BA needs t2 nanos.

BA needs t2 nanos.

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

Should BA have T2 nanos?

Yes
8
36%
No
13
59%
Yes, but in a different way than described.
1
5%
 
Total votes: 22

[RRU]RockmoddeR
Posts: 18
Joined: 06 May 2010, 22:08

BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by [RRU]RockmoddeR »

I don't know about the rest of you, but I honestly think BA could use a T2 nanotower. They should be proportionately more powerful than T1 nanos, and become more cost-efficient and eco efficient. (i.e. MM to Moho MM). The range also should be boosted, and the total number of them needed would decrease too. (i.e. 20 t1 to 4 t2) I also find it annoying that to expand my nano farms I have to go back to a T1 con and Lab after I've already reclaimed it for teching. The T2 con should at least be able to build nanos by itself. I know there will probably be balance issues and modeling issues, but I still think it would be a great improvement.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Pxtl »

"The submitted form was invalid. Try submitting again."

Can't vote.

I agree that T2 nanos would be nice, but I wouldn't make them more efficient - T1 nanos are already plenty efficient. I'd make them _less_ efficient in nano-per-cost, but without the chain exploding and far more efficient in terms of nano-per-area. This way you don't have to carpet your base in nanotowers to support your T2 airlab.
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Wombat »

same

and no
User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by ginekolog »

no, build power must be fragile and too much concentration makes it too easy to pwn
[RRU]RockmoddeR
Posts: 18
Joined: 06 May 2010, 22:08

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by [RRU]RockmoddeR »

Sorry, my efficiency statement was a little misworded. What I was trying to imply was that the buildpower and the amount of eco one t2 nano could drain would increase, and so would the cost. This would just mean that you wouldn't need as many and you wouldn't have to go back to t1 to do it, which is the biggest frustration IMO.
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by JohannesH »

Why not put t1 units in t2 lab as well while you're at it...
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Gota »

Supreme Annihilation has T2 nanos.
They are not more efficient in terms of build power but they have a slightly bigger range and take less space than their cost equivalent in T1 nanos.
their disadvantage is of course the fact that while your making that T2 nano,which is the equivalent to 4 T1 nanos in cost,you could have been making t1 nanos and started getting the build power as soon as you'v built the first one.
User avatar
oksnoop2
Posts: 1207
Joined: 29 Aug 2009, 20:12

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by oksnoop2 »

I'm not a fan of nanos. So i vote nay.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Gota »

oksnoop2 wrote:I'm not a fan of nanos. So i vote nay.
Are you against nanos on huge FFA maps?Just think about the tens of cons running around everywhere,the traffic jam near your labs and the tens of idle cons popping in your idle cons widget or the amount of times you'll have to press ctrl+b if you don't use an idle cons widget.
User avatar
oksnoop2
Posts: 1207
Joined: 29 Aug 2009, 20:12

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by oksnoop2 »

Just in general i don't like them, i mean i use them don't get me wrong, but i'd rather see build times adjusted and just get rid of the structure.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Gota »

Adjusting build times?Think about it...There is no way in which you can adjust them that would solve the issue...
This happens cause of the explosion of resources,a lot of metal and a lot of energy,more than usual...
Suggest a way in which they can be adjusted that would solve this issue.
All ways are very problematic,would probably cause other issues and will entail huge changes in gameplay and balance.
an example:
making more advanced cons be much more effective in terms of build power for cost-will not work and will instead escalate the resource explosion even further since now you will have to spend much less resources on build power thereby allowing players to eco up even faster.
User avatar
oksnoop2
Posts: 1207
Joined: 29 Aug 2009, 20:12

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by oksnoop2 »

Gota wrote:Adjusting build times?Think about it...There is no way in which you can adjust them that would solve the issue...
This happens cause of the explosion of resources,a lot of metal and a lot of energy,more than usual...
Suggest a way in which they can be adjusted that would solve this issue.
All ways are very problematic,would probably cause other issues and will entail huge changes in gameplay and balance.
an example:
making more advanced cons be much more effective in terms of build power for cost-will not work and will instead escalate the resource explosion even further since now you will have to spend much less resources on build power thereby allowing players to eco up even faster.

You're right, i guess i just have a bigger qualm with how stock spring/TA handles economy. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that i prefer the AoE/Starcraft style economies.
User avatar
Mav
Posts: 258
Joined: 12 Nov 2009, 20:06

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Mav »

The whole point behind small, fragile nanos is to make large "teched" bases fragile. You have to make some way to kill your enemy or the tech games will last longer than they already do. The larger your nano field, the easier it is to kill.
User avatar
bobthedinosaur
Blood & Steel Developer
Posts: 2699
Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 13:31

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by bobthedinosaur »

haahaha I think the forums voting system has been broke for years now.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Gota »

Mav wrote:The whole point behind small, fragile nanos is to make large "teched" bases fragile. You have to make some way to kill your enemy or the tech games will last longer than they already do. The larger your nano field, the easier it is to kill.
What you are saying is irrelevant since that's not how huge games usually end.
They end with the energy centers,that fuel the MM eco getting demolished(blowing up huge chunks of the base)and other corrosive little damages to one's economy.
Sure fragile Nanos are a part of it but doubling or tripling their HP would make little difference in the huge eco games you are referring to.
Nanos HP is more important in the smaller games where one wrong move followed by losing your several nanos can effectively cost you the game...
I like it when there are targets that can shift the tides of battle in a short period of time but I dont think its interesting or fun to make nano towers,of all things,the main point of concern both as attack targets and what your defense should revolve around.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Pxtl »

Mav wrote:The whole point behind small, fragile nanos is to make large "teched" bases fragile. You have to make some way to kill your enemy or the tech games will last longer than they already do. The larger your nano field, the easier it is to kill.
Actually, I think Caydr made them fragile and chain-explodey because he hated the damned things. Obviously I can't find the thread, but he was constantly lamenting how much these things got spammed in big nano-fields, so he made them fragile and chain so that massive fields of them wouldn't be usable. This, of course, failed simply because a field of nanos is only a risk if you ever let the enemy into the heart of your base... and at that point you're already screwed.

That was the logic behind a lot of the chain-exploding in AA - units that Caydr didn't like seeing spammed in big fields would need to be spread out... and it accomplished nothing but meaning that the first real attack to make it into your base will destroy the whole damned thing.
User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by albator »

Nano more efficient than current one ? no way. If you want t2 nano-like play style, you will probably find somthing good in one of sennas map. Current nano efficiency are one of the thing that make the tecking strategy a viable one. Since noone want to tune t2 air balance, I am just against something which will unbalance that more.

I cannot vote no btw
[RRU]RockmoddeR
Posts: 18
Joined: 06 May 2010, 22:08

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by [RRU]RockmoddeR »

You all make very good points. What JohanneS said makes the biggest contribution to this discussion: T2 labs need to be able to build T1. It would make things a lot simpler for techers, and there'd be a faster buildtime too :D Also, then you wouldn't need to go all the way back to t1 for mass spamming... but yeah, I definitely think t2 labs should have to be able to build t1.
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by JohannesH »

And gantry should have every unit in the game available to build!
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Pxtl »

[RRU]RockmoddeR wrote:You all make very good points. What JohanneS said makes the biggest contribution to this discussion: T2 labs need to be able to build T1. It would make things a lot simpler for techers, and there'd be a faster buildtime too :D Also, then you wouldn't need to go all the way back to t1 for mass spamming... but yeah, I definitely think t2 labs should have to be able to build t1.
Build Freakers/Consuls.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”