Balanced Annihilation 7.31 - Page 5

Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by BaNa » 30 Mar 2011, 13:59

Honestly in most games you have minutes and minutes of spamming one unit, how would an increasing buildtime not fuck that up?

Not megaspam, but think of a CC game.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by triton » 30 Mar 2011, 14:07

Its just a problem of how you increase buildtime. In CCR 1vs1 you wouldnt have much difference when you spam flash with 2 nanos for first 30-40 flash but 2 T1 factory with 8 nanos spamming only flash would be a bit less efficient.
A good change must be small and balanced to not change the way you play too much.
Biggest question is : does that concept can be good?
0 x

macbeth
Posts: 6
Joined: 30 Mar 2011, 13:37

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by macbeth » 30 Mar 2011, 14:09

or start to apply this limit above a "soft cap"... over 100 units the factory start to experience a malus.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by triton » 30 Mar 2011, 14:12

macbeth wrote:or start to apply this limit above a "soft cap"... over 100 units the factory start to experience a malus.
Would be useless.
0 x

macbeth
Posts: 6
Joined: 30 Mar 2011, 13:37

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by macbeth » 30 Mar 2011, 14:22

triton wrote:
macbeth wrote:or start to apply this limit above a "soft cap"... over 100 units the factory start to experience a malus.
Would be useless.
100 is only a place holder, the right number must be computated /experienced / tested on the field... it's your idea, but the malus start to be applied after the reach of the "wanted" quantity.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by BaNa » 30 Mar 2011, 15:29

I dont see the need for this, the stated original problem it would resolve (endgame lag) happens anyway at the end on big ffa games and such, usually not because someone wants to ruin the game on purpose.

The additional changes it would cause to games like Comet 1v1 during normal play would be significant. What reason do we have to change the basic gameplay, other than applying a non-fix to a problem that would happen anyway?

Furthermore, it would add another layer of invisible rules that a play would have to keep in mind, for no real reason at all. If anything, I would support a bit of a move toward simplicity, incorporating the hidden rules into the visible ones where we can (special damages / armorclasses into hp and damage for instance) and stating them in an obvious manner where we cannot.

I would argue that the core gameplay of BA is why we play it. Yes, there is inertia in the system, there are unresolved bugs, but BA gameplay is far from being broken. As such, fixing it should not be an issue.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by triton » 30 Mar 2011, 16:01

Eh maybe it's just another stupid idea ^^
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by Wombat » 30 Mar 2011, 17:38

it will be even worse but w/e
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by SirArtturi » 30 Mar 2011, 19:12

BaNa wrote: I would argue that the core gameplay of BA is why we play it. Yes, there is inertia in the system, there are unresolved bugs, but BA gameplay is far from being broken. As such, fixing it should not be an issue.
That's the reason I don't see why such stupidity as enemy unit napping couldn't be ruled out.

I've already given pretty good solution to put it through: Make enemy units possible to shoot even if napped by transport - What is the reason they can't shoot after loaded in the first place? (This ofc does does not apply units that are emped - making the dragonfly still viable unit)

That is even pretty conservative approach to solve the problem. It won't brake the core dynamics, not at all, but rather make the games more qualified altogether.
0 x

Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by Regret » 30 Mar 2011, 19:38

SirArtturi wrote:That's the reason I don't see why such stupidity as enemy unit napping couldn't be ruled out.

I've already given pretty good solution to put it through: Make enemy units possible to shoot even if napped by transport - What is the reason they can't shoot after loaded in the first place? (This ofc does does not apply units that are emped - making the dragonfly still viable unit)

That is even pretty conservative approach to solve the problem. It won't brake the core dynamics, not at all, but rather make the games more qualified altogether.
Unit/Comm napping has been and is a part of BA's gameplay since it got released. It won't go away and this was debated over and over for several years. It adds a lot of depth and fun into matches.

Pretend they get paralyzed when picked up if you need a rational explanations for unit behavior in a game.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by SirArtturi » 30 Mar 2011, 19:46

Regret wrote: Unit/Comm napping has been and is a part of BA's gameplay since it got released. It won't go away and this was debated over and over for several years. It adds a lot of depth and fun into matches.

Pretend they get paralyzed when picked up if you need a rational explanations for unit behavior in a game.
Pretty predictable response from a guy with such avatar.

I don't need rational explanations for unit behaviour though logic can be always used to support arguments for better future.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by Wombat » 30 Mar 2011, 19:53

Unit/Comm napping has been and is a part of BA's gameplay since it got released. It won't go away
he didnt ask to remove it.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by SirArtturi » 30 Mar 2011, 19:59

Wombat wrote:
Unit/Comm napping has been and is a part of BA's gameplay since it got released. It won't go away
he didnt ask to remove it.
Yes, I was mainly speaking about solving the awkward problem of using newbies as free nukes. Com exploded in his own base is always better than being it exploded in my base.

Personally I would go with more radical solutions, but you fundamentalists would't swallow it.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by Wombat » 30 Mar 2011, 20:04

first of all, fix trans being able to nap moving fatboy and com ( dunno rly if more units can be napped while moving)
0 x

User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5302
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by Jazcash » 30 Mar 2011, 20:04

If it were up to me, I'd certainly reduce the effectiveness of combombing. It's sad to see some players getting combombed within 4 minutes of the game starting because they're good players.

Two defenders should kill an incoming combomb before it splodes everything.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by Wombat » 30 Mar 2011, 20:08

said long time ago its annoying how 3rd pulv shot is needed to kill trans with like... what, 10% hp ?

also reduce instakill range :c
0 x

User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5302
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by Jazcash » 30 Mar 2011, 20:23

Wombat wrote:said long time ago its annoying how 3rd pulv shot is needed to kill trans with like... what, 10% hp ?

also reduce instakill range :c
Atlas HP = 240
Valkyrie HP = 250
Defender/Pulverizer Damage = 113

Means two shots from a Defender/Pulverizer leaves Atlas with 14 HP remaining and Valkyrie with 24 HP remaining. Therefore, I propose Valkyrie HP is brought down to 240 and Defender/Pulverizer damage is pushed up to 120. Thoughts?
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by Pxtl » 30 Mar 2011, 20:39

I've said it before, I'll say it again, and once again the hardcores will call me an idiot for believing this:

Unit-napping should be disabled. No-transport-comboom should be on by default, or comm-transporting should be disabled altogether.

Then you could give transports some real armor instead of making them hyper-fragile.
0 x

User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5302
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by Jazcash » 30 Mar 2011, 20:55

Pxtl wrote:me an idiot
You asked for it :wink:
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31

Post by Nixa » 30 Mar 2011, 21:32

There are simple solutions to many of the lag issues.

1) models (more specifically - reducing model piece number)
2) widgets (ie/ MM widget creates a large draw on the network)
3) creating new units that are scaled versions of others (ie/ supernano that is 10x better than standard nano, will reduce cpu calculation time esp. on larger games were 20% of units are nanos (ie/500+ nanos on map). Also a superfighter could be included in this to reduce lag. This however will not fix mindless spam like AK's etc.

Generally speaking, with exception of nano and fighter spam, people that have the current 'spam AK' mentality picked it up from other more 'senior' ranked players simply because it worked on them once. What they fail to understand is that it is rediculously inefficient, esp. against someone that has even the slightest idea how to counter it.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”