Balanced Annihilation 7.6alpha2 - Page 2

Balanced Annihilation 7.6alpha2

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

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

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by Johannes » 18 Aug 2011, 20:33

I don't really like fighters always 1-shotting each other. It happens too fast, and overall I just don't like special damages much. If there's a bit more time to see and do something before the battle is over it's better imo. T2 fighters 1-shotting t1 is kinda inevitable though unless they get specifically lowered damage.
Oh and flak kills t1 fighters 1-shot even with its normal damage.

And how would t1 fighters be best defense against massive air attack in that suggestion? T2 fighter seems like it still deals more dmg for cost in your suggestion.


IMO:
Keep t1 fighter ~how it was in 7.31, but give it standardised dmg vs different targets (125 which it is in this version seems like an ok value, I'd raise banshee hp a bit though to compensate).
Make t2 fighter a more elite fighter, that's used to kill t1 fighters, raise its cost and hp.
Then, slightly nerf all t2 air since their old counter, t2 fighter, is worse than before. Not sure which kind of nerf would be best yet - cost, speed, and hp?

A possible issue is because you'd get mostly t1 airshield (or a mixed airshield) instead of t2, is that cheaper planes in it -> more planes -> CPU crying. But perhaps you wouldn't make as many fighters in this model, since ground AA is better in comparison to this screen than old t2 screen.

Too many possible ways to "solve" this stuff... But whatever method is used, I think it would be cool if it wasn't done with excessive damageclass counters.


And no mm nerf please. It's a "problem" only in large games on defensive maps like DSD, to have a bit different endgame in those isn't worth losing the mm option in more dynamic games.
0 x

User avatar
Nixa
Posts: 350
Joined: 05 Oct 2006, 04:32

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by Nixa » 19 Aug 2011, 13:25

And no mm nerf please. It's a "problem" only in large games on defensive maps like DSD, to have a bit different endgame in those isn't worth losing the mm option in more dynamic games.
Will have effect your on your so called 'dynamic games', just go cap the mexes with t2 instead of being lazy. If you can't win with 100-200+ metal then the games gone shit anyway :P.... whilst improving/changing 99% of what is played by the community these days :regret:
0 x

User avatar
Zydox
Lobby Developer
Posts: 453
Joined: 23 May 2006, 13:54

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by Zydox » 19 Aug 2011, 14:54

Perhaps just create a widget which kills all commanders after 30-40min and declare the battle a draw :lol:
0 x

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

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by Johannes » 19 Aug 2011, 15:11

Nixa wrote:
And no mm nerf please. It's a "problem" only in large games on defensive maps like DSD, to have a bit different endgame in those isn't worth losing the mm option in more dynamic games.
Will have effect your on your so called 'dynamic games', just go cap the mexes with t2 instead of being lazy. If you can't win with 100-200+ metal then the games gone shit anyway :P.... whilst improving/changing 99% of what is played by the community these days :regret:
What the hell are you talking about? As if mms were only used when you can make t2 mexes and/or when you've got 100m coming in...
0 x

User avatar
Nixa
Posts: 350
Joined: 05 Oct 2006, 04:32

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by Nixa » 19 Aug 2011, 15:34

Zydox wrote:Perhaps just create a widget which kills all commanders after 30-40min and declare the battle a draw :lol:
Kinda already exists in current BA, mod option, check it out :P
0 x

User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by Wombat » 19 Aug 2011, 16:58

And no mm nerf please. It's a "problem" only in large games on defensive maps like DSD, to have a bit different endgame in those isn't worth losing the mm option in more dynamic games
t1 mex are very well balanced in my opinion, t2 mms are not. i think their only advantage over t1 mex should be less space required to get same efficiency.

adv fus nerf might fix the adv fus rush problem in big games, a little.
decreasing t2 mm efficiency, decreasing its price (with adv fus price doesnt matter much) and increasing buildtime might be also good idea.
0 x

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

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by Johannes » 19 Aug 2011, 17:40

Wombat wrote:t1 mex are very well balanced in my opinion, t2 mms are not. i think their only advantage over t1 mex should be less space required to get same efficiency.
But that's pretty much how it is now?

A bit of math.
Say you've got 600e to spare for mm use.
You can build either 1 t2 mm or 10 t1 mms to use it.
T2 mm makes 12m, and costs 358/19350 to make. 10 t1 mms make just 10m, but only cost 10/10870.
The cost differential between the 2 options is so big though, that the extra efficiency of the t2 mm pays itself back only in 4 minutes, ((19350-10870)/60+(358-10))/(12-10)=245sec.
And you can get almost the same RoI as that by spamming fusion and t1 mm (core fus+18 mms, pays itself back in 277sec).
T1 mms also build faster (disregarding opening/closing times of builders though) and can start operating 1 by 1. And if you ever turn off the t2 mm, it takes still longer to pay itself.
0 x

User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by Wombat » 20 Aug 2011, 08:54

so u say t2 mm takes as much space as 10 t1? hrm... (lets even ignore spacing)

also i personally never liked reasoning like 'X pays itself back only in 4 minutes' - in case of t2 mm its like 2 stumpy wrecks.
its highly hypothetical, rarely matters if someone got brain, fights and reclaims (or got 1 aircon/rezbot)
0 x

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

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by Johannes » 20 Aug 2011, 12:55

Wombat wrote:so u say t2 mm takes as much space as 10 t1? hrm... (lets even ignore spacing)
No, I'm saying that's the only real advantage t2 mm has. That it takes less space and has more hp, but doesn't really give you more m.
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3593
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by Silentwings » 20 Aug 2011, 14:55

another advantage of the t2 mm is that it doesnt explode when a t2 scout plane crashes into it xD
0 x

User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by TheFatController » 21 Aug 2011, 14:46

Have had one lolgame of this 2v2 on DSD but doesn't seem to be possible to host it otherwise (just had game open for 10 mins in lobby no joiners) :|
0 x

User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2379
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Re: BA Experimental discussion thread (download inside)

Post by REVENGE » 28 Aug 2011, 07:50

TheFatController wrote:no joiners) :|
Needs more faggotrymagnets.
0 x

User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.6alpha2

Post by TheFatController » 28 Aug 2011, 20:20

Updated again, would love to see more hosting of this (note that I also have access to Zydox autohost FTP and will very likely watch any replays that i'm not present for)
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.6alpha2

Post by Johannes » 28 Aug 2011, 23:18

- Core Can (0%->20%)*
- Core Sumo (0%->25%)*
- Arm Dragons Claw (0%->30%)*
- Core Dragons Maw (0%->30%)*
- Arm Warrior (0%->10%)*
- Arm Zeus (0%->10%)*
- Arm Maverick (0%->60%)*
- Arm Razorback (0%->15%)*
- Core Shiva (0%->15%)*
Why? It doesn't seem to have any real effect into the way you play the game, just obscure extra clutter.
0 x

User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.6alpha2

Post by TheFatController » 28 Aug 2011, 23:53

Johannes wrote:Why? It doesn't seem to have any real effect into the way you play the game, just obscure extra clutter.
I don't think there's such a thing as 'clutter', players shouldn't have to know the precise stats of the units they make (there's already too many anyway) it should come down to more like 'this looks cool ill try this' and the look and feel of the unit.

The reasoning on this was, Bladewings can't be nerfed (as the feedback on the Eternal Annihilation thread showed) however it would be nice if some units were a little better vs EMP without ruining Bladewings for every situation, this was done on look-and-feel:
Can & Sumo, big chunky units easy to EMP due to speed maybe have some built in extra hardieness
Dragons Claw & Maw, they're already the "alternate" defense, giving them the EMP nerf lends a little more to their situational usefulness.
Warrior/Zeus, cause Can/Sumo got something
Maverick, has low hp so is easily EMP'd but logic says whatever helps it autoheal should make it more resistant.
Shiva/Razorback, just generally following my campaign of beefing up t3

Anyhow, shouldn't be a major game changer as the note says from testing.
0 x

User avatar
Nixa
Posts: 350
Joined: 05 Oct 2006, 04:32

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.6alpha2

Post by Nixa » 29 Aug 2011, 09:12

Problem with stunners is that AA is too easily stunned, wouldn't it be more logical to give them random resistance values instead?
it should come down to more like 'this looks cool ill try this' and the look and feel of the unit
Shiva/Razorback, just generally following my campaign of beefing up t3
These alone will win you the whole hearted support of the elitists!

8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.6alpha2

Post by Johannes » 29 Aug 2011, 14:37

TheFatController wrote:players shouldn't have to know the precise stats of the units they make
Yes, and that's why you shouldn't add damage classes just for the heck of it. You can see how a unit moves and how its weapon behaves just by using it, but stuff like this is totally invisible. Sure these changes basically change nothing in the way anyone will play since they're so small, but because of that it just is totally pointless to me. You lose a tiny bit of intuitivity and gain nothing.
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2804
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.6alpha2

Post by Jools » 29 Aug 2011, 15:16

TheFatController wrote:players shouldn't have to know the precise stats of the units they make
I agree with this statement, for perhaps in another context. There's a lot of clutter on the screen today, for example the map coordinates, exact unit hp (I think a bar graph for hp would be enough). Things like these make the user interface seem less professional than in some commercial games. Sometimes it feels as if spring has been visually designed in order for it to be easy to debug.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.6alpha2

Post by sillynanny » 31 Aug 2011, 16:01

Lower metal maker efficiency.

Remove the targeting building (the one that improves radar dot accuracy) and give that ability to T2 radar which is expensive and underused.

Make the air repair pads (carriers too) repair faster.

Make the seismic detector red circles less horrible, more like a radar dot, and make a mobile version of seismic detector that needs to be deployed to activate.
0 x

User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.6alpha2

Post by TheFatController » 31 Aug 2011, 17:05

sillynanny wrote:Lower metal maker efficiency.
Just a side note, 7.50 has more efficient metal makers than 7.31 so people have been playing with buffed metal makers for the last few months.

7.6alpha2 fixes this and this is patched into the main BA trunk too, I'd love to see more people playing 7.6aplha2 on autohosts.
0 x

Locked

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”

cron