Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

Post Reply
mastermind3001
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Jun 2011, 03:59

Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by mastermind3001 »

Just requesting a minor change. The Core Executioner was personally my favorite ship in the original TA (longest range cannon of all Core ships, if I recall correctly). I'm a bit bummed out to see the cannon replaced with a laser. Any chance this could be undone?

And a small rant, in case anybody wishes to comment: I feel that BA loses a lot of what made the original game so good with the introduction of so many high-powered units. They make all of the low-level units completely obsolete, and instead of strategizing with 100+ units/structures, you really have no choice but to use the few powerful units/structures that pack a punch, units which cost too little compared to the cost-to-power ratio of the Krogoth or Buzzsaw/Vulcan from the original expansion pack.

Honestly, the Buzzsaw/Vulcan (together with their increased energy consumption compared to the original game) are more along what I like to see for cost-to-power ratio. Mechs, for example, are a joke. In games against a friend, he and I can both put out a mech every 30 seconds, and those things are far too powerful for how much they cost. Most T2 units are almost completely useless against them when they can be built so easily. Forget building land armies of varied units and using them strategically. Build mechs!

And consider the Core Krow (Flying Fortress). In a recent 2+ hour game, I tried every which way to break into my friend's base. (We are both on the lazy side and like to build impenetrable bases first and then attack.) Without any success for a while, I finally decided to take my 36 (!) patrolling Krows, and just send them in for an attack on his base (albeit, having previously taken out a significant portion of his air force). I assumed they would be knocked out by air defenses pretty quickly. Instead, I won the game within a minute or so. 15000hp is way too much for how much resources they require. Their hp should be in the 3000-4000 range, in my opinion.

So yeah, these are my thoughts about BA. The many little improvements over the original TA, specifically those that reduce how much micro-ing you have to do, are great, but the over-powered units that are too easy to build take a lot of the strategy and thinking (and fun, at least for me) out of the game.
User avatar
Lolsquad_Steven
Posts: 488
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 17:55

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by Lolsquad_Steven »

Hrm interesting post, your reputation proceeds you mastermind.

Can you upload some of your replays so we can start balancing ba to the way you guys play. From what it sounds like ba has only been balanced to the play style of a small group of players, with the replays of you and your friend playing we might just be able to correct this.
User avatar
Zydox
Lobby Developer
Posts: 453
Joined: 23 May 2006, 13:54

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by Zydox »

mastermind3001 wrote:In a recent 2+ hour game
:shock:

I think you've taken a wrong turn somewhere... you might want to try OpenTTD instead...
mastermind3001
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Jun 2011, 03:59

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by mastermind3001 »

Thanks Steven. To be honest, my very post should give me away as a player who is not very experienced, since I play slow and develop fairly slow (though I've definitely been working on this). Any experienced player should be able to beat me before I'm able to tech-up in the way that I described. So the way my friend and I play really perhaps only fits newbies or people who really like to play relaxed, and not the competitive people who roam these boards.

To my credit, I have played this game since the original TA, having beaten both the original and expansion pack campaigns, but I hardly ever did any multiplayer games, only skirmish against AIs really, and only picked this game back up a bit recently. But I do very much remember the game-play of the original games.

My friend and I play rarely (once a week at most, if even that) since we both have lives to live, so replays will not be easy to provide, and I only have so much time that I can put into this. Perhaps I can stage myself against an AI, let him build a strong base, and then proceed to show how strong units, such as a swarm of Krows, can take it out, or go against a land base and an army using Mechs.

Side note: if I had to choose between weakening T3 units or making them more expensive, I would vote for making them more expensive, since they do add another dimension to the game and make it more interesting if you have to work really hard to get them, such as for the Buzzsaw/Vulcan. In my opinion, seeing your opponent with T3 units should create an "oh crap" type of reaction (which would be the "added dimension" to the game), whereas right now they are little more than a nuisance to me. You might also lower their HPs a bit, together with or instead of making them more expensive, but if you do that enough then they really become "tier 2.5" units..

Having said that, I summarize: I feel like I'm building tier 3 units for "tier 2.5" costs.
Last edited by mastermind3001 on 14 Jun 2011, 09:11, edited 3 times in total.
mastermind3001
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Jun 2011, 03:59

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by mastermind3001 »

Zydox wrote:
mastermind3001 wrote:In a recent 2+ hour game
:shock:

I think you've taken a wrong turn somewhere... you might want to try OpenTTD instead...
Lol.. Somehow, the logic worked out like this:

1. Want big, epic battles.
2. Assume that you need big, strong bases and big, strong armies and a big map.
3. Play on big map, build big strong base, then build big epic army, then go all-out.
4. Find out that most armies you try to come up with get shredded quickly and don't make for very interesting games or epic battles.

Eh...
User avatar
crazy dave
Posts: 65
Joined: 17 Aug 2010, 21:39

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by crazy dave »

This guy right, there are some good units that have just been chanded way to much. The kraganeth never used to be all terrain and it just looks stupid going up cliffs :lol: and it was a bombardment mech that took years to build, if i remember with plasma cannons.

In addition to this its much faster and cheaper and more versatile than its ARM counterpart, its unfair; something has to be done about this.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5302
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by Jazcash »

Disagree about the Executioner, disagree about the Krow, sort of agree with the rest.
Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 375
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by Ares »

Comparing building a t2 unit to the speed of an experimental mech, you must remember all of the time required to obtain the needed resources and gantry built beforehand. (Not to mention tech switching to kbot if you went vehicles)

The time taken to build extra mohos and an adv fusion might not seem like a lot in a laid back game, but competitively those minutes may be the difference between winning and losing. Even moreso when your eagle-eyed opponent sends t2 bombers over and effortlessly blows the adv fusion up the moment before it finishes.

Although, departing from t2 means a more restricted collection of units come into play, departing from t2 is not something you can ever take lightly in a competitive game. I guess you can consider experimentals game enders - as much as nukes or big berthas - by the time they arrive most battles should already be decided, in the most part they simply save a little time at the end, while offering up a spectacular big finale.
User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by KaiserJ »

mastermind3001 wrote:Want big, epic battles
this is a fun way to play with friends but isn't indicative of how BA is normally played 1v1; most 1v1s are over within 20 minutes without using tier 2 units.

download some replays and refine... after 2 hours with little combat, i think i would be able to make at least 30 mechs per second, rather than one every 30 seconds.
User avatar
knorke
Posts: 7971
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 01:02

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by knorke »

mastermind3001 wrote:replays will not be easy to provide
replays are saved automatically. Go to the demos\ folder in your spring directory to find recordings of all games you have played so far.
http://replays.adune.nl/ for sharing.

/e
http://springrts.com/wiki/Spring_Replays
mastermind3001
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Jun 2011, 03:59

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by mastermind3001 »

Thanks for the feedback, all.

Two hours were not without fighting. There were raids, just not before each base was strong enough to easily fend them off. My issues don't come up in competitive games, yes, but perhaps it would be worth fixing them for when this game is not played competitively?

For other reasons, the replays from that game, and from others, are unavailable. But if I get replays that I feel back up my arguments in the future, I'll post them to this topic.

May I ask about the disagreement about the Executioner and Krow? Specifically for the Executioner, what need is there to change it from the way it was in the original game? People presumably play BA and other mods because they want the gameplay of the original game. And there are other changes from the original game that I also dislike (thankfully, very few), but this is plenty to talk about for now.
Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 375
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by Ares »

Destroyers are already one of the staples of t2, as a shorter ranged, well equipped, battleship with the ability to take down subs. If destroyers out-ranged battleships there wouldn't be much reason to build a battleship anymore. Battleships are the same speed if not slower, so would be kited until death, can't shoot subs and their bolstered hp is barely justified by cost. Not to mention its much easier to take down a single target, with less wasted dps, compared to a group of about 4.

What place would the battleships serve for you if this change did go ahead? How would you make 1 battleship still equal its weight in destroyers, without slowing down the pace of sea games or changing the whole juxtaposition of navy with the game?

If you lose the sea on a map its hard enough to get it back already. What winning advice would you give to people stuck in their small ground bases after losing sea, being shelled by destroyers - which now out-range everything apart from big berthas, for a fraction of the cost?
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22306
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by smoth »

crazy dave wrote:The kraganeth never used to be all terrain and it just looks stupid going up cliffs :lol: and it was a bombardment mech that took years to build,
not that I have any sway here but this^ I wtf'd when I saw this.
User avatar
crazy dave
Posts: 65
Joined: 17 Aug 2010, 21:39

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by crazy dave »

smoth wrote:
crazy dave wrote:The kraganeth never used to be all terrain and it just looks stupid going up cliffs :lol: and it was a bombardment mech that took years to build,
not that I have any sway here but this^ I wtf'd when I saw this.
if you ever played the original TA with the Mad Ta add on pack then you would understand my point, it was even more powerful than a krogg
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22306
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by smoth »

*Hint* I am agreeing wiff joo
klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by klapmongool »

mastermind3001 wrote: My issues don't come up in competitive games, yes, but perhaps it would be worth fixing them for when this game is not played competitively?
If they are real issues they should be fixed. The problem is that you cannot derive a real balance issue from a game as such as you describe them. Because your games lack a competitive nature you cannot determine how the balance is off.
mastermind3001
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Jun 2011, 03:59

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by mastermind3001 »

The destroyer was not that well-equipped in the original game. It was good at one thing: lobbing shells from far away. (And the ability to go against submarines, but that's not something that qualifies for "well-equipped" in my opinion.) The battleship, on the other hand, was well-equipped, and although it didn't have a range that is as long, it could handle a lot more opposition at the same time at closer range than the destroyer, especially the Core Warlord, with its heavy laser, which could even put up a fight against some planes. (The destroyer could do nothing about planes in the original game. In BA, it can.) The destroyer was weak at close range, the battleship strong. The destroyer was strong at long range, the battleship weaker.

Perhaps I'm a bit biased towards Core, the side that I prefer to play on.. By my reasoning, the Millenium is not as strong at close range, without a laser for smaller, faster units and airplanes.

There's a general pattern here that I see: OTA had dedicated units for every type of task or fighting, with few "all-around" units. BA has more units that have "extra" capabilities added. Anti-air K-Bots are amphibious all of a sudden. The aircraft carrier has become anti-nuke. Transports are armed. That's not balancing, the way I see it. The original line-up of ships, for each side, was balanced, except perhaps for the Core's Leviathan, which had no counterpart in the Arm's line-up.

About T3 units, from a recent game against an AI: the Core Black Hydra takes five times longer to build than the Warlord. I don't have hard numbers, but I feel that it did way more damage to my opponent than five Warlords would have, with three heavy lasers, a rapid-fire cannon, and anti-air missiles. Feel free to watch my replay.
Attachments
.82.7 BA 1v1 Nation_v1.sdf.zip
(1.53 MiB) Downloaded 8 times
Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 375
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by Ares »

If you are serious about continuing conversation on this topic of destroyer "balance changes," you could start by answering the questions I posed, specifically:
Ares wrote: 1. How would you make 1 battleship still equal its weight in destroyers, without slowing down the pace of sea games or changing the whole juxtaposition of navy within the game?

2. If you lose the sea on a map its hard enough to get it back already. What winning advice would you give to people stuck in their small ground bases after losing sea, being shelled by destroyers - which now out-range everything apart from big berthas, for a fraction of the cost?
mastermind3001
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Jun 2011, 03:59

Re: Core Executioner Minor Change Request

Post by mastermind3001 »

The destroyer isn't a balance change, and I didn't mean it as such. The balance changes are regarding the T3 units, for which I don't have a very strong argument as of now.

The destroyer is about gameplay, as are the other small things that I mentioned. More capable units make for less interesting gameplay and, while they seem to add to the game by creating more capable units, they really take away from it because now you work with less units.

I didn't answer your questions because they're almost N/A questions to me.

1. What does it mean to have one battleship equal its weight in destroyers, when each serves a different purpose? How would you compare them? Cost? How much damage they can deal out? HP?

2. What's the difference for this question? You're either being shelled by destroyers or by battleships (the destroyer would out-range the battleships by only 15-20% or so, so not much of a difference).

Am I missing something here?
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”