| Regarding Stealth Tanks [message #466574] |
Mon, 23 April 2012 22:02  |
 |
liquidv2
Messages: 3407
Registered: February 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
in the original, bugged points system, sniping a green-health stealth tank with a ramjet yields a person 22 points
at the same time it does, what? 5 damage?
my question is, why does sniping a stealth tank give 10 more points than sniping a green-health mammoth tank, which actually costs 600 credits more?
the system is bugged, but it is at the very least consistent with how it is bugged
except with stealth tanks; anyone have any theories?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Regarding Stealth Tanks [message #466612 is a reply to message #466600] |
Wed, 25 April 2012 04:07  |
Jamie or NuneGa
Messages: 954
Registered: June 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| liquidv2 wrote on Wed, 25 April 2012 05:20 |
nope; 5 damage to both stanks and meds/mammies/apcs/whatever
and yet for some reason stealth tanks give 22 points per hit, even though they cost far less than a mammoth tank (which only gives 12)
the question is why
i have a theory; anyone else aside from NuneGa have a thought? and has anyone played C&C 1?
|
My theory was a 1 second answer...
Curious to know yours
Jamie is a guys name in Europe...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Regarding Stealth Tanks [message #466631 is a reply to message #466574] |
Wed, 25 April 2012 07:57 |
|
liquidv2
Messages: 3407
Registered: February 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
it's not about changing the points; i'm just curious as to why
other tanks (lights, meds, flamers) have less health than a mammoth tank; why do they only give 10 points for being sniped?
here's my theory
in C&C 1 it's apparent that stealth tanks do not have heavy armor like light and med tanks do; they get chewed up by apcs and humvees/buggies, whereas other tanks can generally shrug it off like a case of fleas
since Renegade is an adaptation of C&C 1 it makes sense to me that stealth tanks should have had medium armor all along and not heavy
that means they would take more damage from snipers and bullet weapons like they did in C&C 1
the inflated points gained would make more sense because it would be closer to the bugged point consistency with all other vehicles
sniping a stank with a ramjet would give you 22 points and do 20 damage instead of just 5
apcs shooting stanks would actually do more bullet damage to them, more or less earning the points because their shots are actually doing something
the inflated value would be earned because the damage would be consistent
this, as opposed to an apc shooting a harvester or heavy armored vehicle and getting a pretty consistent points to damage ratio
long story short i think stealth tanks were meant to have medium armor, the class that resides between light (buggies, arties, helis, etc.) and heavy (tanks, apcs, harv, etc.)
woo hoo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Regarding Stealth Tanks [message #466762 is a reply to message #466574] |
Fri, 27 April 2012 13:36 |
|
liquidv2
Messages: 3407
Registered: February 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
odd
the pointmod makes true mathematical sense, but if what you say is true then the pointmod is flawed (or would be, in the eyes of Westwood)
fix it Spoony
edit -
i still think that stealth tanks having medium armor instead of heavy would be a good thing
then Westwood having them as a higher damage to points value would make more sense since more things tend to damage them (or did at least, in C&C 1)
since Renegade is based off of it and all
[Updated on: Fri, 27 April 2012 13:37] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Regarding Stealth Tanks [message #466789 is a reply to message #466574] |
Sat, 28 April 2012 03:52 |
Major-Payne
Messages: 561
Registered: March 2012
Location: Im actually MUDKIPS
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Percentage.
Taking all the health off a havoc/sak gives you 50 points, the kill gives 50 as well.
5/400 multiplied by 900
5/1200 multiplied by 1500
then add points bug to that.
It's all part of the big illusion that we perpetuate on ourselves and in turn is perpetuated upon us. When we believe, we engage the illusion. When we stop believing we shatter the illusion and shatter ourselves in the process. Because we are, part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Regarding Stealth Tanks [message #467562 is a reply to message #466574] |
Sun, 20 May 2012 11:50 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
missed this thread, sorry
its easy
points earned (if the point bug is fixed, that is) = based on two things. value of the target, and how much damage you're doing to it
stank = high cost and low health.
compare it to the med tank - similar cost, med has twice the health. therefore you get just over twice the points per shot against a stank than against a med.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Regarding Stealth Tanks [message #467774 is a reply to message #467628] |
Wed, 23 May 2012 04:20 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| liquidv2 wrote on Mon, 21 May 2012 11:36 |
when the pointmod is on it makes sense; that wasn't the point of my topic
i was wondering why the original points system is inconsistent in the case of stealth tanks
i thought that perhaps Westwood intended for stanks to have medium armor (more like they did in C&C 1) and that perhaps bullets and snipers were meant to injure them more than they presently do
it would explain why the credits and points gained for damaging them seems so inflated; if the damage were higher as well perhaps it wouldn't seem inflated at all
it might even seem consistent with the rest of the original, bugged points
|
have another crack at understanding this, liquid:
points gained by attacking a vehicle = how much it's worth (cost) and how much damage you're doing to it
compared to most other vehicles stank has a unusually high ratio of cost to health
obviously the point bug fucks this up somewhat, but the gist of it is still there
it costs about as much as a med, but only has half as much health
stanks don't follow different points formulas, they just have less health and more 'worth' in comparison to other vehicles, besides aircraft.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Wed, 23 May 2012 04:21] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Regarding Stealth Tanks [message #467780 is a reply to message #466574] |
Wed, 23 May 2012 07:27 |
Major-Payne
Messages: 561
Registered: March 2012
Location: Im actually MUDKIPS
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
5/200 is more than 5/1200
higher percentage of damage, points calculation is based on how much percentage of damage you to to an enemy. 50% = 25% of cost, 100% = 50% of cost, and kill = 50% of cost.
5/200 is 6 times more relative damage than 5/1200
It's all part of the big illusion that we perpetuate on ourselves and in turn is perpetuated upon us. When we believe, we engage the illusion. When we stop believing we shatter the illusion and shatter ourselves in the process. Because we are, part of it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Regarding Stealth Tanks [message #467785 is a reply to message #466574] |
Wed, 23 May 2012 08:27 |
|
liquidv2
Messages: 3407
Registered: February 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
points bug gives 10 points for sniping a green flame, light , or medium tank (costing 800, 600, and 800)
it gives 12 for sniping a mammy (costing 1500)
you're doing comparatively less damage to a mammy since it has so much more health, but still receive more points for doing so than you do with the others mentioned above
you receive 22 for sniping a stank even though it has only 200 less hit points than the light tank
stealth tanks have 400 hit points, not 200
5/400 compared to 5/1200 - ok, sure, makes sense
but then light tanks are 600, so 5/400 compared to 5/600
and the 5/400 gives you more than double the 5/600
why, if you're doing more damage as a whole to the light tank, does it give you less than the mammoth tank does
i don't get what you're trying to explain MUDKIPS
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Regarding Stealth Tanks [message #467788 is a reply to message #466574] |
Wed, 23 May 2012 09:01 |
shaitan
Messages: 727
Registered: April 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Giving a stank a heavier armor is a horrible idea. They weren't meant for 'toe-to-toe' tactics.
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Sun, 18 Jan 2004 07:38 |
I get along with people fine, so long as they aren't rejects who promised things that they couldn't
deliver on, or forum trolls who contribute nothing except to bloat the fragile egos of the same
rejects I despise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
