BA needs t2 nanos. - Page 2

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

Pako
Posts: 174
Joined: 12 Jul 2009, 18:57

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Pako » 10 Jun 2010, 02:13

Buildpower management is a big partion of the game and works fine IMO. Unit choices are usually the best way to control buildpower. T2 nanos would only break the current game in many ways.

It's so funny when even many decent players build nanos in big stacked farms so that killing a nano destroys all nanos, selfDing the dying nanos would actually prevent the chain.
0 x

User avatar
Hobo Joe
Posts: 1001
Joined: 02 Jan 2008, 21:55

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Hobo Joe » 10 Jun 2010, 09:25

[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.
You need to learn how to spot sarcasm.



At OP - no way. This game turns into a horrible snoozefest when someone gets a nano farm going anyway, and techers bases need to be fragile to help avoid endless stalemates, as if 8v8 dsd isn't long enough already.

And nanos are plenty efficient.
0 x

User avatar
SirArtturi
Posts: 1164
Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 18:29

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by SirArtturi » 10 Jun 2010, 11:50

Greetz,

BA would need many things.
But many things most likely wont change anymore.
BA is done - complete.
Not being developed.
Just maintained.
It's dead.
So stop suggesting improvements for It cos It sounds stupid and pointless.

Thx.

regards,
Artturi
0 x

User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by ginekolog » 10 Jun 2010, 13:51

SirArtturi wrote:Greetz,
BA is done - complete.
This is truth and it is awsome that way. Just like Starcraft, last is some years old, yet game is still super popular.


All BA needs is good maintenance and minor balance tweaks when OPness appear (like vanguards).
0 x

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

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by JohannesH » 10 Jun 2010, 15:42

Actually often I just wish nobody goes and breaks any balance with a stupid change... At least when the option is getting ridiculous shit like new crocs D:
0 x

Hackfresser
Posts: 86
Joined: 23 Dec 2008, 20:26

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Hackfresser » 10 Jun 2010, 19:32

i like the vulnerability and space consumption of nanos as it is now.

i dont like how you have to keep a t1 cons around all the time though; this makes for tiresome and uninteresting micro management that does nothing for the game. make t2 cons build nanos i say.
0 x

User avatar
Hobo Joe
Posts: 1001
Joined: 02 Jan 2008, 21:55

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Hobo Joe » 10 Jun 2010, 23:18

Hackfresser wrote:i like the vulnerability and space consumption of nanos as it is now.

i dont like how you have to keep a t1 cons around all the time though; this makes for tiresome and uninteresting micro management that does nothing for the game. make t2 cons build nanos i say.

Baaawwww an extra mobile unit in your perfect nano farm, pls fix it TFC
0 x

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

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by TradeMark » 22 Jun 2010, 17:54

I played Sennas mods and never needed T2 nanos to win, So i say No.
0 x

User avatar
hunterw
Posts: 1838
Joined: 14 May 2006, 12:22

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by hunterw » 28 Jun 2010, 12:56

Porc unit. No.

MAKE FLOATING NANOTOWER NAOOOO
0 x

User avatar
smoke_th
Posts: 140
Joined: 25 May 2010, 13:15

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by smoke_th » 28 Jun 2010, 15:10

Yes floating nano for water will be good. But i think you guys need add coastal defence gun from nota - srsly.
0 x

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

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Pxtl » 28 Jun 2010, 16:11

hunterw wrote:Porc unit. No.

MAKE FLOATING NANOTOWER NAOOOO
Dude, have you *seen* how much nanopower the naval cons (and even moreso, the naval engs) get? They're beasts. Naval cons also generate a lot of E.

Now, an underwater nanotower would be worth thinking of, but you'd have to price it accordingly since UW stuff needs to be more expensive. But yeah, that would be good just because the underwater econ units are all very expensive nano-per-cost and it's nice to be able to do fully-underwater operations.
0 x

User avatar
smoke_th
Posts: 140
Joined: 25 May 2010, 13:15

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by smoke_th » 29 Jun 2010, 11:52

Pxtl wrote:
hunterw wrote:Porc unit. No.

MAKE FLOATING NANOTOWER NAOOOO
Dude, have you *seen* how much nanopower the naval cons (and even moreso, the naval engs) get? They're beasts. Naval cons also generate a lot of E.

Now, an underwater nanotower would be worth thinking of, but you'd have to price it accordingly since UW stuff needs to be more expensive. But yeah, that would be good just because the underwater econ units are all very expensive nano-per-cost and it's nice to be able to do fully-underwater operations.
:lol: Like reclaiming tiny scout boats with underwater nano field :DDDDD
0 x

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

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by [RRU]RockmoddeR » 29 Jun 2010, 18:08

Haha, that would be one use for it...
0 x

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

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by TradeMark » 29 Jun 2010, 19:47

underwater nanos huh... what next, flying nanos?
0 x

User avatar
Sucky_Lord
Posts: 531
Joined: 22 Aug 2008, 16:29

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Sucky_Lord » 29 Jun 2010, 22:42

TradeMark wrote:underwater nanos huh... what next, flying nanos?
Damn i think youre onto something.


No but seriously: cast your minds around for the one adaptation that could make BA games porcier. Yeah; T2 nanos -.-
0 x

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

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by TradeMark » 29 Jun 2010, 23:19

tbh i dont think anyone would ever build t2 nanos even if we had them...(they would cost a lot more and if you can pump out a krog in 5 seconds with normal nanos... do you really need it to be ready in 2.5 seconds??*)
0 x

BaNa
Posts: 1561
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 21:05

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by BaNa » 30 Jun 2010, 00:28

I see waaay more over-nanoing than under-nanoing due to lack of space, so nay.
0 x

User avatar
bartvbl
Posts: 346
Joined: 21 Mar 2009, 15:55

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by bartvbl » 30 Jun 2010, 14:49

Pxtl wrote:"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.
How about that they build a bit faster, but require a bit of extra metal and energy as building cost? That means you need to have a much better eco, while at the same time you can build faster using the better nanos
0 x

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

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by TradeMark » 30 Jun 2010, 15:11

uh... then those nanos should be 2k metal each and 10k energy and their buildspeed 2x. still same range tho.

Note: only useful in speedmetal map(s).
0 x

User avatar
Sucky_Lord
Posts: 531
Joined: 22 Aug 2008, 16:29

Re: BA needs t2 nanos.

Post by Sucky_Lord » 30 Jun 2010, 22:10

TradeMark wrote:uh... then those nanos should be 2k metal each and 10k energy... Note: only useful in speedmetal map(s).
You clearly haven't played enough 8v8 dsd ;)
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”