Balanced Annihilation V6.96
Moderator: Content Developer
- 1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
yeah, to get sea battles of decent scale the costs need to be in line with land costs- ie, cheap
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
If they are cheap they wont be able to sustain a decent dps with a decent range and a decent hp.
Either ull get long ranged dps beasts with low hp that kill each other after one shot or short ranged cheap ships that have less interaction with land forces.
Either ull get long ranged dps beasts with low hp that kill each other after one shot or short ranged cheap ships that have less interaction with land forces.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
I think the boats may already be overpriced compared with land units. As a quick experiment, I opened up a game of Tropical and pitted an equivalent cost of stumpies vs decades and destroyers. The stumpies owned by a very large margin - they only become competitive at about twice the cost in ships vs stumpies. The stumpies were even better than cruisers.Gota wrote:If they are cheap they wont be able to sustain a decent dps with a decent range and a decent hp.
Either ull get long ranged dps beasts with low hp that kill each other after one shot or short ranged cheap ships that have less interaction with land forces.
This seems very odd to me - sea units shouldn't be half as efficient as land units in the water.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
The easiest solution is to remove ships completely.
There are a lot of issues with balancing ships with land, they just don't go together well. Take range for example, either ships outrange land, at which point they can siege land for free with the power to run away, or they don't outrange land, at which point you are better off using land as it is too predictable where your ships are going to attack from each time (the sea).
Combining with adding more hover units, or t2 hover, would also make sea more interesting than it is now. Especially in that sea could be fought over all game, or retaken, which is extremely difficult with ships.
There are a lot of issues with balancing ships with land, they just don't go together well. Take range for example, either ships outrange land, at which point they can siege land for free with the power to run away, or they don't outrange land, at which point you are better off using land as it is too predictable where your ships are going to attack from each time (the sea).
Combining with adding more hover units, or t2 hover, would also make sea more interesting than it is now. Especially in that sea could be fought over all game, or retaken, which is extremely difficult with ships.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
I agree.Remove ships.Niobium wrote:The easiest solution is to remove ships completely.
There are a lot of issues with balancing ships with land, they just don't go together well. Take range for example, either ships outrange land, at which point they can siege land for free with the power to run away, or they don't outrange land, at which point you are better off using land as it is too predictable where your ships are going to attack from each time (the sea).
Combining with adding more hover units, or t2 hover, would also make sea more interesting than it is now. Especially in that sea could be fought over all game, or retaken, which is extremely difficult with ships.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
Sea stuff has always seemed a bit gimmicky to me anyway.
-
- Posts: 181
- Joined: 13 Jan 2009, 11:20
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
The biggest problem with sea is that most maps have too many sea metalspots, which makes sea too powerful once you get control over it. Sea is already crazy strong with the opportunity to build huge underwater fusion farms and cheap tidal generators. Good examples for this are DeltaSiegeX or SmallSupremeBattlefieldV2. Maps which handle this better are Mearth or DeltaSiegeIsland.
Another problem: If a player manages to claim sea early, he will porc for the next 30 minutes amassing resources from his combined land and sea resources, with the remaining land player having only little opportunity to take sea back. There is no way to kill underwater metalspots or other underwater stuff for that matter. Once BBs and Torpedo Bombers are available the sea player will have already have advanced too much. Some ideas to counter this:
-Make the hovercraft plant cheaper and buildable by the commander, so it becomes a viable "first lab".
-Make a depthcharge/torpedo/sonar hovercraft. Make it expensive, slow and Low HP, to avoid it being overpowered.
-Make the underwater fusion reactor more expensive, to slow down sea porc.
This would make hovercraft a real alternative to start with even on a sea spot, with the benefit that land starters could go hovers as well and support sea.
Another problem: If a player manages to claim sea early, he will porc for the next 30 minutes amassing resources from his combined land and sea resources, with the remaining land player having only little opportunity to take sea back. There is no way to kill underwater metalspots or other underwater stuff for that matter. Once BBs and Torpedo Bombers are available the sea player will have already have advanced too much. Some ideas to counter this:
-Make the hovercraft plant cheaper and buildable by the commander, so it becomes a viable "first lab".
-Make a depthcharge/torpedo/sonar hovercraft. Make it expensive, slow and Low HP, to avoid it being overpowered.
-Make the underwater fusion reactor more expensive, to slow down sea porc.
This would make hovercraft a real alternative to start with even on a sea spot, with the benefit that land starters could go hovers as well and support sea.
-
- Posts: 823
- Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 02:54
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
Can you guys temporary remove sea until it's balance? I just love epic ship battles. Hovers should only be use to make a surprise attack on the base on land. Ships should be use to conquer the seas. Seriously hovers shouldn't replace ships.
I say we should settle this by democratic means.
I say we should settle this by democratic means.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
democracy in game development... this won't fly.
-
- Posts: 181
- Joined: 13 Jan 2009, 11:20
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
I think making hovers stronger, especially early on, is a good idea. There is just too little interaction between land and sea in the early game now. The role of ships would be mainly for the strong T2 eco and units in the mid/late game.
TLDR: make hovers > ships early game, and ships > hovers late game
TLDR: make hovers > ships early game, and ships > hovers late game
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
Imo there should be T1 and T2 Hover, T1 and T2 Amphib and T1 and T2 Seaplanes. Non of this dodgy T1.5 shit.
Like land can start Bots, Veh or Air - Sea should start Boats, Seaplanes or Hover/Amphib.
Like land can start Bots, Veh or Air - Sea should start Boats, Seaplanes or Hover/Amphib.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
Uhh, nobody cares how you think it should go... Do you think those changes have any hope toget through in BA?
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
Never fear, I shall steal your ideas and call them my own.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
Caydr tried to do T1 hovers once (sadly, I think it was actually my suggestion). They were totally OP. If you wanted T1 hovers, they would have to suck or else they'd be the only unit ever seen on mixed-terrain maps. Remember that hovers get Kbot slope and they cross water, so they should actually be weaker than kbots if they're true-L1.JAZCASH wrote:Imo there should be T1 and T2 Hover, T1 and T2 Amphib and T1 and T2 Seaplanes. Non of this dodgy T1.5 shit.
Like land can start Bots, Veh or Air - Sea should start Boats, Seaplanes or Hover/Amphib.
Also, be happy that seaplanes are at least in a useful spot on the build-list. They used to be T3 units, which made no freaking sense at all since it meant you never, ever saw them.
it is important to remember that in OTA, there were originally no underwater metal patches. Even after Core Contingency, there were no underwater mohos. Naval units were meant to be inferior to land units for metal extraction. "Owning the sea" meant you had access to shoreline bombardment, not a resource field. I don't remember how the OTA energy-resource units compared. Either way, uberhack threw this out.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
Maps have too many sea metal spots because boats are too expensive.HectorMeyer wrote:The biggest problem with sea is that most maps have too many sea metalspots, which makes sea too powerful once you get control over it. Sea is already crazy strong with the opportunity to build huge underwater fusion farms and cheap tidal generators. Good examples for this are DeltaSiegeX or SmallSupremeBattlefieldV2. Maps which handle this better are Mearth or DeltaSiegeIsland.
-
- Posts: 181
- Joined: 13 Jan 2009, 11:20
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
Sea metal spots are ok on pure sea maps, but on combined sea/land maps there should be almost no metal spots in water.
/opinion
/opinion
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
sea metal spots cant be balanced on maps yet since sea itself isnt balanced.
random note...i like the gameplay implications of CA's above-water sea mex. the least expensive unit to raid underwater mex is the 500 metal submarine that moves at 2 mph.
random note...i like the gameplay implications of CA's above-water sea mex. the least expensive unit to raid underwater mex is the 500 metal submarine that moves at 2 mph.
- TheFatController
- Balanced Annihilation Developer
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
I always preferred SSB without the mex spots in the sea, the map died a death when v2 was released.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.96
Should have been named differently.