[old] Balanced Annihilation V6.81 - Page 14

[old] Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by smoth »

at least he helped out . .
Masure
Posts: 581
Joined: 30 Jan 2007, 15:23

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by Masure »

IMHO as the no comnap is an option, I don't see why this shouldn't be kept in the BA official branch. Moreover the default is comnap enabled so it doesn't change anything.

If people doesn't want to host with "no comnap", they don't. If they want, they can.

In the future versions, Noize can decide to remove it he considers this option shouldn't fit people's exceptations but I still don't see the bad of this option stay in the mod.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by Pxtl »

smoth wrote:at least he helped out . .
People are a little touchy about using the official version names/numbers after Yan tried to hijack the mod by posting (two separate occasions) Supreme Annihilation and a tweaked version of BA in the place of BA.

At least when there was the bugfix version that made BA conform to teh latest version of Spring, the version number was added at the very end - it was 6.711 or something like that. Either way, politeness would be to add "unofficial" as a suffix at the very very least.

I realize that Noize doesn't really own TA and doesn't have any rights, so the comparison is invalid - but imagine somebody released a Gundam 1.12 without your permission, even if it had no harmful changes.

Balanced Annihilation = Noize and anybody he directly gives permission to. Steal the work if you like, but don't steal the name. Seems to be a good approach to me.
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by Regret »

smoth wrote:at least he helped out . .
So changing gundam gameplay and promoting it all around is helping out? ON IT SIR
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by smoth »

Yeah, I just wanted to point that out to people pxtl, good deeds never go unpunished around here. but yeah I agree he should have done a subversion.


Actually regret, gundam was broke once where it could not be played. Kdr made a mutator fix release to fix the game crashing issue that was brought on by a new version of spring. I would know I WAS THERE. I welcomed the fixed version as it was just a patch and included the fix.

what satirik did wasn't the same as the stupid bullshit yan did though.
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by Regret »

CANT ARGUE WHEN IT WAS CONFIRMED
User avatar
lurker
Posts: 3842
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 06:13

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by lurker »

But satirik didn't change anything, did he? Just a new option.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by smoth »

yep just a new option
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by Regret »

Options taking away features = bad
User avatar
lurker
Posts: 3842
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 06:13

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by lurker »

edit: Wait I should stop making replies when watching videos.

Now, what about people that don't think of combombing as a feature? And speedmetal takes out a lot more features than this mod option.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by smoth »

hey man, I think combomb should stay but at least having it as an option means that people cannot whine anymore. If they cannot handle it they don't get try and have it taken away from us.

that being said, could the option when disabling comm capture give their com a pink sundress?
User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by TradeMark »

FOR WHINERS: DONT PLAY COM ENDS
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by TheFatController »

oh ffs I've already completed BA 6.82 and it's awaiting NOIZE's approval.

If you want to make a mutator call it something completely different (ie follow the naming schema of chicken defence or skirmish) I do not agree with this release and I hope it will be removed as per the other hijacks asap (especially as you've included both my and NOIZE's names in the file description to make it sound even more official).
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by Jazcash »

I agree, you can do what you like with any Mod but if you don't own the rights to it's official development, don't release an official named version. In this case I suggest Balanced Annihilation Anti-Com-Nap.
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by TheFatController »

I'd be all for a mutator with all sorts of crazy mod options the author could even call it something pretentious like BA Advanced... as long as they never tried to pass it off as an official release ¬_¬
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by el_matarife »

TheFatController wrote:I'd be all for a mutator with all sorts of crazy mod options the author could even call it something pretentious like BA Advanced... as long as they never tried to pass it off as an official release ¬_¬
You've got a point, all kinds of crazy experimentation with the classic BA formula could produce some cool results or "prove" balance ideas but we can't have a bunch of people releasing official looking versions of BA. Release mutators and end their name is (For BA6.XX) so that people know what's official and what's just a mutator.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by smoth »

HOLy Shit MuTAtORs ARe USEFUL!?!?
BeefofAges
Posts: 31
Joined: 21 Sep 2008, 20:07

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by BeefofAges »

Hey idiots, get back on the topic of kbots sucking.


They suck. Sure, they're useful on extremely rough terrain, but there are very few maps with extremely rough terrain, because that also means unbuildable terrain. Even on maps that are decently lumpy (example: Lava Highground), vehicles are still better, because they lose a tiny bit of mobility but have way more firepower. The vast majority of T2 kbot units are useless. Fatboys, for example, are sort of the equivalent of Goliaths, except that they move slower, do less damage, and have less hit points. Even sumos suck - they're slow as hell and have crappy range and don't do that much damage relative to vehicles.

Even on maps like Small Divide that supposedly present clear advantages to kbots, vehicle players can take advantage of the rough terrain by using amphibious vehicles, which are pretty powerful tanks even disregarding their slope tolerance.

Anyone who actually cares more about unofficial vs official versions of BA than about improving the unit balance is a moron.
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by Regret »

BeefofAges wrote:Fatboys, for example, are sort of the equivalent of Goliaths
No.
BeefofAges wrote:Even sumos suck
No.
BeefofAges wrote:Anyone who actually cares more about unofficial vs official versions of BA than about improving the unit balance is a moron.
No.


Kbots as a tier do not suck.

Some changes are in order though, based on game experience rather than stats and/or useless debates.

Thud/Hammer - small range buff
Cans - hp buff
Pyros - hp buff
Zipper - bigger cost
Juggernaut - small speed buff
Commanders - immunity vs core drone emp (40 emp drones can emp a comm)
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.81

Post by Jazcash »

Cans have enough HP, rest I agree with.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”