Balance derail from BA model replacements - Page 3

Balance derail from BA model replacements

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by smoth »

SinbadEV wrote:Just curious... are those of you who are not working on TA variants as they include assets extracted from a commercial game willing to start working on TA variants if they are exclusively populated by "fan art" models and not extracted content?
Nope, it is the "community" which keeps me from actually committing any serious effort.
User avatar
momfreeek
Posts: 625
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 16:50

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by momfreeek »

I'm curious how much of this stuff was in OTA. Damage class structure is legacy?
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by smoth »

The damage class structure as it is now is heavily altered but did exist in the origonal ota.

Code: Select all

// Torpedos that are shot from the sub killer

[ARMSMART_TORPEDO]
	{
	ID=12;
	name=Guided Torpedo;
	rendertype=1;
	lineofsight=1;
	turret=0;

	model=torpedo;
	propeller=1;

	range=375;
	reloadtime=2.3;
	weapontimer=3;
	weaponvelocity=100;
	startvelocity=100;
	weaponacceleration=15;	

	turnrate=10000;
	areaofeffect=16;
	soundstart=torpedo1;
	soundhit=xplodep1;
	guidance=1;
	tracks=1;
	selfprop=1;
	waterweapon=1;
	burnblow=1;

	tolerance=32767;

	explosiongaf=fx;
	explosionart=explode3;

	waterexplosiongaf=fx;
	waterexplosionart=h2oboom1;

	lavaexplosiongaf=fx;
	lavaexplosionart=lavasplashsm;

	[DAMAGE]
		{
		default=200;
		armsub=580;
		corsub=580;

		}
	}
from unitdata.ufo. This is one of them but most other weapons just used default.

Mostly you would see it in instances like the above where it was a special weapon. OTA didn't have notargetcategory so weapons needed these classes.
User avatar
momfreeek
Posts: 625
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 16:50

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by momfreeek »

So damage clases were much more organised in OTA and have since been eroded by generations of mods? Or were they wierd to begin with?

I'm just interested. The new models are the best chance for a new BA based mod that can transfer the player base. If things should (could?) be cleaned up, its now to do it.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by smoth »

They were much less used. Like I said, the best examples are things like ANTI-SUB doing damage bonus to subs.





what I mean by heavily altered. Here is the same def in ba:

Code: Select all

[ARMSMART_TORPEDO]
{
	name=AdvancedTorpedo;
	rendertype=1;
	lineofsight=1;
	turret=0;
	model=torpedo;
	propeller=1;
	range=600;
	reloadtime=2;
	weapontimer=3;
	weaponvelocity=200;
	startvelocity=120;
	weaponacceleration=20;
	turnrate=12000;
	areaofeffect=16;
	soundstart=torpedo1;
	soundhit=xplodep1;
	guidance=1;
	tracks=1;
	selfprop=1;
	waterweapon=1;
	burnblow=1;
	tolerance=32767;
	explosiongenerator=custom:FLASH2;
	impulsefactor=0.123;
	impulseboost=0.123;
	cratermult=0;
	craterboost=0;
	noselfdamage=1;
	avoidfriendly=0;
	collidefriendly=0;
	[DAMAGE]
	{
		default=250;
		L1SUBS=400;
		L2SUBS=400;
		L3SUBS=500;
		TL=375;
		ATL=375;
		KROGOTH=1000;
	}
}
Really 1000vs krogoth? how is the player supposed to know that?
So the krog is weak vs defenses?

Code: Select all

"hlt" top or bottom
		default=75;
		COMMANDERS=140;
		VTRANS=5;
		L1FIGHTERS=5;
		L2FIGHTERS=5;
		L1BOMBERS=5;
		L2BOMBERS=5;
		GUNSHIPS=3;
		HGUNSHIPS=3;
		VRADAR=5;
		VTOL=5;
		L1SUBS=3;
		L2SUBS=3;
		L3SUBS=3;
maybe bertha?

Code: Select all

"bertha"
		default=1625;
		SEADRAGON=2800;
		BLACKHYDRA=2800;
		L1SUBS=5;
		L2SUBS=5;
		L3SUBS=5;
		FLAKBOATS=2800;
		JAMMERBOATS=2800;
		OTHERBOATS=2800;
well shit maybe he is weak vs all torpedos

Code: Select all

"armair torpedo"
	default=1500;
		KROGOTH=3000;

Code: Select all

"ARM_TORPEDO"
		default=600;
		L1SUBS=150;
		L2SUBS=150;
		L3SUBS=150;
		KROGOTH=1200;
oh so he is weak against torpedos. Funny how subs take less damage from some torpedos but not others. The file is littered with nonsensical damages that unless you grok every unit you will be terribly unaware.


This is not good imo.
User avatar
Mr. Bob
Posts: 357
Joined: 11 Mar 2010, 09:05

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Mr. Bob »

EDIT: lol this should have been a private message. My bad.
pyra
Posts: 29
Joined: 04 Dec 2010, 08:06

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by pyra »

well i WAS gonna write a long post but mr bob told me off so i am just replying to op
Falcrum wrote:I don't like new models of aircraft. Too much contrast to the rest of the great models
As i recall, the models that have been done so far are the building models and some of the kbot or whatever you people call them. there for, it is highly irrational to call the newest aircraft models to be too much of a contrast. contrast in regards to what?
since these are the first of the air models, it is expected that they are contrasting from all of the finished models because their function is vastly different ie. fly. arguing that these are too contrasting is like arguing the f 22 doesnt look like the abrams or the apache or the b2 stealth bomber.
Falcrum wrote:these significantly deviate from the style of OTA... :roll: Ugly Krow... :( These rotors also do not fit ...Do not make another starcraft
ok...i am presuming you are talking about the construction aircrafts because i dont see no rotor on the krow or rapier. i do see vector thrusters(like momfreek pointed out in the third post), but not rotors.

Image
those are more close to the ut manta in terms of structure.
the sc2 banshee's whole rotor structure swivels while the construction aircrafts look like only the rotor, not the whole wing, swivels.
once again, rotors dont fit in regards to what?

also, immediately connecting the idea of two rotors to sc2 banshee and therefore concluding that 2 rotors = banshee would be like saying the wh40k tyranids are copy of starcraft's zergs. no, it does not work that way. zergs are inspired from tyranids and tyranids in turn date back to being inspired by Alien, the movie, which in turn were inspired by artworks of giger who in turn took inspirations from drawing phallic monsters.

this leads to my second point. do not use fear-mongering tactics. if you dont like the model, fine. grumble about its design in the thread. but dont go shouting things like "ZOMG WE ARE TURNING INTO STARCRAFT COPYCAT" because that is just irrational and, quite honestly, stupid. its just 1 model. out of how many mr bob has made and is making? 1 model out of 300 something model has a minute relation to sc2 banshee and now we are suddenly some sort of fanatics that are trying to bring down BA by corrupting it to sc2?

lastly. me and mr bob hate sc2 and what it represents. dont get me wrong, i got the game but only for modding purposes. and mr bob wouldnt let himself to buy it. so there is absolutely no inclination on mr bob's part to turn it into anything that remotely resemble sc2.

-----------------------------
umm about the krow fire power balance issue and how it wouldnt be able to shoot all 3 at one target. i dont know if anyone said this already(because it sounds logical to me) but howbout just coding it so when it fires all three, the powers of all three are the the attack powers of the current one. so each fire a firepower of 1. and when you are focusing on one target and can only shoot 2 guns, just have one of the gun double in power or both fire 1.5 the power and disable the other side one. so it adds up to 3 firepower at any one given time.

for the inevitable "well if one gun can fire double power, why not all the gun fire double power all the time? people will think that is stupid" comment. because the lasers or whatever comes from generators and a generator that produces 3 cannot suddenly produce 6. thats my explanation.

i am sure that wont be an exact balance(i dont really know the exact science behind the damage calc, you guys tell me cos you guys are the experts) but its at least something.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Pxtl »

Basically, in OTA, if the unit had "anti-X" in its name it had special damage. Otherwise, it didn't. Anti-air weapons did double damage vs air. Anti-sub weapons did double damage vs. subs.

However, Smoth, BA's weapon-specials have been simplified a great deal over time, actually. I mean, there are still oddities like the anti-ship plasma-cannons and the Krogoth being weak vs. torpedoes, but they're better than they used to be. In most cases a unit will have 1 or 2 special damage rules that are easy to explain in 1-line descriptions... but the documentation is so horribly crappy that we don't *see* that 1-line description.

Static plasma cannons do extra damage to boats (but no damage to subs). non-anti-air weapons do pitiful damage to air units.

This is one realm where TheFat has made great strides, actually.

Remember AA1.4 where Caydr had anti-raider armor on some units? He's made huge improvements. They're just quiet ones people don't talk about.

Really, though, BA needs *developers*, not just idea-rats and a good steward like TheFat. Somebody who'll do more than just edit text files, and who's not afraid to do things that will incidentally affect balance (like collision frames or firing arcs) but will actually make the game make some goddamned sense and then will let the balance geeks fiddle with the unit's FBI tags.

Even the plasma vs. subs rule is silly - it's a hack to fix the obvious logical problem that could've been better fixed with a Lua rule: units that are underwater are heavily resistent to explosions that occur out of the water.
User avatar
Mr. Bob
Posts: 357
Joined: 11 Mar 2010, 09:05

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Mr. Bob »

It would be nice to have a development team instead of community driven progress. If we could just get 3 or 4 people together (including me and pyra) then we could go faster and get more done. Its hard to aspire to a community when the community is having trouble deciding on tiny issues like "wether the krow can shoot 3 or 2 lazers at once". That sort of thing can be dealt with later. If we had a more private setting where we could discuss detailed progress and be on the same page, and not have to come to the community for every single step, it would be much better. Don't get me wrong, having the feedback is amazingly helpful. But, there should be a final say. And, I dont have the authority to do that (being just the modeler), and without a dev team, no one else will either.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by smoth »

no doubt pxtl but when people parade around about ba's precious balance and I can still find an example such as that within 5 minutes, I get angrier.
User avatar
Petah
Posts: 426
Joined: 13 Jan 2008, 19:40

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Petah »

Mr. Bob wrote:It would be nice to have a development team instead of community driven progress. If we could just get 3 or 4 people together (including me and pyra) then we could go faster and get more done. Its hard to aspire to a community when the community is having trouble deciding on tiny issues like "wether the krow can shoot 3 or 2 lazers at once". That sort of thing can be dealt with later. If we had a more private setting where we could discuss detailed progress and be on the same page, and not have to come to the community for every single step, it would be much better. Don't get me wrong, having the feedback is amazingly helpful. But, there should be a final say. And, I dont have the authority to do that (being just the modeler), and without a dev team, no one else will either.
AFAIK TheFatController has the final say
User avatar
Mr. Bob
Posts: 357
Joined: 11 Mar 2010, 09:05

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Mr. Bob »

Right but that's in a maintainer position. Not a development position. Difference is, he maintains it using community input as the driving force. (Or atleast, that's what I assume is happening from what I've seen.) Plus, what I had in mind is just starting fresh with a new game. Same gameplay and everything, but a fresh start on balance and bugs etc. And obviously, a new name.
Last edited by Mr. Bob on 25 Mar 2011, 21:08, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by smoth »

Just keep doing what you are doing bob. I am telling you, you'll have more support than you know. Ignore the whining just go to town. Worst case you alter a unit later or something. The krow can be addressed by pointing the sponsons down or attaching them to the undercarriage boom whiners are happy and you can move along.
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Wombat »

cons reminding some sc2 stuff is the last thing you should be worried about lol.
smoth wrote:Ignore the whining just go to town.
its 'whining' coz its not yours :roll:
User avatar
Nixa
Posts: 350
Joined: 05 Oct 2006, 04:32

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Nixa »

Mr. Bob wrote: Difference is, he maintains it using community input as the driving force. (Or atleast, that's what I assume is happening from what I've seen.)
It may be 3 in the morning and I may be completely drunk... but I still lol'd at this. If you call updating every 6 months with tweaks that may affect 0.1% of gameplay then by all means...
- Fixed Commanders starting on the edge of the startbox being teleported into the middle.
- Fixed a healthbars bug (negative display).
- Fixed a load of incorrect model footprints which clashed with movedefs and may have caused bad pathing (mainly affected Sea).
- Added dynamic hitsphere gadget for units such as Viper (thanks Deadnight Warrior).
- Fixed some building footprint sizes / yardmaps (thanks Deadnight Warrior).
- Fixed buggy targetting behaviour caused by (engine) BadTargetCategory issue, most noticable on Commander, Slasher, Samson,
- Added 'Air Comblast Full Damage' modoption (default on), disable to have an airbourne commander make a reduced complosion.
- Updated Mex Upgrader gadget (thanks Deadnight Warrior) + fixed some global lua errors.
- Re-added minimum builddistance of 128.
- FFA Mode now gives anyone who drops after 8 minutes a grace period of 3 minutes to reconnect before destroying their units.
- Labs should now only play their building sounds in LOS to avoid giving away their type.

- Fixed cormex script (thanks bartvbl).
- Arm Metal Makers sphere now spins when its on.
- Arm Dragon's Eye buildtime reduced 50%.
- Core Dragon's Eye buildtime reduced 50%.
- Arm Twilight energy cost reduced 20%.
- Core Exploiter energy cost reduced 20%.

- Arm & Core Construction Ships should now maneuver better.

- Arm Stumpy energycost increased (1746->1921).

- Arm Pack0 cloak cost reduced (20->12).

- Core Punisher targetmoveerror removed from low trajectory mode.
- Arm Guardian targetmoveerror removed from low trajectory mode.

- Tech 1 fighters should no longer chase ground units unless ordered to.

- Removed the 'Fire Delay' option for Screamer, Mercury, Chainsaw, Eradicator.
- Added some automatic targetting code to the above missile towers ('beta').
- Arm Flakker energycost reduced 30%.
- Core Cobra energycost reduced 30%.
- Mobile and Static Flak damage vs fighters doubled.
- Arm Mercury energycost and buildtime reduced 30%.
- Arm Mercury missile no longer collides with friendly units.
- Core Screamer energycost and buildtime reduced 30%.
- Core Screamer missile no longer collides with friendly units.

- Arm Phoenix bomb damage reduced (250->210).
- Arm Tsunami bombs dropped per run reduced (8->7).
- Core Hurricane bomb damage reduced (337->283).
- Core Maelstrom bombs dropped per run reduced (8->7).
- Core Advanced Construction Aircraft workertime increased (80->120).
- Arm Advanced Construction Aircraft workertime increased (80->120).
- Core Krow flying energy cost removed, cruise altitude raised (60->80).
- Core Krow frontal laser damage increased (170->250).
- Arm Dragonfly weapon paralyzer damage decreased (64000->15000), reload time reduced (10-8).
- Arm Dragonfly weapon paralyzetime reduced (20->15).
- Arm Liche bomb no longer instantly kills commanders with impulse.
- Arm Liche bomb special damage vs commanders raised (1550->2300)

- Core Reaper energycost reduced 15%, buildtime reduced 15%.
- Arm Bulldog energycost reduced 15%.

- Core Advanced Construction Kbot workertime increased (140->180).
- Arm Advanced Construction Kbot workertime increased (140->180).
- Arm Fido energycost and buildtime reduced 10%.
- Arm FARK HP increased (200->300), small autoheal added, repair speed increased (120->150).
- Arm FARK can now build Dragon's Eye, Marky, Eraser.
- Arm Invader velocity increased (2.31->2.8).
- Core Roach velocity increased (2.2->2.7).
- Core Skuttle velocity increased (1.35->1.75).

- Arm Pit Bull cloak cost reduced (20->16)
- Arm Ambusher cloak cost reduced (40->24)
- Core Doomsday Machine given its own red/green lasers, roughly same dps.

- Arm Marauder weapon damage increased (185->215).
- Arm Bantha hand cannon damage increased (336->365).
- Arm Bantha self D explosion AOE increased (960->1280).
- Arm Bantha death explosion AOE increased (432->600), damage increased.
- Arm Vanguard hp reduced (18000->15000).
- Arm Vanguard energycost reduced 20%.
- Core Krogoth head laser AOE increased, dps increased, energy per shot lowered.
- Core Krogoth rockets dps improved, effects improved.
- Core Krogoth hand cannons small impulse added.
Go through that a pick out the honest to god improvements to BA

And still the basic bugs remain 4 years on from AA....
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Regret »

Nixa wrote:And still the basic bugs remain 4 years on from AA....
List the bugs.
User avatar
Niobium
Posts: 456
Joined: 07 Dec 2008, 02:35

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Niobium »

Regret wrote:
Nixa wrote:And still the basic bugs remain 4 years on from AA....
List the bugs.
As you wish, here's a quick list of bugs:
Bugs wrote:Units which size differs from pathing size
- Eraser
- Bantha
- Dragon's Claw
- Construction Ship
- Fatboy
- Jammer
- Pincer
- Skimmer
- Vanguard
- Spider
- Invader
- Construction Ship
- Garpike
- Roach
- Croc
- Copperhead
- Scrubber
- Spectre
- Shiva
- Banisher

Units with listed ranges that are unobtainable
- Fatboy
- Fido
- Luger
- Crusader
- Warlord
- Pillager
- Tremor

Units with incorrect stealth
- Spoiler
- Podgy
- Dragonfly

Units that target air, but can't fire at it
- Banshee
- Luger
- Sharpshooter
- Pillager
- Diplomat

All submarines having incorrect waterline
All submarines pathing incorrectly in general
Units cannot exit lab due to automatic terraform
Some units target air despite having no weapons that can fire at air
Dragon Claw/Maw are mobile
Marky has bad armorclass
Dynamic hitspheres broken across many units
RedUI chat console is broken
RedUI darkened icon bug
Disporportionate wreck hitspheres (i.e. comwreck)
Disproportionate unit hitspheres (spheres for rectangle buildings, etc)
Subkillers not engaging ships
Cannot area-reclaim DT
Fly off map exploit
Units attempting to fire through wrecks when weapons deal no damage vs wrecks
Minimap startbox crashes in particular scenarios
Inconsistant maxslope for buildings of same footprint
Mex upgrader gadget crashes
Vanguards extremely slow on slopes
No doubt there's some more I haven't thought of, and the list currently excludes all of the many non-bug issues and inconsistencies that should never the less be fixed.

Important to note is that I have mentioned these issues repeatedly over the last months on the forums, often within a day of each major release, as well as PM'ing them to TheFatController himself. And yet we are still stuck with a 4-month release cycle, with each release barely making a dent in the things-to-fix list.
User avatar
Anarchianbedlam
Posts: 8
Joined: 04 Dec 2010, 10:50

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Anarchianbedlam »

*cough*
http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/097/ ... 1297143188

i laughed when i saw this thread. there are always going to be "THOSE PEOPLE" who shit on your hard work and try to point out some nonexistent flaw. Bob, they all look wonderful. And if ALL the aircraft were jets, how fucking boring would that be?

just floating generic airplane shapes and boxes all with hyper advanced thrust vectoring technology? Maybe the ARM is strapped for cash and designed a cheaper turbofan rotor eh? Unique and easily recognizable silhouettes are the key to successful unit and character design. otherwise they would all blend in with eachother when you throw em in a large group.

pffft... haters gonna hate.
Last edited by Regret on 26 Mar 2011, 16:54, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Made disruptive gif into a link.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Johannes »

So pointing out differences that are inconsequential to you is "hating"? Get a grip man...
User avatar
Mr. Bob
Posts: 357
Joined: 11 Mar 2010, 09:05

Re: Balance derail from BA model replacements

Post by Mr. Bob »

Yeah, I'm not gonna touch that one.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”

cron