aoc large map is almost near imossible to boom!

so what you think about it?
Image

Captain Nemo
Global Moderator
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:23 am
Lobby Username: >Heros<=Captain Nemo*

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by Captain Nemo »

Bonescorpion wrote:Hey asshole, maybe you are the problem. I have proven all my shit. M1's can beat AT, and Marines can beat Tanks. Is it counterable? Yes. Does it take certain upgrades? Yes, but it is in within the simple confines of the game and because you cant get it through your thick fucking skull you call me retarded.
Just because the World told Columbus that the Earth was round didnt make them right.
Well you're absolutely right. Since the damage marines do on tanks is >0 they can kill them. Great thinking. Same goes for everything as long as they can infact kill them. You'd have to go with something like subs can't own sea kings if you want to find a unit that can't kill the other. Or most land stuff vs air. It's really that simple why are you argueing over it? Fact is AT>Tanks>Inf>AT in an even fight, end of discussion.
bosshaft: "A warm pussy is so much better than a dick! Trust me."

Bonescorpion
Basic Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:06 pm
Lobby Username: Bonescorpion

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by Bonescorpion »

Captain Nemo wrote:
Bonescorpion wrote:Hey asshole, maybe you are the problem. I have proven all my shit. M1's can beat AT, and Marines can beat Tanks. Is it counterable? Yes. Does it take certain upgrades? Yes, but it is in within the simple confines of the game and because you cant get it through your thick fucking skull you call me retarded.
Just because the World told Columbus that the Earth was round didnt make them right.
Well you're absolutely right. Since the damage marines do on tanks is >0 they can kill them. Great thinking. Same goes for everything as long as they can infact kill them. You'd have to go with something like subs can't own sea kings if you want to find a unit that can't kill the other. Or most land stuff vs air. It's really that simple why are you argueing over it? Fact is AT>Tanks>Inf>AT in an even fight, end of discussion.
But as it has been so eloquently posed to me, balance is not based on 1v1 but cost.
I am not talking about marines with normal attack, but a civ bonus on ranged infantry that allows marines to do enough damage to bypass the base tank armor. Tank armor can be easily increased in game to defeat this tactic, just like an M1 tank with a civ bonus on tank damage can take on base at guns, but once damage gets increased on at guns the multiplier of 2.7x (or 2.65 as somebody pointed out) rebalances in favor of the AT gun.
My point is that when dealing with amounts of units (not factoring in costs) there are units and upgrades that throw the normal RPS out of whack. The whole point of this is about how people dont like my tank armor increase that I suggested in the beginning of this thread. Mostly because it would so called create tanks that can kill at guns. The fact is that we already have that in the game. Disproving the argument in my eyes.
I think that a more appropriate RPS would be M1<AT>>>>German tanks>>>>M1
Add in that German tanks>>>>Infantry and M1's>>Infantry and it starts to get really complicated
I think we can all agree that German tanks are better against infantry then the M1, and that Max damage (civ upgrade included) marines can only be cost effective against M1 tanks which have the fewer hps (assuming that armor has not been upgraded).

ben55
Senior Member
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:49 am

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by ben55 »

You are saying x gets z when y does not. Of course it is going to give x a bit more power vs y, so you aren't 'correct' you are just comparing a car with NOS vs a car without NOS. And M1s do not kill AT in most scenarios holy shit get a clue they are hardly toe to toe or on par with them with attack in civ. M1s need to have 100+55 while ATs have base upgrades, and level 0, no morale or healing also numbers. Which are not game functions they are skill functions. M1s with attack may do well vs them compared to Marines vs M1s, but they are not = to AT unless they have distinct advantages which are caused by skill gap not cost/unit balance, so yes you are right we have tanks in the game that kill at guns, but isn't a balancing issue it is a skill issue.
"Nothing is impossible, the word itself says "I'm possible"!"

Bonescorpion
Basic Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:06 pm
Lobby Username: Bonescorpion

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by Bonescorpion »

Bonescorpion wrote:
Going to do HP's based on it taking 8 shots to kill for an AT gun and 10 for a M1 8*57 and 10*50 accounting for overkill
This gives the M1 10488 hp's and the AT gun 10000 (assuming 23 m1 and 20 at)

10488-1140 = 9348 or 20.5 M1's with still 21 shots available 10000-1150 = 8850 or 17.7 AT guns with 18 shots available
9348-1026 = 8322(-2.25 m1's) 18.25 M1's 8850-1050= 7800(-2.1 AT) 15.6 AT guns
8322-912= 7410(-2 m1's) 16.25 M1's 7800-950= 6850(-1.9) 13.7 at guns
7410-798= 6612(-1.75) 14.5 m1's 6850-850= 6000(-1.7)12 at
6612-684= 5928(-1.5) 13 m1's 6000-750= 5250(-1.5) 10.5 at
5928-627= 5301(-1.375) 11.625 m1's 5250-650= 4600 (-1.3) 9.2 at
5301-570= 4731 (-1.25) 10.375 m1's 4600-600= 4000(-1.2) 8 at
4731-456= 4275(-1) 9.375 m1's 4000-550 3450(-1.1) 6.9 at
4275-399= 3876(-.875) 8.5 m1's 3450-500 2950(-1) 5.9 at
3876-342= 3534(-.75) 7.75 m1's 2950-450 2500(-.9) 5 at
3534-285= 3249(-.625) 7.125 m1's 2500-400 2100(-.80) 4.2 at (Slightly edited to remove smiley)
3249-285= 2964(-.625) 6.5 m1 2100-400 1700(-.80) 3.4 at
2964-228= 2736(-.5) 6 m1 1700-350 1350(-.7) 2.7 at
Thats a 23 M1 vs 20 At scenario with no upgrades. Yes it assumes that all units target the same unit and that all units fire at the same time. I will say having used the M1/AT strat for years when facing the traditional Marine/At strat you concentrate ALL fire on the AT to eliminate the threat, so this scenario is far from out of the question. This scenario equates to 1.15m1:1AT. Thats pretty close to "toe to toe for me" I have been told all throughout this thread that M1's cannot stand up to AT guns in similar numbers. I have constantly shown that they can. My methods may seem confusing or scattered but I am not a teacher, I dont know what to tell you on that one!
My original argument that Tank Armor is not correct was shot down because people felt it would cause M1's>At guns.
I continue down this path to prove that M1's are very close to = At guns (in terms of units not cost) and that the argument against Tank armor causing M1's to kill their counter is moot. AT guns are not the counter for M1's, German tanks are. If upgading tank armor allows German Tanks to kill At guns, and or M1 tanks to kill German tanks, then I will shut my yap!

User avatar
PeLlE
Nemesis
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:44 am
Xfire: thepelie
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Pelie
Location: Bayern, Germany ^^

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by PeLlE »

How long do you want to continue this? I suggest you stop now.

My suggestion: Just give up
dreamwalker: i already clearly stated for all the english people that i dont play here
eeralf: ======???????????
eeralf: dont undersstand say it in street language
dreamwalker: fam mans already said im not gwarning wid yo shit on dis ting

Bonescorpion
Basic Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:06 pm
Lobby Username: Bonescorpion

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by Bonescorpion »

PeLlE wrote:How long do you want to continue this? I suggest you stop now.

My suggestion: Just give up
And why is that? I am not breaking any rules. In fact its people that have flamed ME. I flamed back but what do you expect?
Another non believer :D.

If people dont agree with me or disagree with me they will either ignore me or support me. The thread will die if people just ignore me!

User avatar
Ghost
Administrator
Posts: 1894
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:25 am
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ghost
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by Ghost »

Bonescorpion wrote:Hey asshole, maybe you are the problem.
I'd refute that statement, but I honestly don't feel like it because I'm going to refute all of your other shit.
Bonescorpion wrote:I have proven all my shit.
Too bad your "proof" is nonsense, therefore not making it proof it all. So, I'd say you've proven JACK SHIT.
Bonescorpion wrote:M1's can beat AT, and Marines can beat Tanks.
I'll admit, it's much easier for M1s to overpower AT than it is for Marines to kill tanks, BUT

On the other hand, marines have to GREATLY outnumber tanks (quite a bit more than 2.5:1) for them to be able to kill tanks. (If you couldn't tell, let me outline it for you: this is going to be my argument for this entire post, and this is why I'm calling you retarded.) At 2.5:1 there is no margin in cost, but at this point the population used by marines exceeds that of tanks, which ALREADY tips the balance in favor of the tanks. I'll address the whole upgrade issue later.
Bonescorpion wrote:Is it counterable? Yes.
What the fuck does that mean? What is counterable and what are you using to counter it?
Bonescorpion wrote:Does it take certain upgrades? Yes
M1 vs. AT - to a certain extent.

Now on to the fun part of Marines vs. M1...
Define "upgrades." I'll assume you're talking civilization bonuses PLUS the required attack upgrades for marines. In this case NO. Even if you have the "upgrades" for marines, tanks will still make marines their bitch. If the tanks are upgraded but have no civ bonuses (which is an acceptable and realistic game situation), marines need some kind of overwhelming advantage, as I told you before, such as much greater numbers AND hospitals & morale IN ADDITION TO the "upgrades."

With all of that being said, then I can repeat what Nemo said in saying that technically marines can kill a tank, but however that does not give you a warrant to say that marines can "beat" tanks.
Bonescorpion wrote:it is in within the simple confines of the game and because you cant get it through your thick fucking skull you call me retarded.
"It's" been inside my head, thank you very much, but too bad "it" happens to be the correct way things work while whatever the fuck you're saying is absurd. If anything, you're the one that needs to be getting something through your thick fucking skull.
Bonescorpion wrote:Just because the World told Columbus that the Earth was round didnt make them right.
Care to rephrase that?
Bonescorpion wrote:In fact its people that have flamed ME.
You're getting flamed because your arguments are so completely and utterly stupid. I gave you a totally outright and unbalanced example which without a doubt disproved your statements, yet you continue to rabble on about whatever you think the game should be like with illogical evidence bullshit.


@ the audience:
I might be slightly surprised if he even answers this post at all, since he usually just ignores the logical posts and spits out more retardation.
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."
-•¤Lazy Bone¤•-: we had to double ghost or we had no chance
•§ITHLORD§•(surfer): artylery give no many domage on aa mobile since 3 day

Captain Nemo
Global Moderator
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:23 am
Lobby Username: >Heros<=Captain Nemo*

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by Captain Nemo »

Bonescorpion wrote:
Bonescorpion wrote: Thats a 23 M1 vs 20 At scenario with no upgrades. Yes it assumes that all units target the same unit and that all units fire at the same time. I will say having used the M1/AT strat for years when facing the traditional Marine/At strat you concentrate ALL fire on the AT to eliminate the threat, so this scenario is far from out of the question. This scenario equates to 1.15m1:1AT. Thats pretty close to "toe to toe for me" I have been told all throughout this thread that M1's cannot stand up to AT guns in similar numbers. I have constantly shown that they can. My methods may seem confusing or scattered but I am not a teacher, I dont know what to tell you on that one!
My original argument that Tank Armor is not correct was shot down because people felt it would cause M1's>At guns.
I continue down this path to prove that M1's are very close to = At guns (in terms of units not cost) and that the argument against Tank armor causing M1's to kill their counter is moot. AT guns are not the counter for M1's, German tanks are. If upgading tank armor allows German Tanks to kill At guns, and or M1 tanks to kill German tanks, then I will shut my yap!
I have been told all throughout this thread that M1's cannot stand up to AT guns in similar numbers. I have constantly shown that they can.
WHAT??? We've constantly told you that your crappy math doesn't hold true one second in the actual game all variables taken out and mutiple testings with all same result: 23 Tanks will lose to 20 AT with about 7-10 AT survivors.

Oh and I guess you're right ANTI tanks probably arn't counter for tanks... MORON??? Did the guy who built this game make a mistake when making AT gun beat M1? Thats basically what you are suggesting cause the way the game was made, AT BEAT TANKS. Not as much as LEOPARD (wtf german tanks???) tanks beat them but concidered all the factors (cost, movement, damage etc) AT BEAT M1's too. Btw have you done tests on how effective tank armor is against AT? Cause without having done tests Im pretty sure tank armor is mostly effective vs inf and not AT, as AT already shoots through the tank armor. Upgrading tank armor will already make them a hell of alot stronger vs inf so why increase tank armor if it is to make them stronger vs AT cause if you want them to be stronger vs AT do hp or attack increase. And you know why? Cause that wouldn't make inf complete and utterly defenseless vs a tank, since an inf should infact in be able to kill a tank just slightly just as a tank should be able to kill it's counter just slightly. I feel like the only reason you believe tank armor should be increased is because you looked at the upgrade percentages, saw tank armor was lower and concluded the game developers made a mistake and thought you'd look cool if you pointed it out.
bosshaft: "A warm pussy is so much better than a dick! Trust me."

ben55
Senior Member
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:49 am

Re: Patch Suggestions

Post by ben55 »

Captain Nemo wrote:I feel like the only reason you believe tank armor should be increased is because you looked at the upgrade percentages, saw tank armor was lower and concluded the game developers made a mistake and thought you'd look cool if you pointed it out.
exactly what I was thinking.
"Nothing is impossible, the word itself says "I'm possible"!"

Locked

Return to “Patches”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests