New project - Page 7

New project

Discuss game development here, from a distinct game project to an accessible third-party mutator, down to the interaction and design of individual units if you like.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: New project

Post by TradeMark »

lol no
BaNa
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 21:05

Re: New project

Post by BaNa »

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:
bobthedinosaur wrote:can we make a TA clone sub forum? so when some one is like "new mod!" and they mean modified BA, AA, XTA, SUPERTA then they can post it in there?
as long as BA goes in there too. its a clone of AA, remember?

for fucks sake i am sick and tired of people whining and making retarded comments on the line of "oh its just another ta clone" "oh why isnt this hidden away" "oh BA is a modification of a variant of a mutator to a cavedog-inspired mission pack that was endorsed by some but not all of the members of cavedog"

Most of the players play with these (*A) bloody mods. That is why we like to talk about them.



Your changes seem to be valid triton, I wouldnt buff screamer agianst krow that much just make separate screamers target separate aircrafts and.

IMO raiders need buff on turret turn speed cause that was an iffy thing last time i played



People who join these threads to whine about *A: go fuck yourselves
User avatar
triton
Lobby Moderator
Posts: 330
Joined: 18 Nov 2009, 14:27

Re: New project

Post by triton »

Join pa channel in lobby tonight to speak about T3 balance.
I made first version but its not public actually you'll need to ask me to be able to have a link for this version.
Its the first version i ever made, i hope i didnt make too much mistakes but it seems to be ok.
Public version will be available next week-end maybe or after Christmas.
We are still working on balance, people are still welcome to help me in pa channel.
PRO annihilation wont be the name of my mod, I work for everyone not only "pro", actually i still use pa channel.
Actually i am trying to balance BA (not a joke) without fucking the good things in balance, also i dont want that people have to re-learn
units too much, i will try to not make BA players feel dispointed when they will try my mod.
Thanks for supports.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: New project

Post by Pxtl »

I still say that complaining about how Screamers all target the same plane is like complaining how Pop-up plasmas do that. They aren't defenses - they're anti-air artillery. You shouldn't have more than a few for area-control. The defense is the Chainsaw. If the chainsaw sucks, fix it.
Achilla
Posts: 79
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 15:17

Re: New project

Post by Achilla »

triton wrote:Join pa channel in lobby tonight to speak about T3 balance.
I made first version but its not public actually you'll need to ask me to be able to have a link for this version.
Its the first version i ever made, i hope i didnt make too much mistakes but it seems to be ok.
Public version will be available next week-end maybe or after Christmas.
We are still working on balance, people are still welcome to help me in pa channel.
PRO annihilation wont be the name of my mod, I work for everyone not only "pro", actually i still use pa channel.
Actually i am trying to balance BA (not a joke) without fucking the good things in balance, also i dont want that people have to re-learn
units too much, i will try to not make BA players feel dispointed when they will try my mod.
Thanks for supports.
Are there any plans to redesign naval part of the game?

I don't necessarily mean adding experimental ships like Bertha ships (yet), but changing overall gameplay.

Personally I'd like to see a few things:

- more range, hit points and firepower for battleships (land bombardment), good radar
- more practical build time and number of hit points for flag ships, much higher range and damage, anti-nuke, very good radar
- wide-area radar, very good range and damage for missile/rocket ships, decent anti-air
- better sonar for cruisers, higher mobility and firepower (sea dominance)
- faster submarines, possibly with cloak ability and jammer for guerilla tactics and information war
- new ship class - armed aircraft carrier (potent anti-air and decent anti-sub weaponry, radar + sonar + anti-nuke)
- new ship class - pocket battleship (cruiser-battleship hybrid - range of flag ship i.e. higher than of battleship, mobility and speed of cruiser, hit points less than battleship and more than cruiser, firepower stronger than flag ship, extra vulnerability to torpedoes and bombs, inclusion of anti-air turrets plus good radar)
- new submarine class - nuclear submarine (cloak & jammer, fastest naval unit in the game, can build tactical or strategic nukes and launch them from below the water level)

Of course feel free to say it's utter nonsense or it's not BA-ish, but since you wanted to fix BA flaws consider fixing naval part of it.

WE.DEMAND.SHIPS.

WE.DON'T.WANT.UPGRADED.HOVERS.

PS. Let the flames begin, yeah 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: New project

Post by JohannesH »

Achilla wrote:- new submarine class - nuclear submarine (cloak & jammer, fastest naval unit in the game, can build tactical or strategic nukes and launch them from below the water level)
Yess unspottable ultrafast moving nukes is just whats needed
Achilla
Posts: 79
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 15:17

Re: New project

Post by Achilla »

JohannesH wrote:
Achilla wrote:- new submarine class - nuclear submarine (cloak & jammer, fastest naval unit in the game, can build tactical or strategic nukes and launch them from below the water level)
Yess unspottable ultrafast moving nukes is just whats needed
Have you played SupCom? Experimentals not only on land but also sea and air are what BA needs to be less passive-defensive, like it is now. A game has to eventually end in some way ... I don't see a difference between earning a victory through t1 unit spam or by launching nukes from experimental because your enemy let you build the unit without interruption. His fault, his defeat, his problem. And before that thing was built anyway, he would probably have round 20-30 minutes to bomb the shipyard building it ... as it would be balancing nonsense to have underwater factory able to produce it. Either way, you can't dispute with the fact that building tons of anti-nuke units and buildings is much easier than launching successful nuke attack.
User avatar
BrainDamage
Lobby Developer
Posts: 1164
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 13:56

Re: New project

Post by BrainDamage »

Achilla wrote:- new submarine class - nuclear submarine (cloak & jammer )
there is no such thing as underwater LOS in spring afaik so cloack is just a plain waste, and if by jammer you meant sonar jammer, it has been removed from BA to all underwater units because people used it to troll into never ending games
User avatar
triton
Lobby Moderator
Posts: 330
Joined: 18 Nov 2009, 14:27

Re: New project

Post by triton »

Achilla wrote:BA needs to be less passive-defensive, like it is now.
I am not sure I'll use you're opinion to balance my mod XD.
Achilla
Posts: 79
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 15:17

Re: New project

Post by Achilla »

triton wrote:
Achilla wrote:BA needs to be less passive-defensive, like it is now.
I am not sure I'll use you're opinion to balance my mod XD.
My opinion doesn't matter, you will be yours worst judge anyway. Good luck in what you are trying to do ;d
User avatar
CarRepairer
Cursed Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3359
Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48

Re: New project

Post by CarRepairer »

Achilla wrote:
JohannesH wrote:
Achilla wrote:- new submarine class - nuclear submarine (cloak & jammer, fastest naval unit in the game, can build tactical or strategic nukes and launch them from below the water level)
Yess unspottable ultrafast moving nukes is just whats needed
Have you played SupCom? Experimentals not only on land but also sea and air are what BA needs to be less passive-defensive, like it is now. A game has to eventually end in some way ... I don't see a difference between earning a victory through t1 unit spam or by launching nukes from experimental because your enemy let you build the unit without interruption. His fault, his defeat, his problem. And before that thing was built anyway, he would probably have round 20-30 minutes to bomb the shipyard building it ... as it would be balancing nonsense to have underwater factory able to produce it. Either way, you can't dispute with the fact that building tons of anti-nuke units and buildings is much easier than launching successful nuke attack.
CA has a tacnuke submarine... http://trac.caspring.org/wiki/UnitGuide#Shipyard1
Dotz
Posts: 73
Joined: 25 May 2009, 01:11

Re: New project

Post by Dotz »

Shutup n00bs!
Achilla
Posts: 79
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 15:17

Re: New project

Post by Achilla »

Dotz wrote:Shutup n00bs!
click

and if that doesn't help ... click

If that still doesn't help you, take this test and consider contacting professionals.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: New project

Post by Neddie »

CarRepairer wrote: CA has a tacnuke submarine... http://trac.caspring.org/wiki/UnitGuide#Shipyard1
E&E had it first.
HectorMeyer
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Jan 2009, 11:20

Re: New project

Post by HectorMeyer »

Just read the "changelog", I think 90% of these are really good. Decreasing T2 bomber speed is a great idea.

Slower moving Transports loaded with heavy units (read: Commander) are another great idea, it should move only about 50-100% faster than walking speed.

For the flak weapons, I don't think their damage needs to be buffed, they might be pretty weak against planes, but kill gunship swarms really quick.

Increasing costs of t2 con units seems like a good idea, right now you only need to invest about 350 metal to keep having access to T2, which is kinda ridiculous if you think about it. Why not raise the cost of T2 cons to something like 1000 or 1500 metal? This seems a lot, but is still cheaper than the T2 lab, which can always be reclaimed. Buff their buildpower, speed, HP to compensate a bit. Together with the commander wreck change (reduce it to 1000 metal while you're at it :wink:), this will really slow down 8v8 DSD games, which is a good thing.



Some more ideas (mostly rehashes of old BA forum posts), some might be bad, some might be good, feel free to flame, dislike, ignore etc.:

Introduce a "Miner-kbot", which moves slightly faster than the t1 veh con and acts as a metal extractor when positioned over metal spots. This would make kbots much more viable, since they would actually expand faster than vehicles early on now.

Move antinuke to T1, and maybe reduce metal cost a bit. No point in needing to tech up for it imo. It should also intercept EMP missiles and tacnukes.

Commander upgrades are a great idea, for example armor and weapon upgrades. When fully upgraded, the commander should be able to turn into a krogoth-like unit (e.g. 4 weapon upgrades: heavy plasma gun, siege missile, AA missiles, tachyon gun). Another idea to discourage self-d and commbombs would be to automatically lose control or self-d your units when you are without comm, unless you have a "Backup Commander" (e.g. current Decoy Commander). What about a "commander teleport pad" building, to which the commander can be teleported back to when in danger?

Increase range of the ship cannons a bit, and give ships radar and more LOS.

The Juno and intrusion countermeasure building should be removed imo. An alternative use for the Juno could be a "LOS-shot", similar to the radar in Starcraft.

Give the torpedo bomber Sonar (no point in always bringing a sonar plane), also consider moving it, or a slightly weaker version of it, to the T1 airlab.

Increase pack0 and chainsaw range a bit.

Increase shield radius a bit. Allow enemy plasma units to fire unobstructed, once they are inside the shield.



My idea for sea/land balance:
Reduce cost of hovercraft lab, so it becomes cheaper than the T1 sea lab, and make it buildable by the commander. Maybe remove the corvettes (just like in OTA), to encourage early use of hovers, which have better land/sea interaction. The idea is to make hovers strong in the early game, while making the "unflexible" ships heavy hitters which are too expensive early on. Ships, in contrast to hovercrafts, still have the opportunity for the the strong t2 eco and ships later, of course. This changes should lead to increased land/sea interaction early on. The drawback of hovercrafts would be the "dead-end choice", since their cons can't build any T2 labs. Also add a sonar/dephcharge hovercraft.

Give the land-based depth charge launcher twice as much or even more range, and also sonar. Increase costs accordingly. It should be a really solid coast defense, allowing one to get back a foothold in cotested sea.

Make amphibious units really fast when underwater, like in old BA versions.

Sea might be lacking an early long range defense, basically something like a immobile T1 destroyer, but with slightly higher range and cheaper.
User avatar
triton
Lobby Moderator
Posts: 330
Joined: 18 Nov 2009, 14:27

Re: New project

Post by triton »

HectorMeyer thanks a lot for giving you're opinion. I need more guys like you on this topic.

I cant decrease commander wreckage metal amount too much, cause people would combomb more without the risk of giving metal to ennemy, and i dont want to change ba gameplay too much.

I think ill try to decrease commander speed in atlas by 10% or 20% to see how gameplay changes, mainly to make combomb harder.
But maybe decrease commanders explosion area of effect by 20% would be enough.

My biggest problem is to bring T2 into good players game, for the first public version of my mod I am planning to make T2 bot and veh factory cost 20% less metal, energy and buildtime and to make T2 cons cost a lot more.
Another idea was to make experience more usefull for units and buildings. Commander would gain exp for killing ennemy units and helping constructions to have new weapons/features.
One idea was to make factory have xp for building units and when u built enough with a factory, this factory would be able to build more units according to its lvl.
Biggest problem with that is that some players said that they would reclaim their own units to rebuild etc.. to reach next lvl easier.
Maybe we shouldnt be able to reclaim our ally and own units, actually i often reclaim ennemy units when they are still "alive" but reclaiming ally units is not a very usefull move. (edit : its usefull only in one case, when stupid nub ally build near you're big nano field in patrol mode.. but i think that a good widget could make nano patrol not build ally building)
Reclaiming building wouldnt be changed cause its VERY usefull.

Maybe I wont increase aa flaks thats much but i think its cost too much for its use actually.
Ill decrease T2 bombers speed a bit, and make T2 fighters special damage against T2 bombers a bit lower.

Its just ideas, maybe i didnt explain them enough, and maybe some ideas are wrong; anyway, all ideas are discussed on pa channel in spring lobby.

Just keep in mind that i am working for ba players, I try to make good changes improving ba without changing its gameplay too much.
All ideas needs test, if my changes sucks too much I think ill be first guy to see and understand why.. after test ^^

I also wants to add few units and building, but adding units without making some units become useless will be hard ;)

If my biggest changes are not accepted by ba community I'll focus on minor changes.

P.S : some sentences may be weird cause of my sucky english, sorry for that, i didnt re-read cause of lack of time i hope i didnt say too much bullshit..
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: New project

Post by Pxtl »

Well, if you're looking for ideas for the kbot game, related to HM's post, I've always wanted to try this:

Give the Rezbot the ability to build DTs and metal extractors - maybe even add mines and eyes on to make it your kbot minelayer. Move the radar kbot to L1. This would speed up the L1 expansion phase - no waiting for slow-assed conbots to get there unless you need more permanent stuff (like LLTs and jammers).

@HM: Caydr tried the L1 hovers thing. It was impossible to balance, and made the beginning-naval-game a nightmare.

Honestly, I'd just prevent the atlas from moving the comm. The damned thing is an amphib and has good slope-tolerance anyways - it can get where you need it to go, you just have to wait a bit. If you need to fly it about, you need L2. That's your whole thing isn't it? Bringing in L2 stuff? No-atlas-comm will mean that the initial rush from an air-start will be fighters or bombers, which makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Actually, for development purposes I'd cut the cost of L2 to labs be the same as the price of L1. Learn the ins and outs of the L2 units and how they play in the early-game. Then, after you've got them hammered out, then jack up the price back to a reasonable amount.
User avatar
Spawn_Retard
Posts: 1248
Joined: 21 Dec 2006, 14:36

Re: New project

Post by Spawn_Retard »

Still nothing to download? only text :?

What happened to releasing something in a week?
User avatar
triton
Lobby Moderator
Posts: 330
Joined: 18 Nov 2009, 14:27

Re: New project

Post by triton »

i released a version for test only, if i start to release sucky version each week i think it would be harder to bring players into my project.
User avatar
manolo_
Posts: 1370
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 00:08

Re: New project

Post by manolo_ »

use the section of the springdownloader and u will have no problem with the noobs, if they add this project to their list

also i want to see fununits, so i want godzilla with a great anni-beam, it will be able to move on land AND uw, but coz its so big, it could shoot out of it. when u get enough xp u could transform it into space- or mechagodzilla
Locked

Return to “Game Development”