Balanced Annihilation 7.42

Balanced Annihilation 7.42

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

Post Reply
User avatar
Beherith
Moderator
Posts: 4934
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Balanced Annihilation 7.42

Post by Beherith » 23 May 2011, 12:35

7.41->7.42
-fixed a rare ATI driver related crash probably related to this

Thanks for the hard work put in by:
  • Niobium
  • Deadnight Warrior
  • Very Bad Soldier
  • TheFatController
  • Nixtux
Enjoy!
Balance Effecting Changes wrote:- Reduced samson/slasher HP 30% (~1100 -> ~720)
- Reduced HLT HP 30% (~2400 -> ~1680)
- Removed arm EMP bomber
- All fighter HP reduced to 50 (1-hit killed by all antiair)
- Lowered plane cruise altitudes (shorter bomb drop distance)
- Reduced bertha/intimidator range (6200/600 -> 4000)
- Increased bertha/intimidator range increase with height
- EMP launcher range reduced to match that of LRPC (6000 -> 4000)
- Anti nukes no longer stockpile, effectively starting with unlimited missiles
- Anti nuke energy costs reduced 50% (~60000 -> ~30000)
- Reduced karganeth missile velocity 50%
- Removed 50% damage reduction from pitbull/viper when closed
- T2 bombers are now precision bombers, dropping fewer bombers over a shorter distance (same single-target damage)
- Teams now have base storage, commander storage now 0/0
- Normalized idle autoheal. 1% hp/second after 30 seconds.
- Increased fuel of anti-air missiles so they will follow for a longer distance
- Commanders untransportable by enemy transports
General Improvements wrote: - Many models optimized
- Many collision volumes adjusted for better fits
- Additional LUPS effects on certain units
- Boats now rock in the water
- Metal makers moved to gadget system (with widget UI for control)
- Increased all unit terraform speeds 5x
- Passive mode is now available on all constructors
- Added ingame faction change
- Many helpful widgets added
The full changelog (With detail on all 148 individual changes and any future changes) can be found here.

Download Balanced Annihilation 7.42 Here
0 x

dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1191
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.4

Post by dansan » 23 May 2011, 13:46

Wohoo!
Thank you so much to all of you!
Beherith wrote:Highlights
Love the highlights - will be a different game - for the better I hope :)

Thanx again!
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by Gota » 23 May 2011, 15:41

Emp bomber wont be the last unit to be removed...
Why not just remove all excess units right away...
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by Wombat » 23 May 2011, 16:21

- Removed arm EMP bomber
why :|
- Anti nukes no longer stockpile, effectively starting with unlimited missiles
but 6 (i think) nukes still outspam anti, right ?
- T2 bombers are now precision bombers
finally D: thank you
0 x

User avatar
Beherith
Moderator
Posts: 4934
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by Beherith » 23 May 2011, 17:35

Works just as if anti had infinite missiles stocked.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by Jazcash » 23 May 2011, 17:40

Beherith wrote: - Commanders untransportable by enemy transports
:| Could you not just make this a mod option? Many people are gonna be pissed about this.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by knorke » 23 May 2011, 17:48

Beherith wrote: - Commanders untransportable by enemy transports
could air transports be given more hp then so that air drops are more viable? Afaik the comnap was the only reason why there had to be so weak.
(I have a feeling that the next 5 pages will be about comnap)
- Removed 50% damage reduction from pitbull/viper when closed
do other popups still have (had?) it? If yes, why only those?
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by Jazcash » 23 May 2011, 17:55

knorke wrote:
- Commanders untransportable by enemy transports
could air transports be given more hp then so that air drops are more viable?
Are you serious? As if combombing wasn't easy enough. I requested for transport health to be reduced and AA damage to be increased a few times to different BA devs now and they've just ignored it every time...

http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 04#p479604
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by knorke » 23 May 2011, 18:06

hm true.
It is a bit stupid, games with air drops are often the most fun but on the other hand cb would probally get out of hand with stronger transports.
If air transports have fewer HP with coms in them that might work but it would not really be transparent.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by Wombat » 23 May 2011, 18:07

and i still dont understand what was the reason to remove emp bomber but keep drones.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by momfreeek » 23 May 2011, 18:10

new unit that only transports com? remote controlled jetpack!
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by Jazcash » 23 May 2011, 18:15

Wombat wrote:and i still dont understand what was the reason to remove emp bomber but keep drones.
Arm air has Dragonflies for EMP, Core has Bladewings. Agreed there's a different in the tech level but meh, at least EMP is still an option for both factions.

Also, regarding Knorke's comment about reducing HP for transports carrying coms, I actually made an alternate solution a while back which was to slightly related the theoretical weight of the unit with the speed of the trans. So a transport carrying a scout will travel a lot faster than a transport carrying a Com.

Then again, if you pump loads of metal into spamming expensive units, say, cans, and then you go and lose them all because of some aa, it makes unit drops very risky and unattractive.
0 x

Satirik
Lobby Developer
Posts: 1688
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 18:27

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by Satirik » 23 May 2011, 18:47

don't call it Balanced Annihilation if you're making that kind of changes, it's not a minor update it's a complete rebalance with unit removed etc ...
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by knorke » 23 May 2011, 19:11

So a transport carrying a scout will travel a lot faster than a transport carrying a Com.
I think players want to be able quickly fly their com around the map, like put it near the frontline to make llt, reclaim wrecks etc. But it just should not be possible to air transport a com into the enemy base. But the possibility of air transporting cans/pyros,... into the enemy base would imo make good gameplay. As Jazcash says, atm that is unattractive. Also because landing/unloading takes so long.
new unit that only transports com? remote controlled jetpack!
Atlas already is like com jetpack. What else units get transported? Basically none. Maybe sometimes a builder, even "transport lines" from factory to front are quite rare.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by momfreeek » 23 May 2011, 19:17

knorke wrote:
new unit that only transports com? remote controlled jetpack!
Atlas already is like com jetpack. What else units get transported? Basically none. Maybe sometimes a builder, even "transport lines" from factory to front are quite rare.
Normal transports could be buffed to make airdrops viable while com transport is balanced seperately.

was just fixing the transparency problem in your idea:
knorke wrote:If air transports have fewer HP with coms in them that might work but it would not really be transparent.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by smoth » 23 May 2011, 19:24

What if the atlas had a shield that only activates for certain units? Thereby having a visible reason for extra hp. With the added bonus of comms being obvious as there is no shield thus making it easier to spot a com drop?
0 x

User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by Johannes » 23 May 2011, 19:39

Make transports buffer but slower, would be a good way. Same for most other air units too though. Then you can respond to it better (walk your comm away, move in your fighters, build extra aa, etc.) instead of the air unit being there right after the moment you saw it. Atm pretty much all air units are faster than the fastest ground unit, doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

I really dislike the way fighters have turned out now though. They're totally 1-dimensional now, capable only operating as a AA defense unit in a safe area. Sure they were kinda like that before too, but I'd much rather seen it made more diverse not less, in the vein of TA fighters (better vs ground dmg, better maneuverability), and more interesting distinction between t1 and t2 fighters. Though t1 fighters dominate fighter vs fighter battles now for a change.


And why the changes to how mexes/mms work? Just seems pointless to me, mex not needing e alters all build orders slightly but not really for the better but just randomly, and with MMs you lose the opening/close animation and way to tell how someone is using their MMs.
Though the old style MM widgets have kinda made their use lame I will agree, but I'd much rather have a nice global switch of how many of them are running and then show it (with open/close), rather than the seamless system.


With emp bomber I can see some need to reduce unit count to be more manageable, but I always liked the unit cause its unique in its use, it's very interesting both tactically and strategically. I'd rather see something like the Phoenix go, it's always been stupid concept (right click the enemy base and hope for the best), and especially now (after current change) it overlaps with Liche so it feels more redundant than Stiletto in that way too. Or Blade (the arm one) is kinda pointless unit in that lab especially.

Turret nerfs I don't know why you thought them necessary, HLTs are usually only worth it against samson, which is nerfed -> leads to less overall need for HLTs over llt/beamer anyway. But not really big deal.

Now that antis are really cheap, how about reducing their range a bit? Then you'd still have good opportunities to use nukes, just not at the best targets.

Oh and the storage change reminded me, how about putting the storage to be 1020 (starting resources still 1000), like it was before (when you had commanders 1000, plus global storage of 20)? Then you wouldn't excess metal at start like you do now depending on how fast you manage to click or if you walk before building 1st structure. Or give commander 20/20!
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by knorke » 23 May 2011, 20:00

atlas with shield has the same problem as giving more hp: it would not really be transparent.Why would transporting a com deactivate the shield?
Even if you explain it with fluff like "all the power is needed by the engines to lift the heavy commander" it is still a hidden gameplay mechanic that you only find out about until you try it.
momfreeek's idea of jetpack actually sounds good. Small, fragile jetpack for com, big, armoured, slower transport for other units.

The emp bomber was actually a pretty unique unit compared to many others units that are just a stronger version of another.
(ie for turrets does it really need that double llt & beamer?)

HLT nerf might not matter much as turrets get must their health from being constantly repaired.
with MMs you lose the opening/close animation
If I understand correctly only turning on/off is controlled by a new system. The animation stays the same.
Then you wouldn't excess metal at start like you do now depending on how fast you manage to click or if you walk before building 1st structure.
good point.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by Wombat » 23 May 2011, 20:01

They're totally 1-dimensional now, capable only operating as a AA defense unit in a safe area.
dunno how is that wrong... fighters should be aa only.


and i agree with reducing antis range since multiple antis are simply a must.

i like these changes overall, but i dont see any reason why emp bomber should be removed... its used very often, so what else?
0 x

User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.41

Post by Neddie » 23 May 2011, 20:26

I think the problem is more that they can't be deployed into enemy controlled airspace. The point of an aircraft is to apply force at speed across distance; although there is historical and design precedent for scrambling aircraft to counter the same sort of incursion.

I feel that the fighter, emp bomber, pitbull/viper and transport changes aren't positive. The rest might be good, though they seem to be promoting closer engagements and focused fire.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”