Balanced Annihilation V7.18 - Page 2

Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by klapmongool » 03 Sep 2010, 13:09

So only T2 bombers are changed to deal with the hover thing? We can still do it with t1?.

Either way an suboptimal way of dealing with it tbh, can't we just get rid of the wait function on bombers? They should not be able to stop mid air, hover and continue as if nothing happened.

I like the rest of the changes though. And comm bouncing is awesome.
0 x

Masure
Posts: 581
Joined: 30 Jan 2007, 15:23

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by Masure » 03 Sep 2010, 13:29

Bombers can take off verticaly from the airport so I don't see any cons they can do the same while flying over ennemy base.

Avoiding wait command on bomber is not a proper fix IMHO.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by JohannesH » 03 Sep 2010, 13:45

TheFatController wrote:9 seconds is easily enough to make a second run on any base, the only thing affected is the hover exploit.
What? It affects much more than that... Compare how far a fullspeed bomber moves in 5 and 9 seconds, you will notice it's actually pretty big difference! With this change you're bringing wait/stop into bombing runs that formerly could be made while keeping full speed.

And I still everyone just keeps telling that it's unintentional, ofc it is, but that doesn't mean it's bad :P It's the way the engine works and has always worked, nobody brought up any pressing balance concerns with the bombers, is there anything to fix really?


Yep and when will croc/goli/panther be reverted a bit
0 x

klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by klapmongool » 03 Sep 2010, 14:25

JohannesH wrote:
TheFatController wrote:9 seconds is easily enough to make a second run on any base, the only thing affected is the hover exploit.
What? It affects much more than that... Compare how far a fullspeed bomber moves in 5 and 9 seconds, you will notice it's actually pretty big difference! With this change you're bringing wait/stop into bombing runs that formerly could be made while keeping full speed.

And I still everyone just keeps telling that it's unintentional, ofc it is, but that doesn't mean it's bad :P It's the way the engine works and has always worked, nobody brought up any pressing balance concerns with the bombers, is there anything to fix really?


Yep and when will croc/goli/panther be reverted a bit
Well I agree with johannes that the increased reload time isn't a proper fix. I dont see why avoiding the wait function isnt a proper fix, masure. As someone mentioned, why not force bombers full speed after drop a few secs (or disable wait in that timespan).

And Johannes, as someone else explained; bombers have become better due to the wait-bug unintentionally. This means that their cost is not related to their performance anymore. Balancing isnt easy. Unbalanced situations can't be simply recognized in a BA8v8DSD game (or 10), this doesnt mean it didnt change balance. It did.
0 x

User avatar
Nixa
Posts: 350
Joined: 05 Oct 2006, 04:32

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by Nixa » 03 Sep 2010, 14:26

Anyone ever thought of actually looking into ground aa to make it worth its cost?... Just a question... pref massive build time buff and range increase on expensive t1 and flak

Metal for metal in most situations ground aa struggles to kill half its cost in planes, yet it's so much harder to build, IT'S STATIONARY, and in the case of bombers they still drop their bombs...

Oh and the DSD haters out there, i don't like it much either in terms of gameplay. But the stats don't lie, almost 25% of all games played on spring have been DSD (apparently) so it has to have some consideration in the balance :(

Oh and heads up about other things that have been noted to be buggy. Nano's don't chain, and it seems other AOE weapons (crawling bombs) are doing much less damage than before...
Last edited by Nixa on 03 Sep 2010, 14:41, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by TheFatController » 03 Sep 2010, 14:39

Removing wait on bombers wasn't an option cause there's at least half a dozen ways of making them hover on one spot, including the stop command and by giving and removing a move/attack/anything order over and over (by reissuing it in the same spot with shift).

It would be possible with a long and messy script to force their behaviour but the reload nerf is a more elegant solution to this, they never really should have been making more than one drop per run (unless bases were significantly far apart)
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by JohannesH » 03 Sep 2010, 15:35

klapmongool wrote:And Johannes, as someone else explained; bombers have become better due to the wait-bug unintentionally. This means that their cost is not related to their performance anymore. Balancing isnt easy. Unbalanced situations can't be simply recognized in a BA8v8DSD game (or 10), this doesnt mean it didnt change balance. It did.
Yes ofc they're more useful when people have figured more ways to use them. But is there some design document that states how good a bomber should be for its cost?

What I'm saying is that it's not a bad thing. The game evolves, people find new ways to micro, more streamlined strategies, uses for underused units... Why should balance changes be to prevent evolution of the gameplay? If bomber is too strong don't be so conservative to remove the newly found mechanic, but nerf in some way that it maintains this diversity it has.



And t1 AA turrets are all useful in right situations. I don't think its a good idea to buff long ranged turrets, that would make it too simple to defend against air. Shortranged ones reward good placement more, and good maneuvering around those turrets, that's much more interesting than having really cost-efficient longranged turrets.
Metal for metal comparison doesn't really work against air units since they're so E/bt intensive. Well ofc this is less of a problem on metal starved maps like 8v8 DSD...
Sure 25% or whatever of games might be on DSD but that would say people like DSD as it is right now - so no need to alter balance with that in mind!
0 x

User avatar
momfreeek
Posts: 625
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 16:50

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by momfreeek » 03 Sep 2010, 16:53

There is no bomber design document that needs to be adhered to. There certainly isn't anything that says a bomber should be able to sit on one spot pooing bombs. Given that, whats your problem with rebalancing it? Balance changes necessitate evolution in gameplay as people work to find the next best strategy (see vanguard nerf). If nothing ever changes, a game can stagnate.
0 x

User avatar
Niobium
Posts: 456
Joined: 07 Dec 2008, 02:35

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by Niobium » 03 Sep 2010, 17:26

It'd be nice if the reload time was changed properly, in the unit def. The current way it's done means that widgets can only see the original 5 seconds, which causes problems i.e. health bars widget shows negative % reload bars, that stretch backwards..
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by Wombat » 03 Sep 2010, 17:44

btw, is it possible to 'lock' widget list ? so players cannot use any extra widgets but default one.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by JohannesH » 03 Sep 2010, 17:57

momfreeek wrote:There is no bomber design document that needs to be adhered to. There certainly isn't anything that says a bomber should be able to sit on one spot pooing bombs. Given that, whats your problem with rebalancing it? Balance changes necessitate evolution in gameplay as people work to find the next best strategy (see vanguard nerf). If nothing ever changes, a game can stagnate.
Well there was the status quo since forever that bombers can poo bombs on the spot, and it worked fine, it's how air units work with this engine. There was no real balance issues with how it was, bombers were just a tad better than people had thought. But now they are worse than ever, for anything but doing swoops on a single target.
Increased and more micro-intense bomber use and other airplay would rather make the game more diverse than stagnate it.


Oh and vanguard was so good cause it was buffed repeatedly before.


Its possible Wombat. Other option would be to turn the mods widgets into gadgets, and disallow widgets from giving orders, then people could use whatever UI widget they want still.
0 x

User avatar
Rafal99
Posts: 162
Joined: 14 Jan 2006, 04:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by Rafal99 » 03 Sep 2010, 18:18

Wombat wrote:btw, is it possible to 'lock' widget list ? so players cannot use any extra widgets but default one.
Well CA used to do it (to prevent incompatible widgets from breaking stuff) so it is possible. I am sure it still can be haxxed somewhat if someone really wants, either with lua or by modyfing the engine.
And it would be bad idea anyway, people wouldn't be able to use custom UIs etc.

Even if you only blocked orders from widgets it would still be a bad idea, there is lots of very helpful widgets which need to give orders but are harmless to gameplay. And BA doesn't even bring Metal Maker widget now, so u need to rely on your own widgets.

Bombers can be really fixed by some gadgetry if really needed.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by Wombat » 03 Sep 2010, 18:21

well, i personally vote for doing this, so there is no extra faggy widgets and everyone got exactly the same. but thats just a suggestion
0 x

==Troy==
Posts: 376
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 15:55

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by ==Troy== » 03 Sep 2010, 18:41

JohannesH wrote:Ok they're more effective than you thought they are. So what is the problem with that? What kind of bomber strat breaks the game, in what gametype? On what maps?

It's not like you can just build bombers and win...

And if they really are so strong that it makes the game worse, nerf them in other ways than taking out possibilities on how to use them.

Atm they would be weaker "than intended" though? What with reloadtime affecting their use a lot outside of stop/wait micro too.

Its funny to see you use "backup your argument with logic" where your own logic is entirely at fault here.

Why people complain about hoverbombers?
Because they are more powerful that previously thought due to an unsual bug/exploit/feature of the game, which has been discovered.

Why are they more powerful because of this feature?
Because they can hover in AA-less area, whether non-hover bombers will likely fly over nearby AA, instead of hovering over AA-less area, with no damage dealt to them.


Even if they are more powerful due to this newly discovered feature/bug, why fix it?
Because t2 bombers are already OP, and now, instead of common 4 t2 bombers to bomb a fusion, you only really need 2 at most, which can be rushed with standard solar eco in a short time.


Its like as if you found that if you press a button, pewee will start to shoot leveler's projectiles. Well, there is a button for that, so it is intended, right? In reality, if the dev did not think that button will allow pewee to do that, then it is not, or if it unbalances game to a great extent.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by JohannesH » 03 Sep 2010, 19:40

Nope I have crystal logic.

It's more like people finding out that you can micro jeffies to hit peewees and peewee wont be able to hit back if you back off in time cause of its animation.

So, you're saying that they are more powerful with correct micro, yes they are. I agree. Its at least as much about dealing damage faster than avoiding AA though usually but doesn't matter.
And they are more powerful, but why change? Cause you need less of them to kill something... Circle logic. And t2 bombers being already OP, ok let's assume so, why is increasing reloadtime the optimal solution when it's OP with or without this technique? What brought you to this conclusion instead of any other nerf?

And when you know bombers can easily kill a fusion, maybe part of the problem is getting a fusion without scouting the bombers/skipping aa.

Though I did say it's ok change for t2 bombers, and thought more of the t1 ones.
0 x

User avatar
momfreeek
Posts: 625
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 16:50

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by momfreeek » 03 Sep 2010, 20:18

JohannesH wrote:Oh and vanguard was so good cause it was buffed repeatedly before.
No-one ever used it so it was buffed till they did. Now people know how to use it so it will get use even though its nerfed back. No vanguards at all -> vanguard apocalypse -> niche vanguard(?)
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.16

Post by Hobo Joe » 03 Sep 2010, 20:29

JohannesH wrote:bombers were just a tad better than people had thought.
Exactly, which is why they were rebalanced. Once people discovered this 'tactic' they became more powerful than their cost warranted, so they were balanced accordingly.


And it's absolutely nothing like scout micro. The point of scouts is to be fast to avoid things, they are balanced around this very obvious gameplay fact, where as bombers were not balanced around being able to hover so once this was discovered they were rebalanced. It's pretty simple.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.17

Post by TheFatController » 03 Sep 2010, 21:56

Updated!

Off for a drink now, stupid late shifts~!
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.17

Post by JohannesH » 03 Sep 2010, 22:07

No, obviously they were not balanced accordingly to their new strength. They were changed to shut down this type of micro completely cause it felt wrong. Even if as a side-effect you need to slow down the planes (hi wait/stop) and take more aa fire just to hit 2 targets separated by distance bomber travels in <9 seconds.
0 x

User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.17

Post by albator » 03 Sep 2010, 23:47

The ONLY reason why I think wait order on bomber should be removed is because it makes fighter far less effective against them.

A well know exemple is : banshee: fighter need a lot of time to kill them since they can only make one shoot, make a U turn and fire again. If the same think happen with bomber, you can destroy a whole base with bomber even if ennemy have a lot of fighters. (banshee are fine btw)

I dont think fighters have the ability to wait like the bomber, but if you are not able to fix the problem with bomber, you should definitly allow fighter to have the same behaviour than bomber to kill thoses waitting bombers.

And I agree with an increase of reaload time of (T2 only) bomber, from 5 to 7 (9 is a bit too long)



+1 for nerfing back panther, croc, goliat


what about decreasing raider energy cost ??? Finally ?


Let me remind you the raider cost +27% energy stumpy and requires more build time (+14%), which means when a front begins to open and metal is flooding from both side, the stumpy spam will be (at same E production) 10 stumpy vs 13 raiders.

And this basic number does not take into account the fact that since the buildtime is higher for raider, you have to make more build power to be able to spamm at the same rate than the stumpy, and still with a +27% energy drain wrt stumpy. And guess what build power (nano) cost a lot of energy to be created, that means you have to build energy before starting to make nano (which the only purpose is to catch up the equivalent build power of the stumpy creation equivalent). This time to create energy (can be adanced solar/ windmill) and nano roughly increase the energydrain of more 20% (
If arm is at 4 nano, u need one more nano (ok two third of it) : 1 nano + 1 advanced solar (to make before the nano) : 7k E: If you make an average over 10 raider, this is 7k/10 = 700E (3.3k/0.7 = 21%) , ofc the longer it lasts the better it gets, but during the first minute, ou lose much more than 21%)

At the end, the energy drain is ~50% higher when u are unlimited in metal. (And since stumpy is faster, it can reach the wrecks and secure the metal faster btw)

Conclusion: I really dont care that stumpy, even for a cheaper metal cost and buildtime cost is faster, more manoeuvrable and win in 1vs1 against raider (metal equivalent speaking), but this +27% energy is insane and make of the raider, the only unit which is the answer to this question:

If you have the choice to build any unit of BA at one time (arm, core, t1;t2,t3, air/kbot/veh/...) which ones will you never build because they is one which better in 100% (not 99%) situation and cost less E/M/BT. Now you know the most obvious one
edit:

Ground AA are good. The reason poeple thing they are not effective is because they never build a single one...
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”