PeowPeow - Page 2

PeowPeow

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by Pxtl » 05 Sep 2010, 21:10

I can see what you're doing with this, but imho you're missing the biggest problem with 8v8 teamgames - the comm.

Honestly, BAT2 is a complete mess for a whole bunch of reasons, and bombers are only a small part of that.

You're not going to make anybody happy with BA forks, because BA players will be disappointed since you've broken things they count on working, and new players will be disappointed because it's still got 90% of BA's flaws.

Can you tell I don't like BA anymore?
0 x

User avatar
Otherside
Posts: 2296
Joined: 21 Feb 2006, 14:09

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by Otherside » 05 Sep 2010, 22:46

if you want to make 8v8BADSD good.

Take out heavy static defenses / Metal Makers / tier 2.

Or alternatively dont play with noobs and play smaller games dsd is not an 8v8 map regardless of how many people insist to play it 8v8..
0 x

User avatar
knorke
Posts: 7971
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 01:02

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by knorke » 06 Sep 2010, 00:24

great, this will bring new fun to BADSD8V8 cant wait.
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by Nixa » 06 Sep 2010, 00:27

Pxtl wrote:I can see what you're doing with this, but imho you're missing the biggest problem with 8v8 teamgames - the comm.

Honestly, BAT2 is a complete mess for a whole bunch of reasons, and bombers are only a small part of that.

You're not going to make anybody happy with BA forks, because BA players will be disappointed since you've broken things they count on working, and new players will be disappointed because it's still got 90% of BA's flaws.

Can you tell I don't like BA anymore?
I agree, comm is a major issue and a solution needs to be achieved with it.

Clearly this community can't see past the fact this mod is still balanced across the entire game not DSD, so there's no point there
0 x

User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2379
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by REVENGE » 06 Sep 2010, 09:00

Upgradeable coms.
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by TheFatController » 06 Sep 2010, 15:46

Just to chime in on this Nixa had said something I agree with which is that in large games you do frequently have to make the choice between either playing for fun or making t2 bombers as quick as possible for the highest chance of success.

I agree that scaling back the power of t2 bombers would be an interesting change - however for BA's main fork the dynamic that t2 bombers add to the game is so ingrained I don't feel comfortable changing them (granted they could probably safely be a little bit less uber). There is also the aspect of tension and danger that these units (along with nukes etc) add to the later game and removing this could lead to games actually becoming more of a boring war of attrition.

I don't really agree with the Samson/Slasher change as it will barely affect the air-game and in doing so has sacrificed a useful unit for a lot of t1 vehicle players which may make the mod unnecessarily unfamiliar.

I would be interested to see some large games with on this fork to see how things turned out.
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by Hobo Joe » 06 Sep 2010, 17:43

TheFatController wrote:Just to chime in on this Nixa had said something I agree with which is that in large games you do frequently have to make the choice between either playing for fun or making t2 bombers as quick as possible for the highest chance of success.

I agree that scaling back the power of t2 bombers would be an interesting change - however for BA's main fork the dynamic that t2 bombers add to the game is so ingrained I don't feel comfortable changing them (granted they could probably safely be a little bit less uber). There is also the aspect of tension and danger that these units (along with nukes etc) add to the later game and removing this could lead to games actually becoming more of a boring war of attrition.

I don't really agree with the Samson/Slasher change as it will barely affect the air-game and in doing so has sacrificed a useful unit for a lot of t1 vehicle players which may make the mod unnecessarily unfamiliar.

I would be interested to see some large games with on this fork to see how things turned out.

After playing a couple games with the slasher change, it's DEFINITELY good. As much as I like the low-damage long-range harassment that they provide, they encourage porc and are the cause of ridiculous early HLT spam. In the games without it people build more raiders and stumpies and have a decent fighting force, and it feels much less retarded early-game. Improves T1 battles, discourages porc, and lengthens the time that T1 is used.


For the record, I disagreed with the change too, until I played it.
0 x

User avatar
Kixu
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Mar 2008, 08:29

WALL OF TEXT

Post by Kixu » 06 Sep 2010, 23:15

The thing that amuses me most when people suggest changes to t2 etc is the knee jerk response is that its dumbing down play for larger games, which is not the case at all. WarC etc did all their changes whilst playing 1v1s, and so the t1 balance is awesome. In 1v1s however t2 isn't used anywhere near as much as team games, and so couldn't be balanced to such finesse. I've read through the BA threads and many of the suggested changes have the right idea, and highlight units that simply aren't cost effective compared to other units.


T2 air in particular has been long overpowered. T2 fighters make t1 fighters obsolete. Less than 1.5 the cost and with their maneuverability and unit specific damage in particular they can easily wipe out many times their cost in t1 fighters.

Static flak I see new players building so much, simply because they don't understand it won't guard them vs bombers. It costs 18k energy to build, compared to the 26k of a t2 air lab. It only kills a bomber only if it flies really close to the centre of its range, even with the extra damage in the latest version of BA. Any experience air player will simply spread their bombers out so that a flak is shooting at one bomber while the rest are unharmed.

Main reason I don't like air is because it makes the game from t2 onwards a game of who can make the most fighters and all the other units just making sure the air production is kept going. And air is really boring compared to the abundance of land units that are a hell of a lot more fun to micro. Its become so bad that many players would rather lose and not just spam t2 fighters, than win a boring victory. If you want a repetitive build queue to tech, followed by some lazy micro to finish a game, surely you want to play one of the other masses of strategy games without the diversity of BA.


Other unit changes~
Sumo can be napped while moving by t2 transports. Poor sumo's.

Fido can't really outrange a HLT. There is a miniscule spot where it can, but very rarely will the fido stop in this spot, or the HLT realise its in that spot.

Long range missile towers are useless.

Juggernaught REALLY needs to be able to crush things, even dragonteeth are a scarey sight unless you fps and shoot it while you move.

Guardian really ought to be able to kill tanks at close range on low trajectory. The sight of a guardian is almost always a source of amusement rather then a problem. Maybe if when it is set to low trajectory it had a different weapon type that started off high damage and dimished with distance? Also if it started on high trajectory, many new players wouldn't get told to change it whenever they made it. Easing new players into the game without beacons of abuse is always good.

Dragoneye parimeter cameras need a much shorter build time so that minelayers don't take 45 seconds to make them.

Merl/Diplomat need a slight reduction ROF.

Goliath needs an increase in ROF.

Tritons can move through their own wrecks and are pretty bad compared to crocs. Maybe consider a higher ROF, higher damage weapon? Something like a mix of what they are now and a poison arrow weapon.

Catapult needs a bit more HP.

Marauder needs more damage.

Bladewings could use a max velocity decrease. This would make positioning them more important rather than them being able to respond so fast to attacks anywhere on the map. Without samson

Napping commanders. Most of the time the only players that get their commanders napped are new players. Its not an intuitive feature, and not an especially good one. Transports would hardly be diminished by not being able to do this. Its one of those tactics that some people find really funny to use against new players, that can really diminish the team that has them on their side. I wouldn't be adverse to napping enemy units being removed all together. Though it can be fun at times, the negatives outway the good.

Decoy commander needs to be able to capture things. And possibly be an expensive t1 kbot unit? Its not like com bombing is under powered at the moment. I've only had fake commanders com bombed twice before due to the time it takes to setup the lab and luxury of time for the unit.


Sea is currently very much like rock/paper/scissors. Sub/torp launcher>Corvette>Destroyer. Because sea isn't as large a part of the game as land the simplicity of this is good. However it does make sea tactics somewhat lacking at times. One really nice change would be to make destroyers and corvettes need to do broadsides in order to do maximum damage. Not sure if this can be done with the hitbox in the unit block turrets from shooting over each other? Historically "crossing the T" was the best naval tactic until missiles overtook naval warfare and would be a fun tactic to introduce to the sea side of things.


TL:DR?
Image
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by Nixa » 07 Sep 2010, 00:35

Kixu wrote:The thing that amuses me most when people suggest changes to t2 etc is the knee jerk response is that its dumbing down play for larger games, which is not the case at all. WarC etc did all their changes whilst playing 1v1s, and so the t1 balance is awesome. In 1v1s however t2 isn't used anywhere near as much as team games, and so couldn't be balanced to such finesse. I've read through the BA threads and many of the suggested changes have the right idea, and highlight units that simply aren't cost effective compared to other units.
Damn you Kixu I was gonna start a whole new thread outlining the goals of BA II and these first few sentences basically were going to be my punchline :( but I'm glad someone said it here.

And thanks TFC for getting involved in this thread with your wisdom, and I agree that BA as BA original has remained basically unchanged for 3 years now and should probably stay that way, changes now would be against policy. However as I've expressed the way it's played has changed, ie/ It's not played now strickly for the style of play the designers had in mind - which is probably the underlying cause of the DSD 8v8 OH NOES flaming. If the gap between large games and short games could be lessened, or even removed all together in some way, variety of games seen with BA would be increased dramatically.
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by Pxtl » 07 Sep 2010, 02:36

The long sight-range of samsons/slashers means they're still useful support units even as SAM-only units. Maybe in Nixa's mod, people will actually use L-Arty, which are almost entirely pointless in BA.

As for the name, do you have TheFat or Noize's approval for this title? Iirc, Noize originally coined the name "Balanced Annihilation", and bequeathed it to TheFat when he was done with it... so it would be nice to get permission before making a fork that sports the original name.

(I may have those details completely, absolutely wrong).

Obviously it's not a legal issue since these are pirate mods, but there is etiquette there.
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by Nixa » 07 Sep 2010, 03:05

Yes the name has TFC permission, as he has outlined a guideline for BA forks which can be found on the BA subforum (and lets not go into the politics of the AA ---> BA transition). I gave him future notification I was intending on making some changes to BA whilst still keeping to the traditional concepts and he has since been in conversation with myself and has not mentioned any issues with the name.

As this is currently just a side project to BA, it will retain the BA tag. The project may change officially if enough interest is registered for it.
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by klapmongool » 07 Sep 2010, 10:22

Nixa wrote: ... and I agree that BA as BA original has remained basically unchanged for 3 years now and should probably stay that way, changes now would be against policy. However as I've expressed the way it's played has changed, ie/ It's not played now strickly for the style of play the designers had in mind - which is probably the underlying cause of the DSD 8v8 OH NOES flaming. If the gap between large games and short games could be lessened, or even removed all together in some way, variety of games seen with BA would be increased dramatically.
What are you saying, cos this is ambiguous. Do you want to create a new situation in which 2 BA versions are played/maintained or do you want 1 BA version?
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by Nixa » 07 Sep 2010, 11:50

I guess create a situation where the end project has it's playerbase, and the new project takes from the core of the old project but brings it up to date. Think of it like, well OTA compared to this, where current BA is essentially a newer OTA (taken the original OTA core values) whether it for better or worse.

The playerbase can choose to switch or remain depending on their personal preferences
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by SirArtturi » 07 Sep 2010, 12:12

Why wouldn't you Nixa take the lead of BAR

and foist your changes in it.

It's just pity to waste that project and its foolish to make two similiar ones aside.
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by klapmongool » 07 Sep 2010, 15:04

Nixa wrote:I guess create a situation where the end project has it's playerbase, and the new project takes from the core of the old project but brings it up to date. Think of it like, well OTA compared to this, where current BA is essentially a newer OTA (taken the original OTA core values) whether it for better or worse.

The playerbase can choose to switch or remain depending on their personal preferences

But if you look at your goal (to adjust BA to fit BADSD8V8 better) doesnt that mean that the playerbase will split?

The reason im asking these questions is because you are posing this project as an addition, as added value to the spectrum of BA players. The thing is however, that this project is targetting a specific part of the community; BADSD8V8.

What is going to happen? BA2 will be hosted by the DSD only hosts. Once the project gets underway more changes will be made, balancing changes based on shitty teamgames. BA and BA2 will grow apart more and more up till the moment that BA2 is totally shit for anything smaller than a 4v4/5v5 and BA has a thinned out playerbase (because new people tend to start in de large, newb friendly, DSD games.

Sure, go ahead and make a 'better' BA but don't pose it as a minor change, as a addition to, as another option.
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by Pxtl » 07 Sep 2010, 17:51

@ SirArtturi

iirc, BAR's goal is BA gameplay with new models. Period. End of story. So Nixa's tweaks won't be popular there.
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by KaiserJ » 07 Sep 2010, 18:16

interesting approach to balance

not sure how i feel about the change to t1 rocket trucks. i'd probably like it more if t1 artillery was more effective; sounds a bit like this way you'll end up with swarms and swarms of medium tanks, which i suppose might not be a bad thing, but medium tanks are already pretty strong against HLT, which you don't really need anyways if you aren't protecting against rocket trucks...

however i haven't tried so the point is moot. after i give it a go then i'll know.

what sort of balance / map / gamesize is this intended for exactly anyways, is there an optimal setup?

edit : (reason i ask is ive only ever seen this hosted with dsd, which i avoid if i can... also sort of worrying because of the typemaps, i trust you've taken that into consideration when balancing)
0 x

User avatar
triton
Lobby Moderator
Posts: 329
Joined: 18 Nov 2009, 14:27

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by triton » 07 Sep 2010, 18:32

ahah

where is Regret when we need him? :mrgreen:
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by SirArtturi » 07 Sep 2010, 18:39

Pxtl wrote:@ SirArtturi

iirc, BAR's goal is BA gameplay with new models. Period. End of story. So Nixa's tweaks won't be popular there.
Now as the backwarded and conservative captain has left the sinking ship, why not re-evaluate the goals and set the sail to a new direction?

I just cant understand why not to fix the obvious problems. BA has not reached Status Quo yet. So this kinda conservatism I face here constantly when trying encourage for development is just stubbornness and ignorance.

Geez, If I had time and energy, I'd do my own BA project. AFterall, Its just small gameplay changes beside the major changes in appearance and OTA-content-freeness.
0 x

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

Re: BA II v1.0

Post by Hobo Joe » 07 Sep 2010, 20:28

KaiserJ wrote:interesting approach to balance

not sure how i feel about the change to t1 rocket trucks. i'd probably like it more if t1 artillery was more effective; sounds a bit like this way you'll end up with swarms and swarms of medium tanks, which i suppose might not be a bad thing, but medium tanks are already pretty strong against HLT, which you don't really need anyways if you aren't protecting against rocket trucks...

however i haven't tried so the point is moot. after i give it a go then i'll know.

what sort of balance / map / gamesize is this intended for exactly anyways, is there an optimal setup?

edit : (reason i ask is ive only ever seen this hosted with dsd, which i avoid if i can... also sort of worrying because of the typemaps, i trust you've taken that into consideration when balancing)
You do end up with swarms of medium tanks, and it's fantastic. People can't just fight their battles with 3 hlt's now, they have to actually build units - useful ones - in order to defend themselves. Porc is no longer the instant reaction and huge wrench in the fun part of the game.

The result of this is MUCH more enjoyable gameplay that's much more battle-centric, rather than full of porc, and (in the games I played at least) it also resulted in people teching much later, which meant more awesome t1 battles.

It's really amazing how much one change like that can do.


Try it, it really is great, I thought it sounded bad before I tried it too but after trying it I realized how on the money the people behind BA2 were.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”