Balanced Annihilation 7.50 - Page 4

Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by knorke »

http://springrts.com/wiki/Units-UnitDefs#Sensors
losEmitHeight - type: float - default: 20.0 New in version 0.83.x
radarEmitHeight - type: float - default: 20.0 New in version 0.83.x
User avatar
FLOZi
MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 6240
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 01:14

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by FLOZi »

Also note that the defaults are new, before it was based on some calculation involving the unit radius, I think that was removed altogether.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Pxtl »

FLOZi wrote:Also note that the defaults are new, before it was based on some calculation involving the unit radius, I think that was removed altogether.
What? Why didn't they just use the old calculation as the default and use the FBI setting as an override?
User avatar
FLOZi
MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 6240
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 01:14

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by FLOZi »

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by PJY »

Personally I think the latest version of BA shows two profound weaknesses. I realise I am a relative newbie here but the following are painfully obvious:

1. Krows. They are WAY too strong compared to other units. A lot of games now end very early and in a very unsatisfying way when someone spams a super fast Krow (Xanax likes this tactic). Something needs to be done about these units. Either they need to be made more expensive or they need their HP reduced or they have to do less damage.

2. Vulcans/Buzzsaw. There is still not enough of a response to the lolcannon. If the emp launcher unit could be given a longer range, that would make them an effective response. An alternative would be to reduce the range of the lolcannons.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Jazcash »

PJY wrote: 1. Krows. They are WAY too strong compared to other units. A lot of games now end very early and in a very unsatisfying way when someone spams a super fast Krow (Xanax likes this tactic). Something needs to be done about these units. Either they need to be made more expensive or they need their HP reduced or they have to do less damage.

2. Vulcans/Buzzsaw. There is still not enough of a response to the lolcannon. If the emp launcher unit could be given a longer range, that would make them an effective response. An alternative would be to reduce the range of the lolcannons.
Don't be silly. Krows used to be a hell of a lot stronger and OP, they're crap and useless now. I dgun Krows for breakfast.

Vulcans and Buzzsaws? Stop playing 12v12 DSD please. Not to mention, it's nice to have a unit that quickens the end of the game. Just because it's called Balanced Annihilation doesn't mean we're trying to make the game so balanced it never ends. There has to be at least one uber unit to speed things up.
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Wombat »

use brainz and combomb early krow.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Johannes »

It's not just krow only, other gunships are really strong now as well. Even if Krow might be the best of them.

Actually it's a lot about all t2 air being so good. So good that it was only properly stoppable by other t2 air, ie. fighters. Now that that unit deals less damage and dies in a second, the units it used to defend against just have no proper counter anymore.

And as people have said that fighters are mainly supposed to counter bombers (which are greatly nerfed now anyway) and it should be that way, think about how fighters naturally work better against bombers than gunships, whether they do 5x more damage to them or not. Because a fighter can easily get behind a bomber into a position where it can continuously fire at it, while gunships you only get 1-2 hits and then you have to turn around to be in a firing position again, especially if the gunships micro to evade the fighters. I think it'd be more interesting if fighters and gruond aa would be differentiated mostly with how they move and how they're built (and what units they're naturally good at attacking), rather than with the extreme damage classes.

I do like gunships being useful but atm I think it's a bit too much.
User avatar
sillynanny
Posts: 125
Joined: 20 Jun 2008, 14:26

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by sillynanny »

PJY, you should review replays more carefully before requesting balance changes. The xanax krow rush that you so fear requires 2 players pumping into that krow. I know that because I am the other player. Or did you not notice that I didn't make units, didn't tech, ate my comm and still had no factory and no units, except 2 nanos pumping into xanax's krow?

2 players combining tech at start in DSD can win with any strategy. We could make a nuke around the same time. We could make a locust swarm of t1 bombers.

Pay attention.
Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 555
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Ares »

-Why are Core Sams so much better than Arm Pack0s?
-When are mavericks worth their cost? (nearly 2 zeus)
-Is it true that a t2 army (goliaths/reaper/banisher) should generally beat an equivalent cost t3 army (shivas and kargs)?
User avatar
Beherith
Posts: 5145
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Beherith »

Packos are cheaper, cloakable, take very little damage when closed, and start firing slower cause of their opening animation.

Mavs are great raiders, and great vs t1.

3. Try it. Not true, as shivas are one of the best units for cost.
BaNa
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 21:05

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by BaNa »

packos still suck. the xp stats show that to quite a big extent.
klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by klapmongool »

BaNa wrote:packos still suck. the xp stats show that to quite a big extent.
Weren't xp stats generated from units that actually died before game end? So packos being hard to kill doesn't really improve the chances of those stats being correct...


edit: typos
Last edited by klapmongool on 13 Jul 2011, 19:15, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Johannes »

Beherith wrote:Packos are cheaper, cloakable, take very little damage when closed, and start firing slower cause of their opening animation.
No, packos are the more expensive one.

Both packo and sam are quite different now in 7.5 though, so the xp stats are outdated for them.
BaNa
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 21:05

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by BaNa »

klapmongool wrote:
BaNa wrote:packos still suck. the xp stats show that to quite a big extent.
Werent xp stats generated from units that actually died before game end? So packos being hard to kill doesnt really improve the changes of those stats being correct...
Im not sure if beh posted it here but in private communication he told me that the xp stats without endgame living unit culling were lower across the board so i doubt that is a factor.
PJY
Posts: 24
Joined: 11 Jul 2011, 13:08

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by PJY »

@Jazcash

Yeah thanks for calling me "silly". We've since spoken in-game. I stand by what I said above. Also, I'm not espousing a view that is only held by me. A lot of people have said the same thing.

@Sillynanny

First, is it really necessary to write in quite so insulting a way?

Secondly, I'm not as stupid as you have rudely assumed. I did watch the replays and I understand that it was a two player joint effort to spam the early Krow. So what? That is not my point. My point is that that tactic ends the game abruptly and unsatisfyingly. Krows shouldn't be so strong that one Krow early on kills the game stone dead. Otherwise you might as well change the name of this game to "Spam Krow Early And Win, Annihilation" and you might as well not bother having most of the other people even on your own team. As I understand the BA mod, it is not supposed to be a pure tank rush where one unit is uber and if you get to that quickly it's all over. Everything is supposed to be balanced and everything is supposed to have an effective counter. If so, the early Krow thing throws it out.

@Anyone who has a view on this debate

I've spoken to Beherith in-game and he says that he has nerfed Krows a bit in the latest SVN. So this may be a dead debate now anyway.
klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by klapmongool »

PJY wrote:@Jazcash

Yeah thanks for calling me "silly". We've since spoken in-game. I stand by what I said above. Also, I'm not espousing a view that is only held by me. A lot of people have said the same thing.

@Sillynanny

First, is it really necessary to write in quite so insulting a way?

Secondly, I'm not as stupid as you have rudely assumed. I did watch the replays and I understand that it was a two player joint effort to spam the early Krow. So what? That is not my point. My point is that that tactic ends the game abruptly and unsatisfyingly. Krows shouldn't be so strong that one Krow early on kills the game stone dead. Otherwise you might as well change the name of this game to "Spam Krow Early And Win, Annihilation" and you might as well not bother having most of the other people even on your own team. As I understand the BA mod, it is not supposed to be a pure tank rush where one unit is uber and if you get to that quickly it's all over. Everything is supposed to be balanced and everything is supposed to have an effective counter. If so, the early Krow thing throws it out.

@Anyone who has a view on this debate

I've spoken to Beherith in-game and he says that he has nerfed Krows a bit in the latest SVN. So this may be a dead debate now anyway.

Its called scouting.

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by sillynanny »

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.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by smoth »

2 players sinking their economy into any unit(s) should(assuming they are not idiots) should pwn 1 player.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.50

Post by Jazcash »

Personally, I never, ever make Packo's or SAM's. Ever.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”