Balanced Annihilation V7.18 - Page 4

Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.17

Post by TheFatController » 04 Sep 2010, 16:18

Updated to fix a crash bug and 2 other little things.

Apologies for all the updates but I could not leave a game crashing feature live in BA :(
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by HectorMeyer » 04 Sep 2010, 18:49

nvm i just tested it, nanos chaining works again.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.17

Post by Wombat » 04 Sep 2010, 19:14

TheFatController wrote: Apologies for all the updates
im newb, but, what if u could update mutators, not whole game all the time ?

anyway, gj
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by TheFatController » 04 Sep 2010, 19:21

Yeah that would save bandwidth but on the other hand would add an extra file requirement for new players :regret:
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by Wombat » 04 Sep 2010, 19:29

as far as i know, mutator is tiny file, anyway, just a suggestion, i think it would be good idea 'in the times of spring engine update' ;)
0 x

losbellos
Posts: 69
Joined: 31 Aug 2009, 00:26

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by losbellos » 04 Sep 2010, 23:05

I was wondering why the air trans can carry such a big weight like a commander? The all the com drops would stop.
0 x

Tronic
Posts: 75
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 03:21

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by Tronic » 04 Sep 2010, 23:59

Fark really needs to be able to build nanos. Even if it could, it would still be a lot crappier than Freaker, but at least I wouldn't need to tech down back to L1 conbot whenever I need more nanos and I only have L2 kbots.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by Hobo Joe » 05 Sep 2010, 01:37

Tronic wrote:Fark really needs to be able to build nanos. Even if it could, it would still be a lot crappier than Freaker, but at least I wouldn't need to tech down back to L1 conbot whenever I need more nanos and I only have L2 kbots.
Stop DSD teching?
0 x

User avatar
hoijui
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 4342
Joined: 22 Sep 2007, 09:51

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by hoijui » 05 Sep 2010, 09:22

using the rapid system would solve the problem of bandwidth without creating a new one or any inconveniences. this only makes sense if you put it there when you release the version, and not 1 month later though. as much as i know, you have to log in to a page, upload your mod file, give it a tag and description, and thats it for you, as a maintainer.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by Nixa » 05 Sep 2010, 12:44

Btw TFC why is it when I compress 7.18 it's 700 odd kb smaller :? Any reason you use less compression?
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by Gota » 05 Sep 2010, 12:48

Nixa wrote:Btw TFC why is it when I compress 7.18 it's 700 odd kb smaller :? Any reason you use less compression?
Different compression ratio or different software version.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by TheFatController » 06 Sep 2010, 00:03

I put 7zip on Fast cause I like to think it helps load times (but it probably doesn't)
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by ==Troy== » 06 Sep 2010, 01:22

It should, Fast packs/unpacks faster than "maximum" or whatever the highest compression is.

Spring uses the same algo for unpacking, so it would take longer to unpack a full compression vs fast compression.
0 x

User avatar
Beherith
Moderator
Posts: 4933
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by Beherith » 06 Sep 2010, 17:37

Small visual bug: the bubble trails emitted by ships when moving and by hovers when static or moving is way to fast. It looks very odd.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by Pxtl » 07 Sep 2010, 02:40

Tronic wrote:Fark really needs to be able to build nanos. Even if it could, it would still be a lot crappier than Freaker, but at least I wouldn't need to tech down back to L1 conbot whenever I need more nanos and I only have L2 kbots.
Build Consuls, which are the Arm combat eng. Yes, they're in the Veh lab. Guess what Core doesn't have in their vehicle lab?
0 x

Tronic
Posts: 75
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 03:21

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by Tronic » 07 Sep 2010, 03:22

Why not remove Farks altogether then? Not a very useful unit as it is now. Costs twice as much as L1 conbot and the only remotely useful thing it builds is L1 mex. Fark's worker time is barely better than L1 con's.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by Hobo Joe » 07 Sep 2010, 06:47

Tronic wrote:Why not remove Farks altogether then? Not a very useful unit as it is now. Costs twice as much as L1 conbot and the only remotely useful thing it builds is L1 mex. Fark's worker time is barely better than L1 con's.
cheap mobile builder good for assisting and building t1 eco, especially for expansion
0 x

H2O
Posts: 32
Joined: 27 May 2010, 23:05

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by H2O » 07 Sep 2010, 09:43

Farks need to have some more build power. In this way it will be more balanced if compared with the freaker. Freaker is slower, tougher and have a better build list, Fark is faster, weaker, but would have better build power to balance its awful build list.

And let me say it again: Core really needs T2 veh engineer imo.

Pxtl agrees with me, lets make a lobby :D and put some pressure in order to have core t2 veh engineer :d

And commandos are op as they are now.
0 x

User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5301
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by Jazcash » 07 Sep 2010, 09:52

H2O wrote: And let me say it again: Core really needs T2 veh engineer imo.
Why? T2 Core Veh Cons have got uber build power, buildlists, toughness and stuffs compared to a Consul. They just cost a lil more that's all :P
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18

Post by Hobo Joe » 07 Sep 2010, 09:52

H2O wrote:Farks need to have some more build power. In this way it will be more balanced if compared with the freaker. Freaker is slower, tougher and have a better build list, Fark is faster, weaker, but would have better build power to balance its awful build list.

And let me say it again: Core really needs T2 veh engineer imo.

Pxtl agrees with me, lets make a lobby :D and put some pressure in order to have core t2 veh engineer :d

And commandos are op as they are now.
Fark is not supposed to be parallel to the freaker, fark is just a little assist kbot. Consul is freaker parallel and it has similar build power and build options. Core has t2 combat kbot con, and arm has t2 combot vehicle con.


It would be ridiculous to give core one for veh as well as kbot.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”