[old] Balanced Annihilation V6.85 - Page 6

[old] Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by YokoZar »

Thank you for fixing the termite sounds, by the way, however I think there may be another buggy sound effect that is "global" (not getting quieter when far away from it). I forget exactly which one it is, but it tends to come up late game.
Raptor
Posts: 33
Joined: 01 Feb 2009, 08:12

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by Raptor »

That are some interresting calculations, Yoko. So, if im correct the T1 cons become the economically better choice after about 8 minutes?
Ofc the -1000 metal means that you'll have less metal wich u can put into eco right now, but thats a entirely different headache.

I see 2 problems with using T1 cons instead of Engineers:

1.) Buildtime - a Engineer has the same buildtime as a T1 con, plus you can speed up your engineer production even more by setting the new Engineers to auto-assist the shipyard - not possible for T1 cons anymore once you're T2, since you'll probably have recycled your T1 shipyard for T2.
2.) Space issues (have too many ships around assisting and they'll block the space where your subcon wants to build (saying subcon here cuz even when making tidals instead of UW-Fusions you'd still be wanting to make UW-MMM's).
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by YokoZar »

Raptor wrote:That are some interresting calculations, Yoko. So, if im correct the T1 cons become the economically better choice after about 8 minutes?
Ofc the -1000 metal means that you'll have less metal wich u can put into eco right now, but thats a entirely different headache.
The "eco right now" is happening with both of them - you can build the t1 cons and their relevant tidals gradually rather than all at once.
I see 2 problems with using T1 cons instead of Engineers:

1.) Buildtime - a Engineer has the same buildtime as a T1 con, plus you can speed up your engineer production even more by setting the new Engineers to auto-assist the shipyard - not possible for T1 cons anymore once you're T2, since you'll probably have recycled your T1 shipyard for T2.
If you ever make a decision that amounts to "I can't afford that" during the game, then this isn't a binding constraint. This is especially true when you use the cons to help build other cons. Besides, if you scrap your t1 shipyard, you can make a naval engineer and have him build conboats.
2.) Space issues (have too many ships around assisting and they'll block the space where your subcon wants to build (saying subcon here cuz even when making tidals instead of UW-Fusions you'd still be wanting to make UW-MMM's).
Yeah but the space of 8 vs 5 ships isn't that big a deal (conboats have very large range too), especially on most water maps where you have huge swaths of sea to build in.
Llamadeus
Posts: 69
Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 09:06

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by Llamadeus »

The conship takes so long to open and close its arm thing that it's rarely worth it to have more than, say, two working on a single thing unless you're building a fusion or something. Practical limitations are often the most important.
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by el_matarife »

Llamadeus wrote:The conship takes so long to open and close its arm thing that it's rarely worth it to have more than, say, two working on a single thing unless you're building a fusion or something. Practical limitations are often the most important.
Honestly, I don't know why Fats hasn't used the CA construction models with no "arm deployment" yet. I'm sure some people have balance justifications for the delay, but it really only hurts when building large amounts of small quickly built units. I personally think having an impediment to massive unit spam is totally contrary to the nature of BA.
User avatar
Idleking
Posts: 28
Joined: 23 Dec 2008, 18:40

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by Idleking »

I think it shouldn't be possible to capture Commanders btw :lol:
Raptor
Posts: 33
Joined: 01 Feb 2009, 08:12

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by Raptor »

YokoZar wrote:Besides, if you scrap your t1 shipyard, you can make a naval engineer and have him build conboats.
True - but you can't let the conboats assist the production of more conboats. (Ok - you could, if you tell each new conboat to assist the engineer - but lets face it, thats alot more micro intensive.)
Llamadeus wrote:The conship takes so long to open and close its arm thing that it's rarely worth it to have more than, say, two working on a single thing unless you're building a fusion or something. Practical limitations are often the most important.
I've been testing this in SP now.
5 Engineers vs 8 Conships - each one making his own row of tidals

Test 1:
Rows where too close together and 2 conships blocked each other for a good while because they decided to build in the same line. I did not interfere.
After 2 minutes:
Conships: 61 Tidals finished.
Engineers: 70 Tidals finished.

Test 2:
A engineer blocked itself, because I put the first tidal on his space. Again, I did not interfere.
After 2 minutes:
Conships: 72 Tidals finished.
Engineers: 69 Tidals finished.

In both tests 2 minutes seemed to be a favourable stop point for the conships, since at that moment they had several new tidals at 0% - so they just finished theyr last ones while the Engineers had several tidals at 50-60%.
To me, the Engineers seem to be the slightly better Tidal constructors overall since they are less likely to block each other, but in total the Conship might still be the slightly better economical choice.

Though what you mentioned - the arm taking too long to open and close is not as much a problem, due to its slower buildspeed - this not only applies to fusions, but also to tidals. Ofc it would become a problem if we had several conships/engineers each working on the same tidal.

I ran another 2 tests, this time with MMM's:

First one where sixpacks of MMM's.
Can't remember when i started the test, but here are the results:
Conships: 19 MMM's finished.
Engineers: 17 MMM's finished.

The Engineers blocked each other several times, only making 5 and 4 of the planned 6 MMM's. I even stopped the test at a favourable point of time for them, where they had just finished theyr last MMM.
The reason for this blocking not happening with the T1 cons might be the slightly higher builddistance of T1 cons (250 vs 200).

Secound test were MMM's with the space of 1 MMM between each of them.
Conships: 18 MMM's finished.
Engineer: 19 MMM's finished.

I have a hard time drawing conclusions from this, since the differences between the two are so miniscule in the end, it hardly matters.

On UW fusions: UW fusions have one thing going for them: most units can't attack them.
Theyre also easier to protect, since you'll have less space to take care of.
Llamadeus
Posts: 69
Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 09:06

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by Llamadeus »

el_matarife wrote:Honestly, I don't know why Fats hasn't used the CA construction models with no "arm deployment" yet. I'm sure some people have balance justifications for the delay, but it really only hurts when building large amounts of small quickly built units. I personally think having an impediment to massive unit spam is totally contrary to the nature of BA.
On construction ships it's an important limitation because of its massive build speed and range. Without the delay it would be far too easy to repair ships in combat and would shift the focus of t1 naval battles significantly towards con ships.

I think it adds slightly to the depth of the game overall. There would be a bunch of subtle changes that removing the delay would have. It would make it a lot easier for cons to defend against scouts, for instance.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by YokoZar »

Llamadeus wrote:
el_matarife wrote:Honestly, I don't know why Fats hasn't used the CA construction models with no "arm deployment" yet. I'm sure some people have balance justifications for the delay, but it really only hurts when building large amounts of small quickly built units. I personally think having an impediment to massive unit spam is totally contrary to the nature of BA.
On construction ships it's an important limitation because of its massive build speed and range. Without the delay it would be far too easy to repair ships in combat and would shift the focus of t1 naval battles significantly towards con ships.

I think it adds slightly to the depth of the game overall. There would be a bunch of subtle changes that removing the delay would have. It would make it a lot easier for cons to defend against scouts, for instance.
I agree with this, however when a construction ship is building a line of tidals it just feels dumb when it puts its crane away, moves forward 1/10 of an inch, and then brings it back out.

Perhaps the ideal solution is some scripting improvements - keep the crane out when the object to be built is right next door. Perhaps it's worth investigating having cons take extra damage when their crane is out, similar to how solars operate.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by YokoZar »

The advanced construction sub should be able to build the floating heavy laser towers. I ended up in a game having my t2 sea getting run over by hovers shortly after it started, but most of my economy was still intact (moho mines, etc). But neither my comm nor my con sub had anything they could do to fight back except for capturing or attempting to remake a shipyard.
User avatar
Sleksa
Posts: 1604
Joined: 04 Feb 2006, 20:58

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by Sleksa »

YokoZar wrote:I want to change the game because i lost :(.
Fixed it for you~~
HectorMeyer
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Jan 2009, 11:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by HectorMeyer »

This has probably been discussed in depth before, but I am not the biggest fan of the Commander wreck. I'd really love to see a "No Commander wrecks" checkbox.

The main problem I have is that the deliberate selfdestruction of the commander at the beginning gives a huge, early, "unfair" boost, especially when teching. I understand that the wreck was introduced to discourage combombs by supplying the enemy with metal, but I think this problem should be solved somehow else. Plus, I like the role of the Commander as your alter ego, the central figure of battle which is to be protected at all costs.



Some ideas:
  • Promote the No Commander, No Control option. Maybe change this option so that it allows taking of the abandoned units by the next teammember who types .take (instead of just allowing the player who lost the com to idle away). I really like this idea and I think it would go well with a no com wrecks option.

    A new option to disable the Commander explosion. I dont really like it, but maybe it works out well.

    An option to disable the transport of Commanders by T1 airtransporters. IMO, this wouldnt really hurt expansion since you can use construction planes or transport con vehs for this purpose just as well. Not a bad idea I think.

    Option to disable selfdestruction ability of the Commander and add invulnerability to allied fire. Doesn't really seem feasible, but I am just brainstorming here..

    Maybe some other other crazy stuff like a Commander EMP blast which disables any enemy Commanders within range for a while.


On an unrelated note, I think the Commander has too little HP. I think he could use at least 50% more.

Also, pls consider reintroducing the no wrecks option. It's nice to have, and no one is forcing people who are unhappy with it to use it.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by YokoZar »

Sleksa wrote:
YokoZar wrote:I want to change the game because i lost :(.
Fixed it for you~~
We won that game holmes. Doesn't matter anyway, there's still a lack of interesting things to do with advanced con subs other than econ
User avatar
Lolsquad_Steven
Posts: 488
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 17:55

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by Lolsquad_Steven »

Hrm, i tested your mod, everything seems perfect, change nothing.
pintle
Posts: 1762
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 16:01

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by pintle »

Core subs repeatedly miss stationary targets when they have los. By this I mean almost 100% miss rate.

TFC pm me if you want the replay
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5306
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by Jazcash »

HectorMeyer wrote:This has probably been discussed in depth before, but I am not the biggest fan of the Commander wreck. I'd really love to see a "No Commander wrecks" checkbox.

The main problem I have is that the deliberate selfdestruction of the commander at the beginning gives a huge, early, "unfair" boost, especially when teching. I understand that the wreck was introduced to discourage combombs by supplying the enemy with metal, but I think this problem should be solved somehow else. Plus, I like the role of the Commander as your alter ego, the central figure of battle which is to be protected at all costs.



Some ideas:
  • Promote the No Commander, No Control option. Maybe change this option so that it allows taking of the abandoned units by the next teammember who types .take (instead of just allowing the player who lost the com to idle away). I really like this idea and I think it would go well with a no com wrecks option.

    A new option to disable the Commander explosion. I dont really like it, but maybe it works out well.

    An option to disable the transport of Commanders by T1 airtransporters. IMO, this wouldnt really hurt expansion since you can use construction planes or transport con vehs for this purpose just as well. Not a bad idea I think.

    Option to disable selfdestruction ability of the Commander and add invulnerability to allied fire. Doesn't really seem feasible, but I am just brainstorming here..

    Maybe some other other crazy stuff like a Commander EMP blast which disables any enemy Commanders within range for a while.


On an unrelated note, I think the Commander has too little HP. I think he could use at least 50% more.

Also, pls consider reintroducing the no wrecks option. It's nice to have, and no one is forcing people who are unhappy with it to use it.
No.
User avatar
Sleksa
Posts: 1604
Joined: 04 Feb 2006, 20:58

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by Sleksa »

Lolsquad_Steven wrote:Hrm, i tested your mod, everything seems perfect, change nothing.
nyce
jellyman
Posts: 265
Joined: 13 Nov 2005, 07:36

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by jellyman »

Lolsquad_Steven wrote:Hrm, i tested your mod, everything seems perfect, change nothing.
Did you test fatboys?
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by Gota »

the commander is oped,nerf it.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85

Post by YokoZar »

jellyman wrote:
Lolsquad_Steven wrote:Hrm, i tested your mod, everything seems perfect, change nothing.
Did you test fatboys?
I thought that they were supposed to be worse than goliaths in every conceivable way? (well, except for a small amount of range, which basically relegates them to the same role as luggers)
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”