Balanced Annihilation V7.04
Moderator: Content Developer
-
- Posts: 1398
- Joined: 17 Sep 2008, 04:36
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
+1 to triton's suggestions
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
i thought balanced annihilation should be balanced for race's not 1v1 etc (used same fail grama so i dont have to quote).
dont nerf stumps, buff raiders, decrease their ridicously high build time and cost really a little (still, both should be higher coz raider got more hp)
dont nerf stumps, buff raiders, decrease their ridicously high build time and cost really a little (still, both should be higher coz raider got more hp)
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
Play 1vs1 on DSD and there will be T2. Time is the most valuable resource!
Stumpy is not too OP, people just don't know how to use mines and especially the PASSIVE mode.
Stumpy is not too OP, people just don't know how to use mines and especially the PASSIVE mode.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
i played many 1vs1 on big map pako, no T2 too, sometimes liche, but T2 fail on 1vs1 to 3vs3 with only good players, in 99% games.
Mainly because T2 factory cost too much metal, energie and bt.
During the time ure building T2 factory, ure opponent can make tons of units or 2 T1 factory for air drop etc..
in good games 3 T1 factory is better than a T2 factory.
Mainly because T2 factory cost too much metal, energie and bt.
During the time ure building T2 factory, ure opponent can make tons of units or 2 T1 factory for air drop etc..
in good games 3 T1 factory is better than a T2 factory.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
so dont make t2.triton wrote: in good games 3 T1 factory is better than a T2 factory.
next
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
Hmm, you are of the school of smoth. Disagreement = trolling.triton wrote:trolling war...
this topic is fucked
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
disagreement without any argue is trolling, or useless.
if u wanna speak about useless things dont use that topics thx.
maybe ill make a topic without trolling allowed or flawless or useless reply if its possible.
last wombats response is stupid...
so dont make T2...
why ba have T2 if good players cant use it in a good way?
If a mod cant use T2 in 1vs1 or team games with good players only i think its not well balanced.
i am not the only one who think this but, maybe others players understood that trying to use forum to make ba better is a useless way.
moderator should do their work, i am not sure that copy paste my sentence and say : nah , is really interesting.
if this topic stay crappy i wont waste my time anymore to try to help gl
if u wanna speak about useless things dont use that topics thx.
maybe ill make a topic without trolling allowed or flawless or useless reply if its possible.
last wombats response is stupid...
so dont make T2...
why ba have T2 if good players cant use it in a good way?
If a mod cant use T2 in 1vs1 or team games with good players only i think its not well balanced.
i am not the only one who think this but, maybe others players understood that trying to use forum to make ba better is a useless way.
moderator should do their work, i am not sure that copy paste my sentence and say : nah , is really interesting.
if this topic stay crappy i wont waste my time anymore to try to help gl
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
Here's an argument for you: The T2 lab/con cost change will not happen because it's too big of a change. TFC told you this before, I told you this several times. Hence the "Nah".triton wrote:disagreement without any argue is trolling, or useless.
if u wanna speak about useless things dont use that topics thx.
maybe ill make a topic without trolling allowed or flawless or useless reply if its possible.
last wombats response is stupid...
so dont make T2...
why ba have T2 if good players cant use it in a good way?
If a mod cant use T2 in 1vs1 or team games with good players only i think its not well balanced.
i am not the only one who think this but, maybe others players understood that trying to use forum to make ba better is a useless way.
moderator should do their work, i am not sure that copy paste my sentence and say : nah , is really interesting.
if this topic stay crappy i wont waste my time anymore to try to help gl
You're repeating yourself and zealously push forward your idea of what BA should be like. Feel free to make your own fork under a different name.
EDIT: accidentally whole post, back now
Last edited by Regret on 02 Dec 2009, 00:24, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
True i spoke about T2 cost lab changes with u and tfc.
but tfc is afraid by doing crappy changes, and he manage ba only to maintain it working with spring changes.
i just want to speak about this with more players.
example of wat id like to see : instead of 30 stumpys i want to see 20 stumpys and 2 or 3 bulldog, or few T2 arty or one pene.
same for kbots : instead of armys with 50 rokos id like to see armys with 20 rockos and 4 or 5 fidos,
its just crappy example but imo if we could make T2 lab for its units and not systematicly make factory to make cons then reclaim factory to use its metal (2800 metal to be able to have T2 units is not possible without a uber eco) ba would be better : we would use gremlins more often, and all weak T2 units.
ba have many units but cause of its T2 and T3 lab cost we cant use all units well,
if T2 lab cost were smaller and T2 cons cost were bigger we would use factory for its units more often and gameplay would be more interesting, respecting BA units balance.
but tfc is afraid by doing crappy changes, and he manage ba only to maintain it working with spring changes.
i just want to speak about this with more players.
example of wat id like to see : instead of 30 stumpys i want to see 20 stumpys and 2 or 3 bulldog, or few T2 arty or one pene.
same for kbots : instead of armys with 50 rokos id like to see armys with 20 rockos and 4 or 5 fidos,
its just crappy example but imo if we could make T2 lab for its units and not systematicly make factory to make cons then reclaim factory to use its metal (2800 metal to be able to have T2 units is not possible without a uber eco) ba would be better : we would use gremlins more often, and all weak T2 units.
ba have many units but cause of its T2 and T3 lab cost we cant use all units well,
if T2 lab cost were smaller and T2 cons cost were bigger we would use factory for its units more often and gameplay would be more interesting, respecting BA units balance.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
If it will be better BA then go and fork your own mod just like BA did with AA.
- CarRepairer
- Cursed Zero-K Developer
- Posts: 3359
- Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
How did you get to be so damn smart?Regret wrote:If it will be better BA then go and fork your own mod just like BA did with AA.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
sadly i cant make my own mod i dont know how to develop myself
ps: CarRepairer u are a good example of troll with nothing usefull to say
ps: CarRepairer u are a good example of troll with nothing usefull to say
CarRepairer wrote:How did you get to be so damn smart?Regret wrote:If it will be better BA then go and fork your own mod just like BA did with AA.
Last edited by triton on 02 Dec 2009, 01:55, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
+1 (same e and bp cost)Wombat wrote:i thought balanced annihilation should be balanced for race's not 1v1 etc (used same fail grama so i dont have to quote).
dont nerf stumps, buff raiders, decrease their ridicously high build time and cost really a little (still, both should be higher coz raider got more hp)
Or the other way around, just reduce the unba between them.
raider cost more metal,is slower and less manoeuvrable this "balances" their higher hp.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
Why is your icon Cobra Commander riding a pig? I really can't wait to see your new mod.CarRepairer wrote:How did you get to be so damn smart?Regret wrote:If it will be better BA then go and fork your own mod just like BA did with AA.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
u are stupid sir... u said urself that 3 t1 is better than 1 t2, so dont make t2... thats logic, forcing lower t2 cost just to make it ? thats not logic...triton wrote:
last wombats response is stupid...
so dont make T2...
-
- Posts: 181
- Joined: 13 Jan 2009, 11:20
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
its the classic TA resource distribution.
When resources are scattered all over the place without any defendable positions or chokepoints like on e.g. Comet Catcher or pretty much any other map for that matter its only natural that aggressive use of T1 units wins the game.
edit:
in 8v8 games its different because the game tends to start with 2 sides having access to half of the resources of the map from the beginning, and can defend their frontlines better, so the 50/50 resource distribution tends to stay for a while.
When resources are scattered all over the place without any defendable positions or chokepoints like on e.g. Comet Catcher or pretty much any other map for that matter its only natural that aggressive use of T1 units wins the game.
edit:
in 8v8 games its different because the game tends to start with 2 sides having access to half of the resources of the map from the beginning, and can defend their frontlines better, so the 50/50 resource distribution tends to stay for a while.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
Still waiting for an intelligent rebuttal of Triton's points...
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
pintle wrote:Still waiting for an intelligent rebuttal of Triton's points...
Regret wrote:The T2 lab/con cost change will not happen because it's too big of a change. TFC told you this before, I told you this several times.
- 1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
I think pintle means a justification that it wouldnt improve the game rather than a justification for not making the change (since BA development is anal conservative its pretty obviously not happening)Regret wrote:The T2 lab/con cost change will not happen because it's too big of a change
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.04
Improvement is incredibly relative, some would find it an improvement to have atlas not be able to transport commanders, some wouldn't.1v0ry_k1ng wrote:improve the game
As such it doesn't require any counter-argument, merely a statement of disagreement (or agreement).
So I respond: -1