Balanced Annihilation 7.50 - Page 5

Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Johannes »

sillynanny wrote:What can a Krow do? Against good players it can take maybe 3 bases 1 combomb.
MrCucumber
Posts: 53
Joined: 31 Oct 2010, 19:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by MrCucumber »

sillynanny wrote:PJY, I'm sorry if that was insulting, but you failed once again to understand. Yes it is quick game and unsatisfying ending for the losers and the winners that are not driving a krow.

But so is early nukes and many other things that 2 players working together can pop out before minute 10. 10 minutes without making units is a huge risk. I have lost games to commdrops that kill techers (quite unsatisfying as well, and you dont even need to make a comm).

We could get bombed, flea-rushed, south can lose fast enough to reach our defenseless bases... And then what? We are at minute 10 with no metal, no economy, very basic energy production, both comms are consumed, only one factory is up and one unit is built. When 2 players pay this price and dont get killed, they deserve a few base kills, and that is a victory most games. It is that simple, and they can win with several different tactics.

What can a Krow do? Against good players it can take maybe 3 bases. Of course, if nobody does anything at all, not a single fucking fighter to nail the krow, then of course it ends the game. But even with all the investment we made, and the luck to get to that point, we still need to kill 3 bases just to get a strategic advantage, after we used 2 players in the making of the krow. With a bit of luck that is 4 bases, the 4 techers in the back. And it seems completely fair to me. The survivors even have metal wrecks to reclaim. If we don't win with the krow, our bases have nothing. Nothing.

Behe told xanax the krows are getting nerfed. Hell, I told xanax the krows would get nerfed the first time he suggested a t1 economy krow rush. We will still own with it after the nerf. If its not at minute 8, it will be later, and noobs will be unprepared for it all the way to minute 20.
2 guys decide to krow rush in 8v8 BADSD and now they will be even more useless in other game modes? I remember rushing a krow in 1v1 before they were super nerfed and it still sucked.
Dude if you dont like 2 players coming together and beating you,maybe you should just play something else other then 8v8 BADSD

As to balance, Krows seem pretty bad now, almost 5K M and cant do much if the enemy sees it half way to your base, cause he can counter with fighters. Nuke bomber seems to be much more effective and cheaper then krows. Sure it has no chance of living against an opponent who understands the basics of the game, it is easily able to do the damage needed to give you an advantage. Krows take ages to make, cost alot, move as fast as a medium tank and dont even get to kill alot.

tl;dr Krows are already bad, stop complaining about BADsd 8v8.

edit: I quoted the wrong guy but I am too lazy to fix it.
Senna
Posts: 315
Joined: 17 Mar 2009, 00:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Senna »

Re: "packos",they are one of the best aa in the game, just weak than stat flaks, but in costs and damage they are even better than sams,
and when they are close they get too few damage and gets ignored by other units.

About Krow: Me thinks krow need even more hp than actually has, they cost hight metal and energy, 1 dgun or combomb kill them easy, and after 20 min game krows are completely useless, with the price of 1 krow u make 2 shivas, i dunno why people complaings so mutch about krows, nerfing them will make them useless and nobody will make them as in 7.31 happened.

What needs a buff is the long range missile towers, they are completely useless for price, maybe +1000 range would made them more usefull, since theyr idea is shot down enemy fighters so 2500-3000 range u dont need build them too at front like actually happens, so more front u got more chances u have to shot down enemy fighter wall, well its my opinion
gonpost
Posts: 77
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 00:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by gonpost »

Senna wrote:Re: "packos",they are one of the best aa in the game, just weak than stat flaks, but in costs and damage they are even better than sams,
and when they are close they get too few damage and gets ignored by other units.

About Krow: Me thinks krow need even more hp than actually has, they cost hight metal and energy, 1 dgun or combomb kill them easy, and after 20 min game krows are completely useless, with the price of 1 krow u make 2 shivas, i dunno why people complaings so mutch about krows, nerfing them will make them useless and nobody will make them as in 7.31 happened.

What needs a buff is the long range missile towers, they are completely useless for price, maybe +1000 range would made them more usefull, since theyr idea is shot down enemy fighters so 2500-3000 range u dont need build them too at front like actually happens, so more front u got more chances u have to shot down enemy fighter wall, well its my opinion
Agreed for the most part.

IMO sams are better because they can start firing sooner. This means more time to kill things like bombers before they reach you. However, the main reason that I don't build packos is because they're too short. I almost always have something blocking their way in many shooting directions, which just isn't acceptable. Just make them taller and you'll solve a lot of problems.

An alternative to balancing krows is just make their attack range shorter. If I micro a krow, I can kill comms with it and not lose the krow. Shorten the range and you can't do that without losing the krow too.

Btw krows make FANTASTIC diversions. You can lure a whole enemy fighter screen to one side and deliver a bomber payload or snipe a fusion with some gunships to the other side. Honestly I think that's the most useful ability of the krow, haha.

I also agree with T2 long range towers. I'd say about 2/3 of current M cost would make them worthwhile building. I don't think I've ever built the long range AA since I was a noob waaaay back when. Also in chickens, but that's different.
Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 555
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Ares »

The best use of mercury/screamer I can think of is sniping heavier transports - as they can normally get a few shots off before their landing and unloading, (2hits kill core transport/1arm) although rare, if this happened I think one could pay itself back very quickly.

They are also quite useful versus a krow and ridiculously overlapping air-forces - although BA makes this really simple to avoid, unlike the original. To a lesser extent they also prevent half-hearted scouting efforts.

Looking at stats

mercury: 100dps, 2400 range, cost 2353
(just under half the cost of a Bertha, which deals 148dps at that price, with less overkill, up to 6200 range..)
eradicator: 412dps, 1250 range, cost 893

It doesn't look good on paper. However, the single time I built one it won me the game, as I managed to shoot down a stray commander as it flew past in a transport.
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Wombat »

main problem with long range missles is still the same - they aim same airplane but only 1 rocket hits and rest is wasted. would be nice if they could pick next target automaticly :<
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Pxtl »

Imho, the mercury/screamers are an area-denial tool - they're anti-aircraft static artillery, not defense. Having a bunch of them overlapping is a waste.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Johannes »

Ares wrote:mercury: 100dps, 2400 range, cost 2353
(just under half the cost of a Bertha, which deals 148dps at that price, with less overkill, up to 6200 range..)
eradicator: 412dps, 1250 range, cost 893
Eradicator has just 200 dps actually.

The big missile towers have some uses, that specifically use the long reaching range and/or great 1-hit damage. Hitting enemy fighter screen, or almost 1-hitting a liche for example. It shouldn't be so good to be very useful in the same defense role as other turrets, that'd make turret positioning too simple too.
PJY
Posts: 24
Joined: 11 Jul 2011, 13:08

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by PJY »

@Sillynanny

Thanks for your comments. I do understand your argument that two players combining will be able to rush something that they consider to be a massive strategic advantage (Krow, nuke, T1 bomber carpet, T2 trans drop with T2 units like panthers etc. etc.) but this only works if they can take out more enemy techers than themselves given the resources devoted to it.

Although I agree that your argument is compelling, and I've seen people try the Xanax Krow spam tactic and fail horribly at it, I'm still profoundly uneasy about Krows. I've played Xanax and guessed correctly that he'd spam a Krow and I've spammed a ton of T1 fighters into an air shield but you often can't kill the Krow in time before it slaughters multiple bases. Possibly that was incompetence on my part but I tend to think I play a reasonably ok sort of game so I'd hope. It's different when you reach T2 because things like Copperheads are a good counter to Krows. So it seems at T1 level there is no good counter to a rush Krow strategy.

The rush Krow strategy feels to me somewhat unlike the other strategies you have suggested. The obvious counter to a T1 bomber spam is the T1 airshield spam. As for nukes, I agree it'll take time to get an anti up and running and so a nuke can do some nasty damage. But nukes take a while to reload so with a bit of luck, if the enemy nukes one base, you can then divert everything to getting that anti up. So you may only lose two bases (which evens out with the two enemy who have combined to build the nuke).

So, to summarise, I recognise the force of your argument. But I still remain uneasy.
User avatar
sillynanny
Posts: 125
Joined: 20 Jun 2008, 14:26

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by sillynanny »

The Krow thing is not really a spam, its just getting one out very early. You suggest countering with t1 fighters, and that is probably the best defensive counter. But you should balance the krow strategy to having 2 players spam t1 fighters, not just one, since it takes two to krow.

Of course, with 2 players it starts to look that maybe it would be easier to just go in and kill our shit before the krow pops out. It is the same with 1.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Johannes »

t1 fighters really suck vs gunships now, they weren't that great at it even when they did 2x more damage to them in old BA.

Hardest counter to early krow, outside of combomb, might be aa bots. Krow is slow enough so you can move them reactively to defend (unlike if you have turrets, they're never all firing at same time) and the krow can't just ignore and fly over them either since theyll follow, and it can't retreat for repairs easily either. On DSD, if you have say, 2x20 of them (1 group in north and 1 in south), it's pretty krow proof defense even if that's all the aa you have, for less than the krow costs even when you consider the labs cost. And fewer jethros than that work just fine too.
And unlike turrets they're easy to massproduce with nanos.
Senna
Posts: 315
Joined: 17 Mar 2009, 00:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Senna »

Mercury/Screamer are offensive weapons not defensive.

But they dont have the stats for the price to be really efective as offensive aa guns

About berthas and intimidators, I think actually they are really expensive for its range, +1000 range on them u would still need take midle if u want shot backbases, but with 4000 range u need make them too at front and they die way too easy, and they expensive.

Another problem is the buzzsaw,vulcan, before u could stop them with a bomber run or berthas, even emp silos. but now bomber berthas and emp is nerfed, and vulcan outranges all of them, so the only way is t3 but.
since u make 30 kargs the enemy has the vulcan done so game over.
Is posible a fix on it?
User avatar
sillynanny
Posts: 125
Joined: 20 Jun 2008, 14:26

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by sillynanny »

The vulcan is a joke. Its not seriously balanced at all.
Manmax
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 May 2011, 13:57

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Manmax »

You gotta allow for an ultimate way to end the game..
User avatar
sillynanny
Posts: 125
Joined: 20 Jun 2008, 14:26

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by sillynanny »

No. You have to allow for several ways to end the game. Having one so much stronger than the others is just lazy game design.

I mean the damm thing survives a nuke while still unfinished. There is no way that is balanced or makes sense.
User avatar
sillynanny
Posts: 125
Joined: 20 Jun 2008, 14:26

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by sillynanny »

BTW I still remember a time when the BA mandate was to maintain the old gameplay, fix technical bugs and leave innovation for the other games (mods). 10 Vulcans per game and paper fighters is failing that mandate, Behe.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by smoth »

you gonna start this "I know what's best stuff" again nanny?
BaNa
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 21:05

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by BaNa »

sillynanny wrote:BTW I still remember a time when the BA mandate was to maintain the old gameplay, fix technical bugs and leave innovation for the other games (mods). 10 Vulcans per game and paper fighters is failing that mandate, Behe.
10 vulcans per what kind of games? I seem to recall a time when BA was "balanced for 1v1" and huge teamgames where ignored in most balance discussions, especially insanely overcrowded ones like 8v8 dsd.
User avatar
Beherith
Posts: 5145
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Beherith »

sillynanny wrote:BTW I still remember a time when the BA mandate was to maintain the old gameplay, fix technical bugs and leave innovation for the other games (mods). 10 Vulcans per game and paper fighters is failing that mandate, Behe.
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.

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.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Jazcash »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”