I actually gotta agree with this. Metal maps are still kind of fun, and no wrecks on metal maps is also kind of fun.darkdog wrote:uhhh, is there anyway i can turn the " no unit wreck " mod option back on there?
[old] Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Moderator: Content Developer
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Honestly I believe most people are wrong to neglect the mobile radar units. Mobile radar are much faster to build, about 1/10 the price, don't put your t2 con units in danger, and have nearly the same radar range anyway. Since you can have several of them, you're also much less likely to run into radar shadow issues as well.Pxtl wrote:Most people don't, since long-ranged radars and jammers are so prevalent at L2 that mobile radar is rarely useful. At L1? Jammers are rare, and with a conbot that's too slow to get to the front-lines where he can plant radar towers, a mobile radar would be a life-saver.
In other words, the advanced radar tower sucks. Especially compared to the radar plane.
Also, please leave the jammers at t2, they're actually really useful. It's just hard for people to notice how much value they're giving unless they're under heavy bertha fire.
- Pressure Line
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
He has been discussing mod balance with Yan, 'nuff said.pintle wrote:lulwut?Wisse wrote:I discussed this with Basic ALOT.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Small bug: the Arm Marky is immune to the juno for some reason (all other bots/jammers die, though I didn't test the radar planes)
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Another small complaint with an easy fix: the core jammer vehicle looks too big. Compare it to everything else:
- Attachments
-
- screen003.jpg
- jammers and radars
- (250.03 KiB) Downloaded 32 times
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Also, I feel like the arm t1 jammer is way worse than the core t1 jammer. It's twice the price and build time, which means it can take an entire minute for a lone construction bot to build. It also costs an extra 15 energy to use once built even if uncloaked. The cloak itself is very rarely used and not particularly valuable - it costs 25 energy to cloak, almost more than the cost of sending in spotters to look at the units it's guarding.
Actually, this might be a bug - I'm pretty sure the jamming cost and the cloak cost were reversed on accident - if it's set to 25 for on then it should be the same as the core t1 jammer. 40 is still way too high a cloak cost though.
edit: it also has fewer hit points
edit 2: nevermind, it actually has a slightly higher jamming radius. See below for cost analysis. In situations where you only need 1 of either, however, the core t1 jammer dominates.
Actually, this might be a bug - I'm pretty sure the jamming cost and the cloak cost were reversed on accident - if it's set to 25 for on then it should be the same as the core t1 jammer. 40 is still way too high a cloak cost though.
edit: it also has fewer hit points
edit 2: nevermind, it actually has a slightly higher jamming radius. See below for cost analysis. In situations where you only need 1 of either, however, the core t1 jammer dominates.
Last edited by YokoZar on 01 Apr 2009, 09:11, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Something interesting: t2 jammers take 100 energy to power, the t2 jamming tower takes 125, but the jamming ships take none (well, they take 18 and 20, but also produce 18 and 20 as well).
Last edited by YokoZar on 01 Apr 2009, 09:10, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
All right, here's a complete cost breakdown.
Arm Sneaky Pete:
base cost 358
jam radius 500
jam area pi*rad^2 = 785375
jam cost 40
area per jam cost = 19634
area per base cost = 2194
Core Castro:
base cost 189
jam radius 360
jam area pi*rad^2 = 407150
jam cost 25
area per jam cost = 16286
area per base cost = 2154
Arm Veil:
base cost 411
jam radius 760
jam area pi*rad^2 = 1814582
jam cost 125
area per jam cost = 14517
area per base cost = 4415
Core Shroud:
base cost 429
jam radius 700
jam area pi*rad^2 = 1539379
jam cost 125
area per jam cost = 12315
area per base cost = 3588
Things to notice: T2 jamming towers are less efficient than t1 jamming towers in terms of ongoing costs. This means that, for Arm, they're not much better than multiple t1 jammers. 2 arm sneaky petes will cover about as much area as a veil (it's not clear which wastes more space), for an initial cost of 716 vs 411, an outlay of 305 extra metal, however the two will save 125-80 = 45 energy. In terms of energy per metal cost, that 45 energy for 305 metal is a bit more efficient than a solar collector (albeit less than an advanced solar)
For Core, t2 jamming tower is about 3.8 t1 jamming towers in area (so, say 4). 4 t1 castros will cost 756, while a t2 shroud will cost 429. This is only a 25 energy savings for core, so for a 327 cost it's not very efficient. If you only need 3 castros to cover the same effective area (perhaps due to wasted space when you're near the edge or a cliff), then it's a 50 energy savings for an initial extra cost of 138. 50 energy for 138 cost is more efficient than an advanced fusion plant.
Arm Sneaky Pete:
base cost 358
jam radius 500
jam area pi*rad^2 = 785375
jam cost 40
area per jam cost = 19634
area per base cost = 2194
Core Castro:
base cost 189
jam radius 360
jam area pi*rad^2 = 407150
jam cost 25
area per jam cost = 16286
area per base cost = 2154
Arm Veil:
base cost 411
jam radius 760
jam area pi*rad^2 = 1814582
jam cost 125
area per jam cost = 14517
area per base cost = 4415
Core Shroud:
base cost 429
jam radius 700
jam area pi*rad^2 = 1539379
jam cost 125
area per jam cost = 12315
area per base cost = 3588
Things to notice: T2 jamming towers are less efficient than t1 jamming towers in terms of ongoing costs. This means that, for Arm, they're not much better than multiple t1 jammers. 2 arm sneaky petes will cover about as much area as a veil (it's not clear which wastes more space), for an initial cost of 716 vs 411, an outlay of 305 extra metal, however the two will save 125-80 = 45 energy. In terms of energy per metal cost, that 45 energy for 305 metal is a bit more efficient than a solar collector (albeit less than an advanced solar)
For Core, t2 jamming tower is about 3.8 t1 jamming towers in area (so, say 4). 4 t1 castros will cost 756, while a t2 shroud will cost 429. This is only a 25 energy savings for core, so for a 327 cost it's not very efficient. If you only need 3 castros to cover the same effective area (perhaps due to wasted space when you're near the edge or a cliff), then it's a 50 energy savings for an initial extra cost of 138. 50 energy for 138 cost is more efficient than an advanced fusion plant.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Sneaky Pete's cloak has good uses, for example hiding commanders late-game when t2 airscouts and bombers come into play (make Pete, cloak, put com next to it and cloak com...also nice for dgunning incoming heavy stuff like Sumo or Krog).YokoZar wrote:The cloak itself is very rarely used and not particularly valuable - it costs 25 energy to cloak, almost more than the cost of sending in spotters to look at the units it's guarding.
Also, can that sick idea of flying comwrecks plz be reverted?
Consider: Enemy comdrops near base, starts to dgun stuff, and when a com comes to intercept him (often the only effective way to stop enemy com in such a situation) he dguns, leaving your team with a killed base and a measly 1.2k com debris while the enemy team gets a nice 2.5k comwreck delivered right in front of them by airmail.
Or: 2 coms rush middle (usually necessary in teamgames), as soon as one gets upper hand, other com dguns leaving his team with 2.5k metal near their base while the other team must run to middle for only 1.2k metal.
Not right, imho...the way it was before (com dies to other com -> 5k metal stay right in that place) was fair, for if you risk flying your com in enemy base or like dgunning enemy coms you deserve leaving the enemy with 5k metal imo.
- 1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
in the words of regret, not every unit in a mod has to be balanced. if a few units are balanced and the rest are underpowered that is fine.
this means
a) nobody cares about skewed pricing of radar jammers
b) you should be using the metal to make more stumpys
this means
a) nobody cares about skewed pricing of radar jammers
b) you should be using the metal to make more stumpys
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
The jammer ships also have double the range of the other mobile jammers (900 vs 450).YokoZar wrote:Something interesting: t2 jammers take 100 energy to power, the t2 jamming tower takes 125, but the jamming ships take none (well, they take 18 and 20, but also produce 18 and 20 as well).
IMHO water needs strong & cheap jammers though - its the only weapon a water player has against LRPC's (heck, want I really want are shield ships!). Also, the radius needs to be bigger, since ships are alot bigger than land units.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Well as you guys already kinda know. TheFatController is now in charge of BA. As my time to spend on spring is now so limited. I'll leave BA to him. Im sure he will do a fine job.
I wanna thank everybody who helped me on BA, also many thanks for all the players who play BA.
I wanna thank everybody who helped me on BA, also many thanks for all the players who play BA.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Thank You NOiZE for all the time and effort you put into BA.NOiZE wrote:I wanna thank everybody who helped me on BA, also many thanks for all the players who play BA.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
WHAT ABOUT WARC!?! WHAT ABOUT THE COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWS !??!NOiZE wrote:Well as you guys already kinda know. TheFatController is now in charge of BA. As my time to spend on spring is now so limited. I'll leave BA to him. Im sure he will do a fine job.
I wanna thank everybody who helped me on BA, also many thanks for all the players who play BA.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Nah man. I'm not freaking out. I'm just making a strong point, I added some stars and caps just for extra attention XDTheFatController wrote:No need to freak out this is a discussion thread. There's nothing wrong with considering all options, as long as only sensible changes get included in BA.
But seriously. Does noone remember Day or rAndy pwning others with bots on flat maps like CCR... Bots are good. They're just too hard for average Joe on flat maps.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Peewee is (alot) cheaper than flash. And they got HUGE buff with this version of BA, because they don't chain blow anymore thus peewee spam just got better.pintle wrote:lulwut? why the hell should pw/ak be much more expensive than flash/gator? what possible positive impact on balance can this have? *Even if* pw/ak/gator/flash were roughly equal, missile trucks, leveller/janus, and stumpy/raider would make veh much much better on flat maps anyway.
Fixing costs on a unit is in no way whatsoever dumbing down the mod...
I just want AK's LOS on peewee so I don't have to micro fleas so much.
Yan made SA because he didn't like BA's balance. I didn't want to play his mod couse I claimed he ruined kbot's purpose. We talked alot about how I feel kbtos should be and why BA's balance is good. Now you're trying to make similar changes. Just go play SA, kthx bye.Pressure Line wrote:He has been discussing mod balance with Yan, 'nuff said.
Don't dumb down the only good mod left. BA is hard mod and it should stay like that. There are plenty other mods available for those who can't micro 3 or 4 groups of different units together. Just remember: veh = spam spam spam, bots = micro spam micro.
Ofc I could try giving you some kbot might demonstrations if you think that I'm making things up.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
I think there's no point in writing posts if you can show a replay and say "kbots are fine" with a straight face. a replay is worth a thousand posts.Wisse wrote:Ofc I could try giving you some kbot might demonstrations if you think that I'm making things up.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
tired made SA, yan continued the life of that abomination.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
@Wisse
AK players have to micro into point-blank-range to make up for the laser weapons. Peewees have to use fleas for sight-range-support and can be micro'd to use their height bonus. Plus, Arm gets fleas and warriors, Core doesn't. Sounds fair to me. I say leave the discrepancy between Arm and Core raider-bots.
AK players have to micro into point-blank-range to make up for the laser weapons. Peewees have to use fleas for sight-range-support and can be micro'd to use their height bonus. Plus, Arm gets fleas and warriors, Core doesn't. Sounds fair to me. I say leave the discrepancy between Arm and Core raider-bots.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Thank you NOiZE. They say the last responsibility of an open source developer is to appoint a successor, so thank you for that as well.NOiZE wrote:Well as you guys already kinda know. TheFatController is now in charge of BA. As my time to spend on spring is now so limited. I'll leave BA to him. Im sure he will do a fine job.
I wanna thank everybody who helped me on BA, also many thanks for all the players who play BA.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.85
Tru dat.Wisse wrote:Just remember: veh = spam spam spam, bots = micro spam micro.