Balanced Annihilation 7.50 - Page 6

Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
very_bad_soldier
Posts: 1371
Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by very_bad_soldier » 19 Jul 2011, 15:03

Jazcash wrote: That gameplay still exists and has hardly declined at all. OP fighters was never the issue here, it was UP AA. AA is still UP.
I barely see people building AA to stop enemy enganging fighters. So it seems to be more a problem of people not adapting to the changes. AA is not UP against fighters anymore.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Johannes » 19 Jul 2011, 15:05

Jazcash wrote:
Beherith wrote:The old gameplay was: rush to t2 bombers before the enemy does, and make more fighters than him and GG.
That gameplay still exists and has hardly declined at all. OP fighters was never the issue here, it was UP AA. AA is still UP.
Hmm, depends on which way you look at it. Ground aa is quite nicely balanced vs t1 air for the most part, or at least was. It's just that t2 air is too good, and can be only be properly countered by other t2 air, fighters. Except bombers which are now hard countered by t1 fighters as well.

Imo air was a bit of a mess before, and now it's even more of that. Good thing would be to just rethink it a lot, appoint all units interesting roles, instead of just making reactionary changes, and then balance it well over time. Not easy thing to do but would be worth it.
Or if that's too much, just return to 7.31 in most things and make less gamebreaking changes to smooth the kinks out of that system.



And AA wasn't really too weak against fighters, but against bombers, which you always needed fighters to stop.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Jazcash » 19 Jul 2011, 15:06

very_bad_soldier wrote: AA is not UP against fighters anymore.
Agreed, but it's still UP against many other air units. Nerfing the air units is not the way around this. General AA needs a buff.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Johannes » 19 Jul 2011, 15:11

Jazcash wrote:
very_bad_soldier wrote: AA is not UP against fighters anymore.
Agreed, but it's still UP against many other air units. Nerfing the air units is not the way around this. General AA needs a buff.
In t1 battles also?
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Jazcash » 19 Jul 2011, 15:34

Johannes wrote:
Jazcash wrote:
very_bad_soldier wrote: AA is not UP against fighters anymore.
Agreed, but it's still UP against many other air units. Nerfing the air units is not the way around this. General AA needs a buff.
In t1 battles also?
Not so much, but T1 bombers are still too effective for their cost. You can rush them in early game and the only way to counter them properly is if they rush t1 fighters which people only ever do if they know there's bombers coming.
0 x

User avatar
sillynanny
Posts: 125
Joined: 20 Jun 2008, 14:26

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by sillynanny » 19 Jul 2011, 15:39

Beherith wrote: Krog, bantha, hydra all survive nuke. Yet you are not whining about that?
Imo weak fighters made the game much better. The old gameplay was: rush to t2 bombers before the enemy does, and make more fighters than him and GG.
If you nuke a T3 factory you will take a hefty chunk of economy, so you can hardly compare that. Even if you don't physically destroy the half krog and the T3 factory, your attack was effective. Not so with the Vulcan.
Beherith wrote:You oddly miss the hundreds of bug fixes done by the team, and prefer to take just 2 balance changes out of context.

That damned vulcan costs over 40k metal to build, and almost 20k e to run. If you let your enemy build one, you must suffer the consequences.
I said you made changes to gameplay and your reply is that the changes were good? I guess what we disagree on is what the meaning of BA is.

We also disagree on good. At least the air strikes of older versions required much more skill than using the vulcan. I mean sure you could just tell them all to attack the fusion, but with care you could pierce an airscreen with about 1/3 of the fighters and sneak enough bombers trough. The new fighter HP punishes offensive use of fighters, and favours defense.
0 x

Klopper
Posts: 146
Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 14:31

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Klopper » 19 Jul 2011, 16:36

Some oddities in 7.50:

-Screamer/Mercury can't kill Hurricane anymore with 1 hit

-T1 Fighter can't kill Bladewing anymore with 1 hit

-Subs (at least T1 ones) miss targets alot (torpedoes going past under target, especially noticed with targeted conships and corvettes recently)

Also, imho T2 bombers are a sad joke now, all gunships or T1 bombers do the anti-base job much better...bombs dropping shorter or lower area damage would have been enough, but both together is too much imo. :?
Saw 7-8 Phoenixes making 2 passes over an Advanced Fusion and it wasn't dead, wtf... :|
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Johannes » 19 Jul 2011, 22:03

t1 fighter is due to these changes:
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=26287

mercury vs hurricane mightve been just because the hurricane had enough xp to get hp so high.
0 x

Klopper
Posts: 146
Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 14:31

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Klopper » 20 Jul 2011, 03:58

Johannes wrote: mercury vs hurricane mightve been just because the hurricane had enough xp to get hp so high.
Maybe, but unlikely since it happened twice in one game...
0 x

Manmax
Posts: 76
Joined: 19 May 2011, 13:57

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Manmax » 20 Jul 2011, 10:12

That damned vulcan costs over 40k metal to build, and almost 20k e to run. If you let your enemy build one, you must suffer the consequences.
Agreed. In addition, when everything else failed (and it does happen when you have tons of AA and anti-nuke), there must be a way to end the game for sure. The vulcan is the unit least needing a balance change (except maybe making it need even more e to operate, although at this stage of the game, everyone has plenty of fusion so it wouldn't make much difference).
0 x

PJY
Posts: 24
Joined: 11 Jul 2011, 13:08

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by PJY » 22 Jul 2011, 18:14

I don't think I have anything further to add to the debate. What I would like to say, however, is a great big thank you to the community and to the developers/maintainers. Ever since I discovered BA I've thoroughly enjoyed the game (much to my wife's understandable annoyance) and this is largely down to all the fine work that goes into it and also the community.

I think the community could sometimes do with being a bit nicer to newcomers and not quite so rude, but the frustration is understandable when a newcomer can accidentally wreck an entire team's game.
0 x

gonpost
Posts: 77
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 00:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by gonpost » 22 Jul 2011, 21:37

Klopper wrote: -Subs (at least T1 ones) miss targets alot (torpedoes going past under target, especially noticed with targeted conships and corvettes recently)
I'd just like to re-emphasize how big of a problem that is. T1 subs are missing most of their shots, honestly. They'll hit other subs well, but not anything floating.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Beherith » 22 Jul 2011, 22:18

Subs are fixed in svn.
0 x

User avatar
Yuri
Posts: 137
Joined: 21 Jul 2008, 14:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Yuri » 23 Jul 2011, 14:01

PJY wrote: I think the community could sometimes do with being a bit nicer to newcomers and not quite so rude, but the frustration is understandable when a newcomer can accidentally wreck an entire team's game.
Newcomers are supposed to sit and watch at least 10 games before making any attempt to play.
0 x

Drac
Posts: 22
Joined: 26 Jun 2011, 16:00

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Drac » 23 Jul 2011, 16:57

Yuri wrote:
PJY wrote: I think the community could sometimes do with being a bit nicer to newcomers and not quite so rude, but the frustration is understandable when a newcomer can accidentally wreck an entire team's game.
Newcomers are supposed to sit and watch at least 10 games before making any attempt to play.
New guys are taken into the balance consideration so you should not expect as much from them, i saw countless times an entire team of gold stars and vets blaming a single guy for their failure which is ridiculous. Of course the balance system is not perfect 8v8 badsd only vet player hardly worth a 1v1 silverstar guy but its ok unless people starting to smurf which is kind of accepted in the community. I guess in the end if ppl want to wreck the game or alter the game balance on purpose they find a way, i heard one too many excuse for smurfing but there is no reason not to welcome beginners. In 10 games he will have avarage skill level on badsd anyway :)
0 x

PJY
Posts: 24
Joined: 11 Jul 2011, 13:08

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by PJY » 25 Jul 2011, 12:42

Change of topic. The download link to the latest iteration of BA seems not to be working from this page:

http://springrts.com/wiki/Balanced_Annihilation

You click on the link and you get a file not found error message.
0 x

User avatar
Yuri
Posts: 137
Joined: 21 Jul 2008, 14:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Yuri » 25 Jul 2011, 23:55

PJY wrote:You click on the link and you get a file not found error message.
Fixed...
0 x

User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by ginekolog » 03 Aug 2011, 18:52

Why someone change krog's kick weapon? It used to kill swarms, now its quite useles with its 55 range (from 200 irrc). Even swarm of t1 bots can kill krog now..

I would sugest to increase range to 100 and give that weapon to jugg too.

Weapon name krogkick
areaofeffect 35
collidefriendly false
craterboost 0
cratermult 0
cylindertargetting true
damage
Target Damage DPS
crawlingbombs 3000 6000.00
default 1 2.00
commanders 1 2.00
mines 3000 6000.00
["else"] 3000 6000.00
nanos 3000 6000.00
heavyunits 1 2.00
edgeeffectiveness 0.44999998807907
explosiongenerator custom:KROGCRUSHE
impulseboost 8
impulsefactor 8
name KrogCrush
noselfdamage true
proximitypriority 5
range 55
reloadtime 0.5
rgbcolor 0 0 0
thickness 0
tolerance 300
turret true
weapontype Cannon
weaponvelocity 1650
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3586
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Silentwings » 04 Aug 2011, 11:34

Just to put my two pence worth in - I'm a huge fan of 7.50, but it seems the reduction in emp launcher range (which was fairly recent?) has made vulcans as good as invincible.

I realise they cost a shedload to make and run, but they require no skill to operate and virtually no skill to place/build either. I don't think such a skill-less way to win the game should exist, regardless of cost.
0 x

Manmax
Posts: 76
Joined: 19 May 2011, 13:57

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Manmax » 04 Aug 2011, 16:19

You're right, a skillless player should not win, that's why you should not let him being able to build vulcains..
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”