Balanced Annihilation 7.50 - Page 7

Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderators: Content Developer, Content Developer

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by ginekolog »

Oh i forgot to say, 7.50 IS AWSOME !!!
0 x

abma
Spring Developer
Posts: 3571
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by abma »

BA 7.50 spams in development build of spring spams console with

[f=0012784] Error: LuaRules::RunCallIn: error = 2, RecvFromSynced, [string "LuaRules/Gadgets/unit_los_only_sounds.lua"]:67: attempt to perform arithmetic on a string value

There is a 'tonumber' missing here

see also http://springrts.com/mantis/view.php?id=2577 :

also i can't login to http://imolarpg.dyndns.org/trac/balatest/login, so i couldn't report it there as bug...

http://imolarpg.dyndns.org/trac/balatest/newticket gives an "TICKET_CREATE privileges are required to perform this operation" error

it spams console, so it should be woth to add a tonumber there...
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3619
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Silentwings »

You're right, a skillless player should not win, that's why you should not let him being able to build vulcains..
You're missing the point. If team A has one more inactive/nub player than team B (a very likely event), then a relatively poor player on team B can sit at the back and tech while the others fight an even game. This can determine the outcome of the game, but if its via a vulcan then it is without any skill involved. Obviously this isn't an attractive gameplay feature.

Without emp launcher its hard to counter a vulcan at the same time as fighting your own opponent - constantly searching and destroying vulcans-in-progress is time consuming and expensive.

It is clear to me that the team with the extra active player ought to win - I just think there shouldn't be a skill-less way to do it.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22300
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by smoth »

Maybe the active player not being able to dispatch the Vulcan is the issue ...

Why can't this hypothetical player kill the Vulcan?
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Manmax »

There must be some kind of ├╝berweapon, otherwise, in some instances, games would never stop if teams are even and every weapon (even t3 ones) are too much balanced by another weapon.

At some point, there must be a sure way to end the game, if players have let it to go so far (vulcan can only appear after 1 hour of game, i would guess. That's long enough for a match).
0 x

dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1195
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by dansan »

I also dislike good games being shredded by Vulcans, but I must say that good players should be aware of the possibility that someone builds such a thing, and should thus have a way to counter it.

In my experience there is always a way to kill that-which-must-not-be-named. It's just that you often get to surprised to come up with a good plan and a little coordination. But whose fault is that, and can/should that be solved technically?
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22300
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by smoth »

List the counter, if is an exploit, that should be patched. If an exploit is the only way then that should be patched as well.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Drac »

Vulcans...

Games should be over in half an hour 1v1 up to 8v8, if they last longer this almost always due to the passivity of the inexperienced players, and while some might consider spamming afus for eternity fun, having a wonder like building which if played right ends the game is crucial.

I would change its role to something like this :
- 2 min after built shoots out a shock wave and all enemy commanders suffer a core breach and explode :)
- 5k energy/s to charge the shock wave

No more sitting in the dark spamming afus with air screen and antinuke

But i guess people who choose 12v12 badsd are not looking for fast paced games ( which i consider fun ), but often teching with little responsibility in the team.

My tip: play 1v1 up to 6v6 games and you will never have to worry about vulcan again, you will also have fun as a bonus !
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Manmax »

Great post. Fully agree.
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3619
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Silentwings »

@smoth: The counter to vulcans was always the emp launcher - which took a range nerf (and for very good unrelated reasons).

@manmax:
There is no need for a superweapon to end games. Just look at game times on the 'no lolcannon' host, which started about 2 weeks ago, presumably because someone, I know not who, agrees with me. They are rarely above 45 min. Reasons for why are easy to understand - eco grows at approximately exponential rates, and a slight difference in the rate becomes greatly magnified in short-ish time.

Also, a general point as a sideline, "play smaller games" is completely unhelpful - it ignores the problem and in any case is useless to me, since (what with having a vet account and all) I already do play smaller games. But in general it's a classic avoid-the-question answer which is hopelessly overused, and is no help to anyone unless the question was 'how could i improve my playing ability'.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Drac »

Silentwings wrote:@smoth: The counter to vulcans was always the emp launcher - which took a range nerf (and for very good unrelated reasons).

@manmax:
There is no need for a superweapon to end games. Just look at game times on the 'no lolcannon' host, which started about 2 weeks ago, presumably because someone, I know not who, agrees with me. They are rarely above 45 min. Reasons for why are easy to understand - eco grows at approximately exponential rates, and a slight difference in the rate becomes greatly magnified in short-ish time.

Also, a general point as a sideline, "play smaller games" is completely unhelpful - it ignores the problem and in any case is useless to me, since (what with having a vet account and all) I already do play smaller games. But in general it's a classic avoid-the-question answer which is hopelessly overused, and is no help to anyone unless the question was 'how could i improve my playing ability'.
I guess you ignored the first part of my post where i recommended a buff for the vulcan. For the same price you can afford a t3 core factory and 15 karganeths and you can also use the base nanos for it.

Almost all games decided by min 10 it may take another ten to finish it but for a game to last 30+ is pointless and often includes the winner side sitting on his win while the other team dies of boredom.
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3619
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Silentwings »

I guess you ignored the first part of my post where i recommended a buff for the vulcan.
I read it, and have nothing more in reply than I've already said above.
For the same price you can afford a t3 core factory and 15 karganeths and you can also use the base nanos for it.
I know this. In most cases I'd prefer vanguards.
Almost all games decided by min 10
If by 'almost all' you mean 'about half' then I think most people would agree.
...it may take another ten to finish it but for a game to last 30+ is pointless.
Your own opinion. The large number of people who regularly play long games suggest plenty of players disagree.
...and often includes the winner side sitting on his win while the other team dies of boredom.
If the winning side always wants to sit on their win, as you claim, either they won't make a lolcannon at all or they'll make 3-4 (takes ~45 mins with e to power them if you're good) before pulverising everything in sight. In either case, the lolcannon is not used as the quick ending 'superweapon' you wanted above. I don't understand your argument.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Manmax »

Among the long games I happen to have seen or played, a good few of them were terminated by a lol cannon after many failed attempts to end them (t3 spam, bombers, and again and again). Superweapon such as the vulcain was clearly usefull here (not that the other team would.not try to resist as long as could by adding shields).
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by sillynanny »

We have to argue against a superweapon that favours otherwise useless techers. Ballanced Annihilation has now reached the lowest point since I have been following. I miss Caydr. He made unbalance fun.

Caydr are you there? Sorry for all the shit.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22300
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by smoth »

sillynanny wrote:We have to argue against a superweapon that favours otherwise useless techers. Ballanced Annihilation has now reached the lowest point since I have been following.
nice opinion here is some perspective. The game has always been in balance contention. Just like every other game out there. AA was constantly ruined according to random douche #24522. What then happened was people discussed with varing levels of civility and uncivilly the pros and cons instead of just baw change it back.

Balance is asymptotic you can never reach it only get closer and closer to it.

Should balance be reached for every skill level and situation the game will be perpetual deadlock because the balance would mean all thing are equal based on cost, time and attention required for usage. So in lstead balanced is done through careful evaluation of the risks and rewards associated with units.

In this case you feel the risk(sitting in the back doing little else but building this unit) does not match to the reward(a powerful unit). So you want to see a negative added to make things feel more even. Instead of crying why don't you be helpful.

Btw that complaint about techers sounds like butthurt rage about the play style of others
sillynanny wrote: Caydr are you there? Sorry for all the shit.
don' be an asshole please. How about you HELP discuss ways to resolve the issue!
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by very_bad_soldier »

smoth wrote: Should balance be reached for every skill level and situation the game will be perpetual deadlock because the balance would mean all thing are equal based on cost, time and attention required for usage.
You say the definition of balance is that whatever you do you still have the same chance to win? So you would not lose even if you build only advsolar throughout the entire game if the game was perfectly balanced?
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Drac »

The first problem is with the huge games, i can accept that it's matter of preference, but the game wont remain balanced indefinitely as the player count goes up( think of other great games if still unconvinced about this one ) ,so my point is if you play 12v12badsd that's fine by me just don't expect balance.

Imo this game is balanced for 1v1 obviously but remain mostly balanced up to 5v5/6v6. Not much can be done about this balancing for 12v12or more is pointless, i would least warn players about this, make a statement about the maximum recommended players. Of course new players wont care about this after they leave for life after half dozen dsd boredom, but cant really blame the guy who owns the server since there is demand for it.

Something can be done against massive teching, the players cant self destruct their com or anything that carries it, or dgun other friendly coms. Could improve the gameplay a bit in huge games where they only serve as instant metal biscuit. Just to add i prefer the self d option in games up to 6v6 teching is rare and sacrificing the com is a tactical option.

I would recommend 1v1 its the most balanced and fun but it's no secret, and games up to 6v6 most likely enough to handle all your buddies too.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by BaNa »

Drac wrote:Imo this game is balanced for 1v1 obviously but remain mostly balanced up to 5v5/6v6. Not much can be done about this balancing for 12v12or more is pointless, i would least warn players about this, make a statement about the maximum recommended players.
The problem is not 12v12 its 12v12 on small maps made for 4v4.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Manmax »

I fail to see the problem with teching. It is not someetthing i usually do but why not? Live and let live. More often than not, teams of techers fail anyway, even in 8 vs 8...
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by sillynanny »

smoth wrote: Balance is asymptotic you can never reach it only get closer and closer to it.

(...)

In this case you feel the risk(sitting in the back doing little else but building this unit) does not match to the reward(a powerful unit). So you want to see a negative added to make things feel more even. Instead of crying why don't you be helpful.

Btw that complaint about techers sounds like butthurt rage about the play style of others
"Cry" and "butthurt". How original. You say a lot of crap that I didn't really say, and I am not going to bother addressing that as you are probably talking also about stuff others said. However, there are a few things I must say:

1) I am not butthurt about anything. I have seen really interesting games ruined by vulcan, games where pro's are fighting it out, and a noob suddenly ends it with Behe's Push to Win (tm) Button. The games that make me angrier are games that I am spectating, because when I am playing I only see half the map and it's harder to judge the fairness of events.

2) Air was a much much better tie-breaker than vulcans. Air requires heaps of skill, and by watching players I used to respect say air takes no skill, I gained more respect for my own ability at this game.

And now I will repeat the one line you chose not to quote from my post, because it would have ruined your cry/butthurt shtick:
He made unbalance fun.
The late game Air advantage was at least from Caydr's time, and as such it is a much more fun way of tipping deadlocked long games than the vulcan, and it allows a smaller economy with more skill to crush a larger economy's airforce.

And I apologize to Caydr. I gave him a lot of shit for balance, and now I have to swallow that and miss his crappy unbalanced air, because the alternative is push-button-to-win.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”