Balanced Annihilation V7.11 - Page 3

Balanced Annihilation V7.11

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Wombat »

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:
Wombat wrote:vote 1 to reverse golly changes
why?
its extremely hard to kill golly with t1 (ofc, as long as u dont have 50 stumps) and now it got 1,2k hp more... im not sure what velocity means, but if its speed, it means u can micro golly bit easier (golly got very nice range either what makes 'hit and run' deadly)

oh and higher velocity + hp means it will be much harder to kill golly with 1 flash or even fleas :< what was cool and pro
0 x

Jaewoo
Posts: 2
Joined: 05 Feb 2010, 06:06

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Jaewoo »

Hi, first of all thanks for maintaining this mod. I hope you won't mind if I make a few suggestions based on my experience so far.

OS: win7 64x
CPU: core 2 t9800 2.53ghz
GPU: 9600m gtx 512mb

Is there anyway to get team resources back when using redui?


The guardian is still underpowered, it used to be the most heavily armored land unit in OTA, pre-CC. Now you're considered a noob if you build it in most situations. I think the range and damage should be increased. It costs almost as much as going to t2, but it's as weak as a single t2 tank. I think its purpose should be something like a level 1 bertha/medium range artillery/ship defense with heavy armor like it was originally.


Water based units need overall upgrading, especially l1, I think it would make the game more interesting if playing water was more viable than it is currently.

In my opinion water units are too expensive and underpowered, except for the super powered t2 ships which are hyper-expensive (although still vulnerable to bombers and torps for a super unit).. there isn't much variety in-between, and medium ships weapons are too weak. My main point is, water should be better against land based units.

I think level 1 needs an alternative energy source, such as floating solar panels (I actually saw this done 3rd party ota), tidal generators should be variable like wind, and more cost effective. There should be static nuke launchers and anti nuke as well. And there should be the L1 SAMs.

Basically, ships should be better and the anti ship weapon, guardian should be as good as it was in OTA.

Also, occasionally my cpu jumps to 98% and I get 1fps. Everything slows to a halt, it can happen any time. I'm not sure what triggers it but when it happens it always lasts for the rest of the game. As soon as the game ends, the fps goes back to normal -about 40. I have had this problem since at least 7.04 as well.

One more thing, I think the line-of-sight difference between air and ground is exaggerated too much, air should have a lot of line-of-sight, but now you can only see units directly below certain aircraft. It looks really weird and it's pretty frustrating. I agree advanced bombers need a downgrade (probably armor), but this anti air adjustment is more frustrating than anything else. It doesn't make sense that land units can see further than air units.

Also, transports can't see land at all.. I guess that is an anti comnap measure, but I think there should be better ways to make com napping harder (all this means is you need to send a peeper too).



Thanks!
Last edited by Jaewoo on 05 Feb 2010, 08:32, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Mav
Posts: 258
Joined: 12 Nov 2009, 20:06

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Mav »

Jaewoo wrote:3: The guardian is still underpowered, it used to be the most heavily armored land unit in OTA, pre-CC. Now you're considered a noob if you build it in most situations. I think the range and damage should be increased. It costs almost as much as going to t2, but it's as weak as a single t2 tank. I think its purpose should be something like a level 1 bertha/medium range artillery/ship defense with heavy armor like it was originally.
No, no, no. The problem with making defensive units stronger is that it encourages porcing (building defensive structures, comes from "Porcupine"). Porcing is bad. Porcing leads to games where everyone spams stuff that doesn't move (HLTs, Guardians, etc, etc) and stand around watching their stuff shoot. If you enjoy that, go find a tower defense game somewhere. People already build enough Guardians as it is, can you imagine if it was actually a GOOD unit?

Secondly, the role of the Guardian has changed. It's no longer a defensive structure (as it's name suggests) but an offensive one. Don't build it to hold ground; build it to tear down your enemies' defenses. And once those defenses are down, reclaim that Guardian.

Simply put, rarely are static units going to get any sort of buff in BA. Doing so makes the game more porcy and discourages fun, dynamic gameplay.
0 x

Jaewoo
Posts: 2
Joined: 05 Feb 2010, 06:06

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Jaewoo »

Mav wrote:
Jaewoo wrote:3: The guardian is still underpowered, it used to be the most heavily armored land unit in OTA, pre-CC. Now you're considered a noob if you build it in most situations. I think the range and damage should be increased. It costs almost as much as going to t2, but it's as weak as a single t2 tank. I think its purpose should be something like a level 1 bertha/medium range artillery/ship defense with heavy armor like it was originally.
No, no, no. The problem with making defensive units stronger is that it encourages porcing (building defensive structures, comes from "Porcupine"). Porcing is bad. Porcing leads to games where everyone spams stuff that doesn't move (HLTs, Guardians, etc, etc) and stand around watching their stuff shoot. If you enjoy that, go find a tower defense game somewhere. People already build enough Guardians as it is, can you imagine if it was actually a GOOD unit?

Secondly, the role of the Guardian has changed. It's no longer a defensive structure (as it's name suggests) but an offensive one. Don't build it to hold ground; build it to tear down your enemies' defenses. And once those defenses are down, reclaim that Guardian.

Simply put, rarely are static units going to get any sort of buff in BA. Doing so makes the game more porcy and discourages fun, dynamic gameplay.

I understand your point, but I have to disagree, there are still plenty of good defensive towers such as the pit bull and bertha. But t1 just doesn't have medium artillery anymore.

Because there is no artillery, and t1 units are so much better than t1 towers, everyone just spams t1 units. mobile units are important, but they shouldn't be everything for level 1.

I think the guardian makes the game more interesting and balanced, a stronger guardian means you can shell bases before t2, defend before units arrive in your base, and allows for a stronger navy (as it's the counter unit to t1 naval shelling).

If people porc they porc with t2 I don't think having a guardian would cause everyone to porc (because people still want to win), it might make people more creative besides spamming flashes though. t1 needs its immobile artillery piece back it won't ruin the game.

Also, if you're t1 and spend all that metal on a guardian that barely out ranges a HLT on low trajectory, and can't even kill one that is being repaired, then it's more likely your enemy will end up reclaiming your guardian for you. It's pretty pathetic..I've only seen that work once, in very special circumstances.

I just remembered another thing, there is no reason the crasher should not be able to target ground units as the slasher is able to. In my opinion the missile towers should also be able to attack ground.

Also, the anti nuke for arm is built in the adv. kbot lab, while the anti nuke for core is in the adv. vehicle plant, doesn't make sense - they are both vehicles.
0 x

HectorMeyer
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Jan 2009, 11:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by HectorMeyer »

IMO the firepower increase of the guardian in high traj is really unnecessary. What does it accomplish? High traj of the guardian is more over- than underpowered already, once you can get it up it is often the beginning of the end of the enemy frontline.

My suggestion for the guardian would be to lower range and raise firepower in low trajectory mode (maybe about 25%-50%), and also give it AOE, to make it a viable defensive structure worth its cost.
Jaewoo wrote:In my opinion the missile towers should also be able to attack ground.
Thanks, but no thanks. MTs not shooting at ground is what i love most about BA vs OTA, I can still remember those horrible, stupid MT forests. BA actually requires intelligent placement of laser towers, on OTA they were hardly ever used. Also, air combat is more interesting when there isn't AA everywhere anyway.

on the other hand, the anti air hovercraft really should be able to target ground imo :-)
0 x

User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Gota »

OTA mt spam was cause missile towers had too much range and/or did too much damage for how much they cost.

@jaewood,you seem like you should be playing a different mod.
0 x

User avatar
Mav
Posts: 258
Joined: 12 Nov 2009, 20:06

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Mav »

HectorMeyer wrote:IMO the firepower increase of the guardian in high traj is really unnecessary. What does it accomplish? High traj of the guardian is more over- than underpowered already, once you can get it up it is often the beginning of the end of the enemy frontline.
Out of curiosity, do you know what DPS is for the Guardian is?

On high trajectory, it does ~71 DPS in BA 7.1, not counting splash.
To put that in perspective, an LLT does between 77 (max range) and 155 (point blank).

Doesn't seem that OP to me.
0 x

User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by JohannesH »

Mav wrote:
HectorMeyer wrote:IMO the firepower increase of the guardian in high traj is really unnecessary. What does it accomplish? High traj of the guardian is more over- than underpowered already, once you can get it up it is often the beginning of the end of the enemy frontline.
Out of curiosity, do you know what DPS is for the Guardian is?

On high trajectory, it does ~71 DPS in BA 7.1, not counting splash.
To put that in perspective, an LLT does between 77 (max range) and 155 (point blank).

Doesn't seem that OP to me.
High traj guardian makes most of its damage with impact. But if I understood right, the formula used for impact damage was nerfed somehow engine-side.
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Pxtl »

Yes, the physics based chain-exploding where kbots would bounce off each other repeatedly like pool-balls was reduced
0 x

User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by TradeMark »

stop adding more lolui crap plz. (aka redui?)

the minimap is totally fucked up, its missing 2 buttons and the icons of the buttons arent visible at all, its just one plain color.
0 x

User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by TheFatController »

TradeMark wrote:stop adding more lolui crap plz. (aka redui?)

the minimap is totally fucked up, its missing 2 buttons and the icons of the buttons arent visible at all, its just one plain color.
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=22030

However buttons aren't broken for me, what OS are you running?
0 x

User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by TradeMark »

windows XP SP3
geforce 8800GTS

Image

also the buttons sometimes disappear and i cant resize it, happens when i disable/enable some RedUI widgets... dunno is it meant to be like that o,o
0 x

Raptor
Posts: 33
Joined: 01 Feb 2009, 08:12

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Raptor »

Pxtl wrote:Yes, the physics based chain-exploding where kbots would bounce off each other repeatedly like pool-balls was reduced
So I take it this'll mean leveler and janus just became worse too?
No more AK-billiard with levs. :(
Jaewoo wrote:Also, the anti nuke for arm is built in the adv. kbot lab, while the anti nuke for core is in the adv. vehicle plant, doesn't make sense - they are both vehicles.
Arm mobile anti is a allterrain-kbot.

Small advantage for arm there, due to 2 facts:
1.) They can protect moving allterrains better (if ill see a large force of t3 attacking and i'll have nuke... well guess what).
2.) They can hide behind terrain far better - wich makes it easier to avoid bombings.
Though people very rarely try to bomb mobile antis, so this is only a minor advantage.


Question: wheres the regular playerslist? I don't want to use advanced playerslist since its bugged for me.
0 x

zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by zerver »

Saktoth wrote:lups.cfg in your spring directory.
Yeah, that helps to restore the FPS back to normal, but the MT compatibility problem remains since lups is still loaded.
0 x

User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by TheFatController »

Raptor wrote:Question: wheres the regular playerslist? I don't want to use advanced playerslist since its bugged for me.
It was part of lolui, only real solution would be to switch back to it if you prefer it, see:
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=22030

Maybe Regret will write a redui clone if it's popular enough tho..!
0 x

Klopper
Posts: 146
Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 14:31

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Klopper »

Nobody ever uses sea mines, so i wondered...what about making them t1 and give them to t1 conboats too? Maybe that way they could be of some use against hovers. At t2 were they currently are you don't need them against hovers anymore...
Also, in a recent game on folsom dam deluxe a few of my teammate's pyros got knocked into the water by a toaster. They kept standing around under water without taking any damage...
0 x

User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by TradeMark »

there is sea mines? :o
0 x

Raptor
Posts: 33
Joined: 01 Feb 2009, 08:12

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Raptor »

K, thx TFC.


On sea mines:

Sea mines are useful as they are - use them right after teching to prevent getting killed with hovers while sea-ecoing... theyr alot cheaper than making corvettes/cruisers in advance just because someone might attack with hovers.

One small thing I've noticed though: they don't blow up when gimps walk through them.

Ofc im not opposed to having them at t1 though. (How about heavier seamines for the engineers then? I know thats unlikely to happen, but one can dream...)

Its just annoying t2 ships seem to have a hard time to maneuver through seamines. Maybe they could be made sub-like units? Ya know, so they can go below ships without blocking theyr path.
0 x

User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7024
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by zwzsg »

TradeMark wrote:Image
For the record I get minimap buttons that look the same, and that aren't functional.
0 x

Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Saktoth »

zerver wrote:
Saktoth wrote:lups.cfg in your spring directory.
Yeah, that helps to restore the FPS back to normal, but the MT compatibility problem remains since lups is still loaded.
You'll have to talk to jK about this.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”