Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

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

Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by YokoZar »

The following units are sort of dark secrets of BA. I've seen them used maybe once or twice out of 100 games so far, and even then they didn't do much. I think we should give serious consideration to doing something about them, or maybe even removing them.
  • Air repair pad: costs too much, planes can get healed by nano turrets anyway. It also generates 40 energy for some weird reason, and that seems like a strange way to balance it.
  • Advanced Metal/Energy storage: costs too much, usefulness obviated by built-in storage of moho/fusion plants, not much better than basic storage
  • Core Intruder (amphib transport): not that many more hp than the units its moving, is still really slow, is an advanced unit, and costs quite a bit
  • Core Envoy/Arm Hulk (naval transports): cost as much as a hover plant, very risky transport, cost more than the hover transports
  • Core Turtle/Arm Bear (hover transports): still cost a lot, somewhat dangerous, however they can be reasonable for small rivers when porc can reach the other end such as at the top of DeltaSiegeX. Still, this is a very narrow role
Post your suggestions for "doing something" with these units here.
Last edited by YokoZar on 29 Apr 2009, 07:46, edited 1 time in total.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by YokoZar »

My initial thoughts on the air repair pad:

Currently, it costs more than twice as much as a single nano turret but does less than one (nanos can often repair planes flying overhead if you give them the right patrol route).

Perhaps nanos should just be modified to not repair planes flying overhead; that way the air repair pad would get some use (and also not finish repairing the planes before they've landed).

Also, the air repair pad looks like a nano turret, so maybe it should function like one as well - why not modify it so it functions like a normal nano turret, but gets a huge bonus to repairing aircraft (which in turn it can only repair one they've landed)? This would require some fancy scripting to make sure it actually repairs landed planes even when it's been given a patrol/guard order, however, which might get complicated.

Another option is to replace the air repair pad model with something that looks less like a nano turret. It could be replaced with 4 tiny ones: planes could then heal individually while on the pad rather than waiting in line. Alternatively, we can just leave it as it is and give it a massive cost reduction as well as remove the ability of nanos to heal flying planes.


Note: the aircraft carrier is a similar unit that has an adjusted cost of 1766 (it actually costs more, but its built-in energy production is worth about 1/4 of a fusion plant so we subtract this from its cost). This means it only costs about 1100 more than the air repair pad, but the carrier also doubles as an antinuke (which cost 2500 on land!)
User avatar
Teutooni
Posts: 717
Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 17:21

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Teutooni »

Umm, I have no idea what you are talking about. From BA 6.85 (couldn't find 6.91 in TAS modit, but I don't think air repair pads or nanos have changed):

Air repair pad:
Cost: 698
WorkerTime = 1000 (x4, can repair 4 planes simultanously with 1000 WT each)

Nano turret:
Cost: 247
WorkerTime = 200

So, to match the full WT of an air repair pad you need 20 nanos - cost 4940. 698 vs 4940, uhh sure buff repair pads. ~~

I use them whenever I go for krows or liches, which is to say, almost never. Airplanes are quite weak - it's far more effective to use the BP to produce more aircraft than repair old ones. Have you ever seen anyone repair a flea? :P

Still, nothing wrong with the repair pad itself.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by YokoZar »

Teutooni wrote:Air repair pad:
Cost: 698
WorkerTime = 1000 (x4, can repair 4 planes simultanously with 1000 WT each)

Nano turret:
Cost: 247
WorkerTime = 200

So, to match the full WT of an air repair pad you need 20 nanos - cost 4940. 698 vs 4940, uhh sure buff repair pads. ~~

I use them whenever I go for krows or liches, which is to say, almost never. Airplanes are quite weak - it's far more effective to use the BP to produce more aircraft than repair old ones. Have you ever seen anyone repair a flea? :P

Still, nothing wrong with the repair pad itself.
The air repair pad doesn't start until the plane actually lands - this process can take about 5 seconds or so, which is often enough time for a nano to repair it fully (unless it's a krow). Often times nanos will repair planes just flying overhead before they've met their damage threshold.

It's also very very rare for the thing to be repairing more than 1 or 2 planes at once.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Pxtl »

Doesn't intruder have a special deploy-on-destroy power?
YHCIR
Posts: 190
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 23:06

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by YHCIR »

Teutooni wrote: I use them whenever I go for krows or liches, which is to say, almost never. Airplanes are quite weak - it's far more effective to use the BP to produce more aircraft than repair old ones. Have you ever seen anyone repair a flea? :P
This.
Nobody repairs a fighter or bombers really, out of 10 bombers you'll maybe have 1 return, but since everyone uses fighters as they are the only effective form of AA, you usually don't get any planes return to base alive.

For the amount of time they'd get used, it's better to just land next to some nanos (or team mates nanos ^_^) for 10 seconds.

All transports need to be much faster rotating and manoeuvring, also need to be faster unloading. They are so tedious to use, they stand 0% chance of being used effectively to drop some tanks on an enemy shoreline because even if you can faf around exiting units in different areas, doing so on-at-a-time they will just get raped (that's assuming the transport lasts long enough). It's just a really bad all eggs in one basket situation.

Need something like a large armoured ship/hover that can also transport. It would need to be a mobile fortress to be useful.
Last edited by YHCIR on 28 Apr 2009, 15:40, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Pxtl »

Yes, but the point is that nanos are micro-intensive. Landing pads are not.

And while I don't build landing pads, I do build carriers.
User avatar
momfreeek
Posts: 625
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 16:50

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by momfreeek »

Maybe advanced e & m storage could behave more like a safe place to store resources. If they were tough enough to survive serious punishment (a nuke blast?) there might be a strategic reason to build them. Underground bunker storage. I guess that would need new models.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Neddie »

I've found that repair pads under sectors of a fighter screen can be effective supplements to porctastic play, though I admit I stopped playing BA for the most part half a year ago or so.

Go look at the Hulk, buggy and expensive.
User avatar
Beherith
Moderator
Posts: 4998
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Beherith »

Just a btw:
Intruder cant unload a sumo.
It can also transport tons less than a t2 trans plane, making it suck.

You could make it stealthy i guess... But dunno if that works underwater.
Last edited by Beherith on 28 Apr 2009, 21:17, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5304
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Jazcash »

Sub transports!
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by YokoZar »

momfreeek wrote:Maybe advanced e & m storage could behave more like a safe place to store resources. If they were tough enough to survive serious punishment (a nuke blast?) there might be a strategic reason to build them. Underground bunker storage. I guess that would need new models.
I had a similar thought actually. I'd like to see one advanced storage that held both metal and energy, was cheaper, and either had lots of hit points or was cloakable.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Pxtl »

The problem is that the L1 metal storage is already really damned tough to crack - it has almost as many hitpoints as the comm, and is the nanoshielding weapon-of-choice.

I doubt anybody would cry if the L2 metal storage was cut from the game altogether, but that's just me.
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by JohannesH »

Easy solution to making the adv storages better is to make them much cheaper, similar in cost to the t1 storages. Not that useful, as you don't usually need more storage at that point, but at least the adv stuff would be the storage you use at t2 rather than the cheaper t1 stuff.
User avatar
Beherith
Moderator
Posts: 4998
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Beherith »

YokoZar wrote:
momfreeek wrote:Maybe advanced e & m storage could behave more like a safe place to store resources. If they were tough enough to survive serious punishment (a nuke blast?) there might be a strategic reason to build them. Underground bunker storage. I guess that would need new models.
I had a similar thought actually. I'd like to see one advanced storage that held both metal and energy, was cheaper, and either had lots of hit points or was cloakable.
Like this idea a lot.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5304
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Jazcash »

Hmm, yes. The current T2 storages are very expensive considering T1 storages will usually suffice.

I'm also liking Zar's idea.
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by el_matarife »

What about making the T2 energy storage not go up in a big boom like the T1 energy storage? A much smaller explosion would provide a good reason to replace a T1 storage when you went T2.

As for the Intruder, why not ramp up its hitpoints a bit? In fact, I think all the ground based transports need more HP since the air based transports are vastly preferred in most games for speed and ease of use. A little speed boost wouldn't hurt the Intruder or hover transports either. A "Quick evac" for dropping out lots of units onto land would also help. Make them load slow, but be able to disgorge all their carried units quickly. The hover and land transport should probably disgorge all their units if killed on land, though maybe in a damaged state.
User avatar
Teutooni
Posts: 717
Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 17:21

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Teutooni »

el_matarife wrote:The hover and land transport should probably disgorge all their units if killed on land, though maybe in a damaged state.
I like this idea. It should make transports much more useful in a blockade run/invasion (their intended role, right?).
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Pxtl »

Imho: ditch the L2 metal storage. Make L2 super-storage. No blast radius, stores 10000 metal and 50000 energy, lots of armor. Scale the model up a bit. Cost it to be similarly efficient to the L1 counterparts - you're paying for armour and convenience, not efficiency.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: Units that are very rarely used and probably need changing

Post by Neddie »

Pxtl wrote:Imho: ditch the L2 metal storage. Make L2 super-storage. No blast radius, stores 10000 metal and 50000 energy, lots of armor. Scale the model up a bit. Cost it to be similarly efficient to the L1 counterparts - you're paying for armour and convenience, not efficiency.
Sure, go for it. Gantry sized?
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”