Home » General Discussions » General Discussion » Mammoth Tank improvements - "Making that thing worth it
| Mammoth Tank improvements - "Making that thing worth it [message #83459] |
Mon, 26 April 2004 10:08  |
 |
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Here's a list of improvements I've made for the Mammoth Tank in several levels which have received almost no balance complaints. Most people love buying something that's worth the credits.
Cannon\Mammoth Tusk missile range increased to 110 meters.
Cannon damage upgraded to 85 points of Shell warhead.
Also, making the tank fire in quick succession instead of "bam, bam, bam, bam" over and over would make it a bit more powerful.
[Updated on: Mon, 26 April 2004 10:22] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mammoth Tank improvements - "Making that thing worth it [message #83472] |
Mon, 26 April 2004 10:38  |
 |
Deathgod
Messages: 504
Registered: February 2003
Location: The House of B
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I already fear Mammoths, you must be around shitty drivers all the time to think they suck. Making their most damaging weapon outrange antivehicle infantry is a great plan, I have to say. Oh wait, I forgot that only rockets can be used against vehicles now. Better change Rav and Sydney to have a gun that shoots a laser beam that you can draw on stuff with and does no damage, because their role just got negated to recon.
No air units should be able to fuck with this mammoth, either, now that it has 220% their range. That seems sensible, but snipers definitely shouldn't be able to shoot aircraft down.
Almost twice the range of stealth tanks? Well they're cloaked so it's only fair that if you DO see them you should be able to kill them in 4 or 5 shots from almost twice their range.
Flamers? Who uses those anymore? With almost THREE times the range now, plus more damage, they're only going to be useful before people can afford a mammoth. I guess you could still use light tanks, even though they're outranged by 10% and do about 70% as much damage and have half the health.
Essentially you're making it so the only effective counters are rocket soldiers, which we established in the other thread don't do enough damage to vehicles and are apparently tough to hit with, and artillery, which are fragile. Good plan.
I also see this as a way to make camping sound better for people, if it's applied globally. There's already quite enough of that on Hourglass and Field especially, let's not make it worse.
WOL: priestofb
FUD Online for Renegade character details
The preceding post was sponsored by FUD.
We are the way, you are in the way.â„¢
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mammoth Tank improvements - "Making that thing worth it [message #83481] |
Mon, 26 April 2004 10:50 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Mammary tank should be able to do all the things mentioned in Ack's post, but I disagree with speeding up rate of fire. The steady bam bam bam fits the Mammoth profile of strong, steady juggernault. An armor upgrade at the very least I would say, if we can agree on nothing else.
That, and the missiles should be able to self-track on aircraft just like in the game.
Maybee even just allowing it to fire the missiles AND the cannon at the same time would be enough.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mammoth Tank improvements - "Making that thing worth it [message #83498] |
Mon, 26 April 2004 11:59 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I'd agree that the Mammoth Tank isn't as powerful as it should be for its huge price tag. Mammies are useless in Field unless you control the field, otherwise the Nod arties and light tanks can plink away at you quite a bit before you even reach them.
My opinion is that the health/armor stays that same, about 20-30% more range on the ammo, and have it do more damage... say about 20% more of that, too.
I don't really agree with the "it works if you know how to use it". While I'm one of the ones who does actually know when to use a mammy and how to use it, we all know there are a lot of n00bs out there. So if some n00b says "oooh big tank" and buys it, they won't hurt the team as much if they can get a little more bang out of it.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mammoth Tank improvements - "Making that thing worth it [message #83572] |
Mon, 26 April 2004 17:16 |
flyingfox
Messages: 1612
Registered: February 2003
Location: scotland, uk
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
I'm not saying make their rate of fire faster, I'm saying have the cannons fire in quick succession: "bam bam" instead of "bam, bam, bam, bam" which is a bit too powerful and allows it to siege something way too easily.
|
How can you say this when you've just said it be changed to "bam bam" to make it more powerful? Are you suggesting that it be made more powerful than it already is, which is too powerful? I don't get it.
Also: http://renegade.the-pitts.net/index.php?s=2b65f69269446feb5593fb050dc394db&act=ST&f=2&t=5801&hl=mammoth&st=15
Scroll down to your first reply. You said it's a badass motherfucker and basically it kicks ass. What is it now? That it's a badass motherfucker that kicks ass and outclasses every other vehicle, but it's not good enough for it's price tag?
Aircraft really need to be within the mammoths short missile range to be able to missile the mammoth. Their missile ranges are short too, and it evens out.
The tusk missiles fire faster than any vehicle, effectively making it the best vehicle in 1 on 1 combat. The only vehicle that does more damage in a single shot than a mammoth is an artillery, and at that, the mammoth fires at a faster rate, roughly 2 shots for an artillery's one. It also has more armour. It can hit the battlefield safety with engineer support and own everything. It can make the difference and greatly help the team take the field again.
People say "But Nod vehicles can plunk away at it from a distance while it can't do much in return!". Well, that happens to every vehicle. And of course the mammoth'll take the worst of it: it's a slow moving vehicle that can be hit a lot more easily. No change to it except size and speed will deter from that fact. And artillery happen to be built for the purpose of plunking away at a distance. That's the only vehicle you can argue that "plunks away from a distance" because every other vehicle is within range of it's standard cannon shots.
Also: When people argue to change the mammoth, or any other unit for that matter, they always seem to argue from the victims stance. I've never seen "I damage that unit too quickly and I don't think I should be able to. I think this unit needs to be changed."
Please don't change the mammoth. It's good enough as it is.
|
|
|
|
| Mammoth Tank improvements - "Making that thing worth it [message #83574] |
Mon, 26 April 2004 17:28 |
|
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
*sigh*
I said that months ago. You think it's not possible that my opinion can change in the span of five months, or are you just gullible enough to believe that I'm an inanimate object that cannot grow or become anything else?
What I said THEN has little bearing on what I'm saying right NOW... Why? Because I'm not a politician and I'm not supposed to give you "opinion updates" so you know that my stance on certain subjects has changed.
| Quote: |
Aircraft really need to be within the mammoths short missile range to be able to missile the mammoth. Their missile ranges are short too, and it evens out.
|
No, it doesn't, because the Tusk missile packs can't aim up or down, thus making it impossible to hit any aircraft that flies directly overhead.
| Quote: |
The tusk missiles fire faster than any vehicle, effectively making it the best vehicle in 1 on 1 combat. The only vehicle that does more damage in a single shot than a mammoth is an artillery, and at that, the mammoth fires at a faster rate, roughly 2 shots for an artillery's one. It also has more armour. It can hit the battlefield safety with engineer support and own everything. It can make the difference and greatly help the team take the field again.
|
...Not really. The Mammoth Tank is still outclassed by a lot of other units, when it should be the strongest of them all. That's why it costs $1,500. Otherwise we should tone it down to $1,000 because it's useless at its current price in amost any situation.
It can't make much of a difference because of the enormous amount of points it gives off, in addition to all of its weaknesses.
| Quote: |
People say "But Nod vehicles can plunk away at it from a distance while it can't do much in return!". Well, that happens to every vehicle. And of course the mammoth'll take the worst of it: it's a slow moving vehicle that can be hit a lot more easily. No change to it except size and speed will deter from that fact. And artillery happen to be built for the purpose of plunking away at a distance. That's the only vehicle you can argue that "plunks away from a distance" because every other vehicle is within range of it's standard cannon shots.
|
That isn't the point here.
| Quote: |
Also: When people argue to change the mammoth, or any other unit for that matter, they always seem to argue from the victims stance. I've never seen "I damage that unit too quickly and I don't think I should be able to. I think this unit needs to be changed."
|
That's probably because IT DOESN'T DAMAGE WELL ENOUGH. Ever think of that, champ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mammoth Tank improvements - "Making that thing worth it [message #83622] |
Mon, 26 April 2004 18:53 |
|
|
About the mammoth tank cannon, it should have a "loaded right now" limit of 2 (like how the pistol only has 12 shots loaded at once).
Then make the time between firing fast.
Then, make the time it takes to reload slower.
Thats how it should work (IMO, I dont know that much about renegade vehicles so I dont know if its possible)
Jonathan Wilson aka Jonwil
Creator and Lead Coder of the Custom scripts.dll
Renegade Engine Guru
Creator and Lead Coder of TT.DLL
Official member of Tiberian Technologies
|
|
|
|
| Mammoth Tank improvements - "Making that thing worth it [message #83690] |
Tue, 27 April 2004 03:20 |
flyingfox
Messages: 1612
Registered: February 2003
Location: scotland, uk
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
*sigh*
I said that months ago. You think it's not possible that my opinion can change in the span of five months, or are you just gullible enough to believe that I'm an inanimate object that cannot grow or become anything else?
What I said THEN has little bearing on what I'm saying right NOW... Why? Because I'm not a politician and I'm not supposed to give you "opinion updates" so you know that my stance on certain subjects has changed.
|
That's not the point. I won't deny opinions change, but in this case, facts don't. In that post, you passed off facts for reasons why it should be used. Now you're passing off the same "facts" in the opposite way for reasons why it shouldn't be used?
There's a difference between "I think it owns all" and "It owns all". For example,
| old post, Aircraftkiller |
In all seriousness, everything about a Mammoth Tank outclasses every other vehicle... Except the speed. Armor? Nothing beats 600\600 points of heavy armor with the ability to regenerate its health.
Cannons? They're long range, fast firing, and can saturate an area with firepower quickly. Light Tanks don't stand up to it.
Mammoth Tusk missiles? Nothing beats these up close. They're more powerful than the cannons, they do a LOT of splash damage, and they eat up soldiers like there's no tomorrow... AND they lock on to targets, too!
|
Those are supposed to be facts. Now, because you say so, a mammoth no longer outclasses every other vehicle, the cannons no longer have a decent range, light tanks now stand up to them, etc? Last time I checked, the facts on vehicle schematics on this game stayed the same since nothings been changed. But whatever, I won't embaress this issue any further, it just puts everything into doubt.
The mammoth happens to be the only unit that can combine tank combat with anti-aircraft armaments which also splash kill infantry very easily and lock onto tanks. It can defend a base with support, taking on all types of enemy that attacks it. I'd say that's a pretty damn good deal for $1500.
It may not be able to hit something directly above it (the only vehicle that can do that anyway is the MRLS, and at that, it's weakly armoured and can be chewn through quickly), but if an orca/apache is staying directly above a vehicle, most especially a mammoth, it's moving at a very slow pace and can be hit easily by anything else in the area, putting the pilot at his/her own risk. Otherwise, the apache/orca will be within range of the missiles for their missiles to hit the mammoth.
Let's be honest. With engineer support, the only problem a mammoth is going to receive on the battlefield is a distant artillery or a well-positioned anti-tank infantry unit. Even at that, the anti tank infantry unit will be within range of the cannons and will eventually be killed. It's just the artillery unit that's the problem, and most certainly so for the mammoth, since it's slow and easy to hit. That problem needs to be dealt with separate anti tank units/tanks for the mammoth to manouver easier on the field.
You may argue that in a sieged game the mammoth gets ripped open by all the units focusing fire on the base entrance. With engineer support, they'll keep the mammoth alive long enough for it to attack the offending units and fend them off. A mammoth might be the strongest tank in the game, but why should you be able to control any unit that's able to completely clear a field of enemy units focusing their fire on it? This is a team game, and as such, people should be interacting with each other to beat the game no matter how strong one unit is.
| Aircraftkiller |
IT DOESN'T DAMAGE WELL ENOUGH. Ever think of that, champ?
|
Yes, and I also thought of how you said it sieges units too quickly. It's about time we got some facts here, maybe with a data sheet, instead of opinions.
|
|
|
|
| Mammoth Tank improvements - "Making that thing worth it [message #83701] |
Tue, 27 April 2004 04:05 |
spoonyrat
Messages: 406
Registered: December 2003
Location: England
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
|
I'm seeing a lot of people here giving the mammy more credit than it deserves anyway.... gimme an arty and I'll take out a mammy before he even gets me to yellow (and I'm not talking about outranging it) Same with a light tank. They're just horrible in tank fights (probably even worse than stanks), except maybe on the map Mesa. In my eyes, a tank's most important quality is its effectiveness against other tanks, and the mammy doesn't come close to the med, light or arty in that field
|
|
|
|
| Mammoth Tank improvements - "Making that thing worth it [message #83704] |
Tue, 27 April 2004 04:25 |
flyingfox
Messages: 1612
Registered: February 2003
Location: scotland, uk
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Artillery aren't fast enough to avoid cannon shots, nor strong enough to withstand about 6/7 of them. The only reason a light tank may beat one is if the light tank/arty has distance between the mammoth and objects to hide in, and the mammoth driver is poor.
With that said, mammoths aren't designed for "1v1" games. All westwood levels were designed for 7v7 or higher play, and as such, the mammoth is a unit that requires support. It's only horrible in combat to the driver that doesn't understand that a slow moving vehicle needs to rely on armour and sheer firepower to do it's job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Dec 01 02:54:30 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01187 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
)
