Airstrike

[Truxa]

Hi!

For the passed few days I've noticed a change. Last week I was able to buy airstrikes for 700 credits, but just since a couple days ago, I was deducted 1500 credits for an airstrike!

Has the Airstrike cost been changed? The label sure does not indicate it!

When I have above 700 credits, the label is no longer greyed-out, indicating I should be able to buy it, yet, it only allows me to buy it for 1500.

Anyone having the same issue?

(I mostly play on Jelly marathon server if it's a server setting)

Regards,

Truxa

[Trev-MUN]

It seems to be a server setting. I haven't been able to figure out which servers have the correct value for airstrikes, but it appears more and more of them are more than doubling the price for an airstrike because they think it's "fair." In fact, I think it was on JellyServer that I saw some person defending the change with that very reason.

I personally find it irritating. Also, if servers can decide to set nonstandard values for characters and equipment, the UI shouldn't have a fixed number for the credits required; it should reflect their actual values.

[goztow]

Jelly and rencorner made it more.expensive for sure.

[iovandrake]

I think it should cost more than 700 (as long as it isn't tied to a Tech Building), but 2500 (a number I heard for Jelly) is ridiculously stupid. 1500 isn't too bad if the UI gets updated in the future to reflect different costs. I think 950 would be ideal though.

[Truxa]

Ah so it isn't just me. Good.

To be fair, I can see the point of airstrikes costing more. Take "Field" for example. When assaulting a base with vehicles, 2 well-placed airstrikes make it almost impossible to pull the rush through, as the entire rush will be anihilated. Also, when sieging a base, airstrikes can also be over-utilized to prevent sallying out.

More often than not, I tend to get me a deadeye/BH sniper with airstrike, this allows me to pick off characters easily and when things turn messy, use the airstrike to prevent the opposing team to overrun my team. K/D over 10 isn't an exaggeration in that regard.

In all fairness, I can see why they made the change (partly due to this tactic I've been employing I guess) and at the same time saddened, it makes for a more versatile gameplay (and hurting my K/D )

@iovandrake: I just tested on Jelly, it's 1500, but I think 1000 should be more fair, just like the other super-weapons

-Trux

[iovandrake]

I heard it was 2500 a few days back so it may have changed (or it may be different depending if it is AOW Jelly or Marathon). I never tested it myself though. 1000 would be more fair. Maybe even make it so more than one airstrike can't be called within a period of time (a cooldown for the planes).

[Truxa]

If you want to implement a cooldown in that sense, it should only affect the player placing the airstrike, not team-wise as that is also not the case with nukes and ions.

Think about it, how many nuke silo's does NOD have? How many Ion satalites are there in the sky at any given moment above a small battlefield in C&C.

One could argue that these superweapons should have a team-wide cooldown more so than the airstrikes, as there would be more airplanes availible

[Raker57]

The purchase icon is just a graphic. That's why it still says 700 even though the price has been increased. The devs just need to put a few lines of code in there that tell the game to change the graphic to whatever the price was set to.

[lazy5686]

Jelly Marathon and AOW are both operating with airstrikes at 2500. Instead of having an airstrike every 10 seconds on a map like Field they pop up every 5-10 minutes. When a team gets down to their last structure it is no longer constantly bombarded by airstrikes as well.

700 is far too low a cost to destroy every living thing over a wide area with little indication beforehand. If there are changes in the future the cost will be adjusted accordingly.

[Valor]

The purchase icon is just a graphic. That's why it still says 700 even though the price has been increased. The devs just need to put a few lines of code in there that tell the game to change the graphic to whatever the price was set to.

I'm not sure why the airstrie icon doesn't change.

I played on a sniper server and they made everything cost 999999 credits and it showed on the icons.

[iovandrake]

If you want to implement a cooldown in that sense, it should only affect the player placing the airstrike, not team-wise as that is also not the case with nukes and ions.

Think about it, how many nuke silo's does NOD have? How many Ion satalites are there in the sky at any given moment above a small battlefield in C&C.

One could argue that these superweapons should have a team-wide cooldown more so than the airstrikes, as there would be more airplanes availible

I think a cooldown of 10 seconds between airstrikes for each team would be fair. The aircraft have to return to base to refuel and rearm (in 10 seconds, those are some fast planes). I could get behind superweapon cooldowns though.

[R315r4z0r]

I think each player should get a cooldown for their own airstrikes. So if you use an airstrike, you should have to wait 5-10 minutes to use another one. This would only be your cooldown though, so other players can use theirs whenever.

I also think that you should be able to counter an airstrike. Someone mentioned that SAM sites in enemy bases should destroy airstrikes before they can do damage (requiring you to destroy the SAM before you can airstrike an enemy base.)

I wouldn't be against a 10 second team-wide cooldown, but that's as long as I'd accept. The problem with team cooldowns is that players who don't know better or just want to troll can hamper their team by improperly using an airstrike and then causing the team to have to wait for the cooldown.

[Noodlesocks]

Hi!

For the passed few days I've noticed a change. Last week I was able to buy airstrikes for 700 credits, but just since a couple days ago, I was deducted 1500 credits for an airstrike!

Has the Airstrike cost been changed? The label sure does not indicate it!

When I have above 700 credits, the label is no longer greyed-out, indicating I should be able to buy it, yet, it only allows me to buy it for 1500.

Anyone having the same issue?

(I mostly play on Jelly marathon server if it's a server setting)

Regards,

Truxa

Yeah, sadly Jelly marathon upped the price of them because of all the whining.

[SFJake]

Sadly?

Best thing to have ever happened. Should be standard.

[R315r4z0r]

It's one of the reason I don't play on that server. I don't like how the price isn't reflected in the PT. It's not specifically about airstrikes (since I honestly don't use them that much) I just don't like my money disappearing without my consent. Plus I don't know what else is modified.

I'm not a big fan of modified servers.

[HaTe]

The change of price in the PT is going to be added for the next (or upcoming) patch. People will become aware of it at that point.

[SFJake]

It's one of the reason I don't play on that server. I don't like how the price isn't reflected in the PT. It's not specifically about airstrikes (since I honestly don't use them that much) I just don't like my money disappearing without my consent. Plus I don't know what else is modified.

I'm not a big fan of modified servers.

Well, lets hope they can put it officially at 2500, servers wouldn't have to modify it.

Which is still too little anyway.

Yes, I'm saying even at 2500 I find them utterly overpowered. Even in Jelly, I find any game where they are well used to be just plain retarded. And by well used I just mean, use them in confusion, or defend beacon. Dumbest part of the game, kills every ounce of fun of everything.

GOD I hate the god damn fucking airstrikes.

Sorry.

[sterps]

It's one of the reason I don't play on that server. I don't like how the price isn't reflected in the PT. It's not specifically about airstrikes (since I honestly don't use them that much) I just don't like my money disappearing without my consent. Plus I don't know what else is modified.

I'm not a big fan of modified servers.

Agreed

It's also one of the reasons i don't play in Jelly either at the moment.

$2500 is too overpriced for an airstrike.

Anywhere between $1000 - $1200 would be about right, $1500 being maximum,

and possibly a team cool down of 1 minute.

Can anyone confirm that airstrike spam is even occurring anymore?

I frequently play in Game.on.net and Rencorner, and in the former they still only cost $700, yet they aren't used too often (a couple of times a game, if that, sometimes not at all).

[R315r4z0r]

I haven't seen much airstrike spam, but the times I do see it, they merely slow the enemy advance and not stop it completely. The person using the strikes would probably have been more effective just buying a vehicle or something.

Like I said in the earlier days of the game being released when everyone was up in arms about them, it just takes getting used to. People are no longer getting bombed out of nowhere unless they tunnel vision themselves or have nowhere to run to. People are learning to play the angles a bit better. Attacking from spots the enemy can't get a good line of sight on them.

While I do think their price should be increased, I also think that people are learning to adapt to them more and thus making them overall less effective.

[SFJake]

I see nothing to adapt, though. I randomly don't hear a call and oh shit, my last light tank starting to get blown u... *boom*. Had full health. **** you.

Airstrike coming, I guess to kill the plethora of vehicles in front. Come out, get blown up by airstrike. **** you.

Beacon. Airstrike. **** you.

Airstrike are easy mode suppression, they completely destroy the game. I don't know why you think otherwise. Ever had fun in Renegade dealing with nukes at a disadvantage? Yes, not in Renegade X though. You'll just be airstrike spammed, even at 2500 a piece its still worth the nuke cover, because its just that bloody ridiculous.

Every single time I've been screwed by an airstrike I basically never could see it coming, and someone from a few million miles away just clicked and waited. Instead of having whatever epic standoff we could have had, the game was completely and utterly ruined.

Airstrike need to go, removed from the game, or nerfed to worthlessness because they kill every fun aspect of Renegade by their existence alone.

Where there was teamwork and excitment, there's now airstrikes. **** you airstrikes. Yes, I have THAT much hate for a single game mechanic I knew was clearly overpowered before the game was out but its not like anybody agreed with me then.

[Noodlesocks]

I haven't seen much airstrike spam, but the times I do see it, they merely slow the enemy advance and not stop it completely. The person using the strikes would probably have been more effective just buying a vehicle or something.

Like I said in the earlier days of the game being released when everyone was up in arms about them, it just takes getting used to. People are no longer getting bombed out of nowhere unless they tunnel vision themselves or have nowhere to run to. People are learning to play the angles a bit better. Attacking from spots the enemy can't get a good line of sight on them.

While I do think their price should be increased, I also think that people are learning to adapt to them more and thus making them overall less effective.

Pretty much this. New players weren't paying attention, got killed a couple times and whined "OP."

[Letty]

It's one of the reason I don't play on that server. I don't like how the price isn't reflected in the PT. It's not specifically about airstrikes (since I honestly don't use them that much) I just don't like my money disappearing without my consent. Plus I don't know what else is modified.

I'm not a big fan of modified servers.

Well, lets hope they can put it officially at 2500, servers wouldn't have to modify it.

Which is still too little anyway.

Yes, I'm saying even at 2500 I find them utterly overpowered. Even in Jelly, I find any game where they are well used to be just plain retarded. And by well used I just mean, use them in confusion, or defend beacon. Dumbest part of the game, kills every ounce of fun of everything.

GOD I hate the god damn fucking airstrikes.

Sorry.

Airstrikes ontop of beacons are definitely a whole new level of stupid cheese. Some way of restricting the two would be for the best.

Otherwise the only problem with Airstrikes is that you sometimes don't receive the EVA warning, or receive it too late to be of use.

[Trev-MUN]

Yeah, I've been trying to avoid JellyServer for that reason, R315r4z0r.

I strongly disagree with people like SFJake who think making what was a low-tier field ability in Tiberian Dawn cost way more than the actual superweapons is "the best thing ever." It should absolutely not be standard, and I sincerely hope that SFJake doesn't get his way.

I would be alright with other changes, especially if they make the airstrike mechanics closer to Tiberian Dawn. For example, they can only be called in if all the anti-air defenses are destroyed.

[DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr]

Airstrikes are so much WIN, it's no wonder the price got upped.

Airstrikes and beacons. We're lucky soldiers can only carry one or the other.

I have yet to coordinate an airstrike over a beacon, that sounds SICK!

Hey, imagine being able to damage the warthog and the gunship? It would be ridiculously tough to hit them, but if you can land just a couple shots on the A10's then they go down? The gunship would take 5 to 6 shots since its alot bigger than the warthogs and its farther away, its slower, and its easier to hit than warthogs.

Having Anti air defenses on all maps with defense buildings already in place would be cool. They could stop beacon airstrike cover moves in your base.

[Trev-MUN]

And that's really the only thing about airstrikes I think is cheesy, that they can cover beacons.

There's another thing that could be done to correct that, though; make airstrikes destroy friendly beacons (but not hostile ones ... or maybe?).

It would invite griefing, no doubt, but I would greatly prefer a mechanic like that over SFJake wanting it to be "standard" that airstrikes cost more than practically everything else.

[SFJake]

I look at airstrikes this way:

They add nothing good to the game for all they ruin.

Any realistic nerf to them needs to be quite heavy. I don't even think they should kill a Light Tank. At the very least, they should be incredibly obvious. The only (and I mean literally the only thing) I can accept is that airstrikes are supposed to make people move away from the location. However, its completely unfair when it can be really hard to tell where it is, and its even more unfair that it can be done on beacons and .. well, in the base at all! Airstrikes in base should just be completely disabled.

The only reason they were even introduced was to break sieges or something. Thats it. Everything else should be cut out to dry. And even that I don't even agree thats a problem, you team up and you clean it up, you don't add some weird airstrikes just because you can't handle it. Its infuriating.

Why do we have airstrikes in the game?

[Trev-MUN]

SFJake, to me airstrikes are far less cheesy than, say, a Stealth Black Hand rush completely destroying GDI in the early game. You want Airstrikes to be made "fair" to the point they cost more than any other vehicle, character, or piece of equipment, and you want them to be so weak they can't even put a dent in a Light Tank. Meanwhile, SBHs cost $300 less than an airstrike (using the correct value) and aren't a single-use weapon. In the hands of a good player, they are far more effective than Stealth Tanks, which cost $900 apiece and have a team-wide limit that SBHs don't.

I bring this up as a matter of perspective. As a fan of the original Tiberian Dawn, I find airstrikes a wonderful addition to a game that's supposed to be set in Tiberian Dawn, and a lot more appropriate than having characters from Renegade's campaign turned into classes. Using airstrikes to cover beacon placement is a cheap tactic, I will agree, but you probably didn't notice that in my post before yours, I had proposed some ideas to take the cheese out of it.

Personally, I haven't ever seen airstrike spam on beacons; and you'd think that with how many complaints I have seen of them, I would run into it a LOT, as I tend to play Engineer and repair buildings/remove beacons (when they aren't glitched). No, in my experience airstrikes tend to be used to break up concentrations of vehicles and infantry.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Guest

[sterps]

Jake all you seem to do is whine and moan... For once maybe post something more constructive.

If airstrikes are as OP and game breaking as you say they are, then the forums should be flooded with complaints, and the game would be dead in no time. Why am i yet to see it?

I understand there have a been a couple of threads, but nothing to the extent at which you say, and were in the first week. The fact of the matter is, that the general consensus seems to be that people like airstrikes but agree they need to be balanced a bit.

I'm yet to see spamming of airstrikes to the effect they ruin games as you describe, nor to the extent that people just

do because they've got nothing else to build.

Trev and razor both summed it up well, and i agree with both.

Did you ever play the original Renegade? Were you ever in those games where Nod would camp at the front of GDI's base for hours on end with artilleries...GDI not being able to break through...I'd have killed to have had an airstrike ability back then.

There are more game breaking things such as hackers, and glitchy beacon spots when placed that cannot be disarmed.

[ARC_trooper]

Airstrikes add just another way to break the enemy's formations and send them in utter chaos. (if done correctly)

But sometimes they do get used to cover beacons, which makes it annoying.

However my suggestion about this would be that it cant be send into the enemy's base. (perhaps not even your own?) Or create a special anti-aircraft thing that only shoots at the 'airstrikeplanes' in range, once destroyed you can send those airstrikes anywhere you like.

[Trev-MUN]

However my suggestion about this would be that it cant be send into the enemy's base. (perhaps not even your own?) Or create a special anti-aircraft thing that only shoots at the 'airstrikeplanes' in range, once destroyed you can send those airstrikes anywhere you like.

In Tiberian Dawn, GDI couldn't call in air strikes until all Nod SAM sites were destroyed. I know that for Renegade X, the devs added a GDI equivalent anti-air defense building, so this could be a good way to limit airstrike use that also fits the Tiberian Dawn setting; have it so that a team can't call in airstrikes until they bring down the anti-air defense.

[Xpert]

The purchase icon is just a graphic. That's why it still says 700 even though the price has been increased. The devs just need to put a few lines of code in there that tell the game to change the graphic to whatever the price was set to.

I'm not sure why the airstrie icon doesn't change.

I played on a sniper server and they made everything cost 999999 credits and it showed on the icons.

I'm going to assume rencorner since it's the only sniper server but rather interesting that the icons reflected the prices.

[iovandrake]

Airstrikes covering beacons should be removed. In fact airstrikes shouldn't work near beacons at all. That's the danger zone and any plane above that area would be getting hit with an ion or nuke strike.

[omega79]

I would love to see airstrike markers beeing smoke grenades ...

that would mean everybody sees it straight away and you actually need to carry it somewhere to throw it

[Trev-MUN]

Airstrikes covering beacons should be removed. In fact airstrikes shouldn't work near beacons at all. That's the danger zone and any plane above that area would be getting hit with an ion or nuke strike.

This actually makes more sense than my suggestion. I like it.

[SFJake]

Jake all you seem to do is whine and moan... For once maybe post something more constructive.

If airstrikes are as OP and game breaking as you say they are, then the forums should be flooded with complaints, and the game would be dead in no time. Why am i yet to see it?

I understand there have a been a couple of threads, but nothing to the extent at which you say, and were in the first week. The fact of the matter is, that the general consensus seems to be that people like airstrikes but agree they need to be balanced a bit.

The game went from 700 to less than a 100 playing at peak times in the US, so I'd say the game effectively died already, but whatever. General consensus is there's almost nobody posting on this forum, and in game players still whine about the airstrikes on servers. I've had people on Jelly vote against airstrikes. On Jelly, with their 2500 cost.

Pretty much nobody answered my question: What do airstrikes add to the game?

We get crap like "it fits tiberian dawn". I don't give a damn, thats bordreline the most useless kind of thing we can say. Airstrikes break key elements of the game right now and thats hardly an opinion, thats a fact. Beacon covered by airstrikes and airstrikes that sneakily destroys vehicle is utterly game breaking. Thats a fact.

They've been added to break sieges, and even then shouldn't be able to kill them, its just to force them to push back, give a breathing period and a chance for vehicles to advance. Period. It is the ONLY THING they should be good at, make enemies abandon a specific spot, and that spot should also NEVER be in base. Not based on SAM sites or anything -> never, ever. That is utterly game breaking. Give me one reason why blowing things up, denying a huge zone in the enemy base from defense, all of that at a huge distance, all taht done with a single click, is good for the gameplay.

The key here, is that its not. So once nobody can answer what it adds to the gameplay (because like I said, it adds NOTHING good to the gameplay, fact, beyond breaking formations), we want it changed for it to only be good at that.

As suggested, again:

-No airstrikes above & around any base, ever.

-Obvious airstrike markers (there's good ideas around, like the smoke-thing), should be as hard to miss as a beacon as far as I'm concerned

These are the base, necessary changes for the airstrikes to not break the game. You think I'm not constructive? I'm sure angry, not hiding that, but there's been nothing, ever said by anyone, that even points that airstrikes are good for gameplay as they are, for ANTYHING else but what I just said. So lets stop pretending here.

[Sgt_Jack]

-No airstrikes above & around any base, ever.

-Obvious airstrike markers (there's good ideas around, like the smoke-thing), should be as hard to miss as a beacon as far as I'm concerned

Agree.

Air strike issue was/is discussing in few threads. It's usage needs to be weakened, capped, limited to certain rules etc.

[iran]

Airstrikes are fine. Stop trying to change the game.

[iovandrake]

Airstrikes add a lot to the game if you actually have an open mind and aren't just butthurt because it changes tactics you relied to heavily on. That's what this boils down to SFJake. You don't want to adapt to a new thing.

Below I'm going to list what airstrikes add to the game and what changes to your tactics you can use to circumvent them. This is a new layer of skill required to win a match. Also take into consideration that airstrikes do need balancing. They need an appropriate cost and tweaks to keep them from being spammed. The concept of airstrikes with those tweaks is what I'm defending.

Airstrikes

-------------------------------------------------

Rushes: Airstrikes can be used to break up a rush that is boiling at your base's entrance or to break up a rush as it slams into whatever buildings that happen to be the target.

Counter: Rush tactics need to change. You need to start using assortments of vehicles instead of just one grouping. For example having a couple apcs in the mix to speed in. If they get hit with the airstrike your main force doesn't. If not they can move in and hit infantry. You should have them loaded with some infantry to pop out at buildings. You're giving them multiple things to juggle, particularly on larger maps.

Pre-Rush: Airstrikes can be used to prep an area for your rush. Like decimating the defending tanks of the base prior.

Counter: Watchful snipers preventing enemy units from targeting the necessary area.

Area Control: Allows one unit who's spent the necessary credits (and who can die quite easily) to provide adequate defense for an area. They can at least stall incoming forces with the threat.

Counter: Once again units can die. Particularly infantry. If it's someone in a vehicle then they must exit the vehicle to use it. Which makes them or their vehicle vulnerable.

Airstrikes just need work. They don't need removing as they add a new dimension to the game. You just need to be willing to learn how to fit your tactics around them and stop being a little crybaby.

[SFJake]

You can go peanutbutter yourself for all I care.

[Trev-MUN]

Bravo, iovandrake. I'm glad there's more than one person calling SFJake out for his "I want airstrikes to be nerfed so hard it'd be no different than taking them out entirely" mandate.

Unfortunately given his track record with my posts, I expect he'll ignore what you've said airstrikes bring to the game and suggestions on how to counter them in favor of easy things to attack. SFJake ignored both my suggestions for preventing cheese with airstrikes and an example of how airstrikes are hardly the cheesiest tactic available for sneering at my saying that airstrikes make the game closer to Tiberian Dawn, then proclaiming no one answered his challenge.

EDIT: Oh, I see he's already replied ... the fact that all SFJake said was "You can go peanutbutter yourself for all I care" must mean that he couldn't find anything easy to attack in your post, iovandrake. Hah!

It's also interesting that SFJake is claiming the sole (or primary) reason the game's population has dropped is because of airstrikes. Airstrikes are hardly a concern next to hacking and abuse of glitches; an overwhelming majority of the rage I've seen out of people during gameplay comes from glitch abuse and people hacking, especially the feeling of impotence that no one can ever seem to get the votes necessary to kick them out.

For all the fanfare, Renegade X is still in open beta. Just remember that.

[iovandrake]

You can go peanutbutter yourself for all I care.

How eloquent.

Bravo, iovandrake. I'm glad there's more than one person calling SFJake out for his "I want airstrikes to be nerfed so hard it'd be no different than taking them out entirely" mandate.

Unfortunately given his track record with my posts, I expect he'll ignore what you've said airstrikes bring to the game and suggestions on how to counter them in favor of easy things to attack. SFJake ignored both my suggestions for preventing cheese with airstrikes and an example of how airstrikes are hardly the cheesiest tactic available for sneering at my saying that airstrikes make the game closer to Tiberian Dawn, then proclaiming no one answered his challenge.

EDIT: Oh, I see he's already replied ... the fact that all SFJake said was "You can go peanutbutter yourself for all I care" must mean that he couldn't find anything easy to attack in your post, iovandrake. Hah!

It's also interesting that SFJake is claiming the sole (or primary) reason the game's population has dropped is because of airstrikes. Airstrikes are hardly a concern next to hacking and abuse of glitches; an overwhelming majority of the rage I've seen out of people during gameplay comes from glitch abuse and people hacking, especially the feeling of impotence that no one can ever seem to get the votes necessary to kick them out.

For all the fanfare, Renegade X is still in open beta. Just remember that.

I've seen entire servers empty out because of a hacker running around with aimbot and some kind of infinite ammo/rapid fire cheat. I agree with you completely. Glitch abuse (beacons that you can't find) and hackers are the main things that are keeping people away. The next biggest group would be people who are waiting for the bugs to be sorted out. All this doom and gloom nonsense from people is shortsighted.

[R315r4z0r]

This might be a biiiiit over complicating this but I had a random thought about airstrikes today that I'd like to share. Agree/disagree as you wish. It was just a random thought I had. I also think that this suggestion could play a roll in a lot of other aspects of the game as well, but I'll leave that up to your imagination.

Basically, instead of using binoculars or smoke or any sort of targeting device, the user wouldn't actually have to go to the field at all. Now, before you start saying "WTF?!" hear me out.

I think that airstrikes should be bought, targeted and used from a purchase terminal. In the PT, you'd link into the airstrike interface and it would pull up an over-view of the map. This over-view would only show exactly the same thing that is displayed on your minimap, except it would show all of the map and not just the immediate area. Meaning even enemies will not be displayed on this unless your team is properly spotting them.

Additionally, the map could have an overlay feature that could highlight certain portions of the map in red as "no fly zones" where you wouldn't be able to deploy airstrikes. No fly zones would usually be radii around anti-air defense structures and active super weapon beacons (friendly and enemy alike). These "no fly zones" wouldn't just apply to the target areas of the airstrikes, they would also apply to the flight paths of the airstrikes as well. So you couldn't have a GDI airstrike in the middle of the field fly over a Nod SAM site even if the target zone is well away from the SAM site itself.

Also, you could play around with the idea that the airstrike could cost more money the further away it is from the base, but I'm not really too keen on that idea myself... but I still wanted to share it anyway.

Some sort of "Target Zone" indicator should be created however. Whether it be smoke or w/e, just as long as there is an indication as to where the strike is going.

What's good about this idea:

-Introduction of a over-view map that I've seen a few people ask about. It wouldn't be over powered since you'd have to be at a PT to use it.

-Effectively placing an airstrike requires teamwork since your team would have to actively spot the targets you want to bomb (you obviously can't see enemies while you're in a purchase terminal).

-Requiring a "link up" mechanic in the PT can easily be worked into having cooldowns and lockouts that are visually easy to read and notice.

-"No fly zone" mechanic addresses a lot of the complaints people have about airstrikes in bases or on beacons. It also doesn't allow the placement of an airstrike in a visually identifiable location, so no "airstrike shot down" animations will need to be made since you'd either be allowed to place it or you wont be allowed to place it.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

This might be a biiiiit over complicating this but I had a random thought about airstrikes today that I'd like to share. Agree/disagree as you wish. It was just a random thought I had. I also think that this suggestion could play a roll in a lot of other aspects of the game as well, but I'll leave that up to your imagination.

Basically, instead of using binoculars or smoke or any sort of targeting device, the user wouldn't actually have to go to the field at all. Now, before you start saying "WTF?!" hear me out.

I think that airstrikes should be bought, targeted and used from a purchase terminal. In the PT, you'd link into the airstrike interface and it would pull up an over-view of the map. This over-view would only show exactly the same thing that is displayed on your minimap, except it would show all of the map and not just the immediate area. Meaning even enemies will not be displayed on this unless your team is properly spotting them. Additionally, the map could have an overlay feature that could highlight certain portions of the map in red as "no fly zones" where you wouldn't be able to deploy airstrikes. No fly zones would usually be radii around anti-air defense structures and active super weapon beacons (friendly and enemy alike.)

Also, you could play around with the idea that the airstrike could cost more money the further away it is from the base, but I'm not really too keen on that idea myself... but I still wanted to share it anyway.

Some sort of "Target Zone" indicator should be created however. Whether it be smoke or w/e, just as long as there is an indication as to where the strike is going.

What's good about this idea:

-Introduction of a over-view map that I've seen a few people ask about. It wouldn't be over powered since you'd have to be at a PT to use it.

-Effectively placing an airstrike requires teamwork since your team would have to actively spot the targets you want to bomb (you obviously can't see enemies while you're in a purchase terminal).

-Requiring a "link up" mechanic in the PT can easily be worked into having cooldowns and lockouts that are visually easy to read and notice.

-"No fly zone" mechanic addresses a lot of the complaints people have about airstrikes in bases or on beacons. It also doesn't allow the placement of an airstrike in a visually identifiable location, so no "airstrike shot down" animations will need to be made since you'd either be allowed to place it or you wont be allowed to place it.

i really like this idea actually. although i think one addition could be made to the idea:

- Make the airstrike free, but once every 10 minutes per team. no bs spam for everyone, and if you wasted it on a useless target, you lose because the enemy knows it's safe to rush for 10 minutes. the pilots need to refill and stuff before they can return, so that would make sense. if it costs money, i don't mind.

if you don't like that idea i can very well understand, you want the freedom to call in your airstrike whenever you want, i guess

[R315r4z0r]

As much as I like the thought of the implications of teamwork a team-lockout would bring... it wouldn't really work unless in the rare ideal situation where everyone on your team isn't a noob or a douche. People would just use the airstrike to purposely hamper their own team. And this would be unavoidable.

No team lockouts should be implemented at all.

[sterps]

Jake all you seem to do is whine and moan... For once maybe post something more constructive.

If airstrikes are as OP and game breaking as you say they are, then the forums should be flooded with complaints, and the game would be dead in no time. Why am i yet to see it?

I understand there have a been a couple of threads, but nothing to the extent at which you say, and were in the first week. The fact of the matter is, that the general consensus seems to be that people like airstrikes but agree they need to be balanced a bit.

The game went from 700 to less than a 100 playing at peak times in the US, so I'd say the game effectively died already, but whatever. General consensus is there's almost nobody posting on this forum, and in game players still whine about the airstrikes on servers. I've had people on Jelly vote against airstrikes. On Jelly, with their 2500 cost.

Pretty much nobody answered my question: What do airstrikes add to the game?

We get crap like "it fits tiberian dawn". I don't give a damn, thats bordreline the most useless kind of thing we can say. Airstrikes break key elements of the game right now and thats hardly an opinion, thats a fact. Beacon covered by airstrikes and airstrikes that sneakily destroys vehicle is utterly game breaking. Thats a fact.

They've been added to break sieges, and even then shouldn't be able to kill them, its just to force them to push back, give a breathing period and a chance for vehicles to advance. Period. It is the ONLY THING they should be good at, make enemies abandon a specific spot, and that spot should also NEVER be in base. Not based on SAM sites or anything -> never, ever. That is utterly game breaking. Give me one reason why blowing things up, denying a huge zone in the enemy base from defense, all of that at a huge distance, all taht done with a single click, is good for the gameplay.

The key here, is that its not. So once nobody can answer what it adds to the gameplay (because like I said, it adds NOTHING good to the gameplay, fact, beyond breaking formations), we want it changed for it to only be good at that.

As suggested, again:

-No airstrikes above & around any base, ever.

-Obvious airstrike markers (there's good ideas around, like the smoke-thing), should be as hard to miss as a beacon as far as I'm concerned

These are the base, necessary changes for the airstrikes to not break the game. You think I'm not constructive? I'm sure angry, not hiding that, but there's been nothing, ever said by anyone, that even points that airstrikes are good for gameplay as they are, for ANTYHING else but what I just said. So lets stop pretending here.

The game went from higher amount of players to a lower amount because:

a) people checking out the mod after a lot of publicity, some stayed, some went.

b) hackers

c) bugs, like game crashing after each map. ( There is also feedback reflecting b,c in a thread i read earlier)

I don't see people whining except you, no one is whining on the Jelly forums either.

People have answered your question multiple times with responses, so either your not reading them or you're just ignoring them. Considering you are saying 'you don't give a damn' to some peoples reasons, i'm thinking the latter. And also considering your response to Ivan, i'd say you don't like it that people aren't accepting your whinging.

Eat some concrete and harden fudge up

Aside from all that, wait till you have good snipers around, the amount of deployed airstrikes will decrease.

The game is still changing as people get used to defending, attacking, scouting and just get used to the feel of the game and it's units and characters.

[Nod197x]

Jake all you seem to do is whine and moan... For once maybe post something more constructive.

If airstrikes are as OP and game breaking as you say they are, then the forums should be flooded with complaints, and the game would be dead in no time. Why am i yet to see it?

I understand there have a been a couple of threads, but nothing to the extent at which you say, and were in the first week. The fact of the matter is, that the general consensus seems to be that people like airstrikes but agree they need to be balanced a bit.

The game went from 700 to less than a 100 playing at peak times in the US.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaah....no.

[HaTe]

Airstrikes have been nerfed in several ways in the first patch.

[goztow]

The game went from higher amount of players to a lower amount because:

a) people checking out the mod after a lot of publicity, some stayed, some went.

b) hackers

c) bugs, like game crashing after each map. ( There is also feedback reflecting b,c in a thread i read earlier)

I don't see people whining except you, no one is whining on the Jelly forums either.

I hope noone actually expected to keep the player base of the first week. If we can keep around 100 players online at any time in weekdays and around 250 in wekends, this is a great success already!

[lazy5686]

Airstrikes have utterly minimal indication of where they are going to hit and can obliterate they entire attacking/defending team in one shot.

For 700 that is far too low, especially in a marathon server where you can acquire tens of thousands of credits over the course of 1-2 hours.

When our marathon server had them at 700, when one team got down to a single building all you could hear were airstrike calls and every 10 seconds half of the team would die.

I stand by my decision to keep them at 2500 until changes are made. I don't mind them being in game, in fact I like them, they do have a purpose but 700 was far too low

Also, modded, are you kidding me? How is this modded? It's a server side option like player count, vehicle limit, and time limit. Its not an Obelisk gun or !turret command. It's a price adjustment, and as for why it isn't displaying in the UI I have no idea.

[Unit]

Well, lets hope they can put it officially at 2500, servers wouldn't have to modify it.

Which is still too little anyway.

Yes, I'm saying even at 2500 I find them utterly overpowered. Even in Jelly, I find any game where they are well used to be just plain retarded. And by well used I just mean, use them in confusion, or defend beacon. Dumbest part of the game, kills every ounce of fun of everything.

GOD I hate the god damn fucking airstrikes.

Sorry.

This.

$2500 is too overpriced for an airstrike.

Just No. In timed AOW that could possibly maybe slightly have a fraction of truth, but otherwise.