Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

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

Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by TheFatController » 10 Sep 2011, 20:01

Credits can be found at http://imolarpg.dyndns.org/trac/balatest/log/
7.50 -> 7.60

- Fixed CORE Dragon Eye having ARM logo on it
- Units that couldn't previously can now hit a closed packO
- Energy converter now uses correct efficiencies and capacities from BA 7.31
- MetalMakers now open/close depending on whether they're in use again
- Improved and optimized/beautified all construction unit animation scripts
- Fix for coop players starting on the same position
- Fixed bombers commandfire weapon tag for .83 compatibility
- Added new game end condition gadget for .83
- Fixed Core DDM animation, collision volume and optimized model
- Updated dynamic collision volume gadget
- Added more custom collision volumes

- Added modoption to toggle whether start resources belong to the team or the commander (default: team)
- Teams that die in FFA mode before 2 minutes get killed without leaving wrecks
- Enemy Transporting mod option now defaults to 'Disallow All' (previously All But Commander)
- Air Comblast Full Damage modoption now defaults to 'false'

- Fixed submarines not being able to hit some t1 ships by expanding hitspheres
- Sea pathing improved by reducing footprint of smaller boats (only minimal unit overlap) and removing turninplace for smaller boats
- Dragon Eyes can now float on water
- Added amphibious to description of units lacking them
- Arm & Core Cruiser close-range deck lasers damage per shot increased (60->110)

- Arm & Core T1 Missile trucks dps vs air increased 20%
- Arm & Core T1 Missile trucks airsightdistance 800 added

- Arm Maverick accuracy vs moving targets increased
- Arm Fido buildtime reduced 10%, 'On' weapon AOE increased a little
- Arm Zeus weapon now does 50% splash damage to up to 2 nearby units
- Core Freaker can now build T1 Construction Ships & Destroyers
- Core Commando mine placing script improved
- Core Can HP increased (4350->4850)
- Core Sumo EMP resistance added (0%->50%)

- Arm Consul can now build T1 Construction Ships & Destroyers
- Arm Bulldog weapon damage increased (240->270), turret aim speed increased a little
- Core Reaper weapon damage increased (97->109), turret aim speed increased a little
- Core Diplomat missile damage increased 20%
- Arm Merl missile damage increased 20%

- Arm Banshee special damage vs commanders raised (3->5) (default damage is 9)
- Core Hurricane bomb damage increased (283->337)
- Arm Phoenix bomb damage increased (210->250)
- Arm & Core Advanced construction aircraft workertimes raised (130->170)
- Arm Brawler hp increased (1400->1600)
- Core Rapier hp increased (1150->1400)
- Core Krow hp reduced (17500->15000)
- Arm Blade hp increased (2675->2700)
- Arm Dragonfly EMP damage per beam raised (15000->22500)

- Fighter HP reverted to 7.31 levels
- Fighter special lower damage vs gunships removed
- Fighter vs Fighter damage increased
- Fighter airsightdistance increased
- Hawk/Vamp reload times increased
- EnergyMake/EnergyUse & Idle Autoheal removed from fighters

- Arm Dragons Claw weapon now does ~33% splash damage to up to 2 nearby units
- Core Double llt top laser range increased (435->475), special damage vs commanders reduced (140->100)
- Core Double llt bottom laser range reduced (435->400)
- Core Double llt Energycost increased (1467->1617), sightdistance increased (455->475)
- Fixed missing Active/Passive switch on Minelayers
- Building mines doesn't level terrain beneath them

- Arm Annihilatior weapon max damage increased from 9000 to 12000
- Core Doomsday machine small red laser now in a burst of 2 shots per round

- Core LRPC (Intimidator) range increased (4000->4950)
- Core LRPC (Intimidator) reload increased ~20%
- Core LRPC (Intimidator) heightboost factor reduced (6)
- Arm LRPC (Bertha) range increased (4000->4650)
- Arm LRPC (Bertha) reload increased ~20%
- Arm LRPC (Bertha) heightboost factor reduced (8)
- Core Buzzsaw metalcost increased
- Core Buzzsaw damage per shot reduced
- Core Buzzsaw death explosion made much larger
- Arm Vulcan metalcost increased
- Arm Vulcan damage per shot reduced
- Arm Vulcan death explosion made much larger
- Arm EMP Silo range increased (4000->4500)

- Increased plasma deflector coverage (400-500)
- Increased plasma deflector max power (7500->12500)
- Decreased plasma deflector charge speed (150->100)
- Added some initial charge to plasma deflector once built (2000)

- Arm & Core Advanced fusion buildtimes raised 40%
- Arm & Core Advanced Kbot labs workertime increased (200->300)
- Arm & Core Advanced Vehicle plants workertime increased (200->300)
- Arm & Core Advanced Shipyards workertime increased (200->400)
- Arm & Core Targeting facilites energy to run cost reduced (150->100)

- Juno energy per shot reduced (16000->12000), new unit effects added

- Arm & Core Stationary Anti-Nukes energycost increased (28000->40000) (was ~60k prior to BA 7.4)
- Arm & Core Stationary Anti-Nukes buildtime increased (28000->60000) (was ~95k prior to BA 7.4)
- Arm & Core (Ground Based) Mobile Anti Nukes costs reduced ~20%
- Arm & Core (Ground Based) Mobile Anti Nukes coverage reduced (2000->1600)

- Arm Bantha EMP resistance reduced (100%->50%)
- Arm Maurauder hp raised (4000->4200)
- Arm Razorback hp raised (11500->12000)
- Core Juggernaut laser dps increased
- Core Krogoth kick AE made a bit larger
Download

Please post any comments, feedback, bugs, suggestions etc here as usual.

Have fun!

Modinfo: http://imolarpg.dyndns.org/modinfo/ba760/
0 x

HectorMeyer
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Jan 2009, 11:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by HectorMeyer » 10 Sep 2011, 21:03

+1
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Silentwings » 10 Sep 2011, 21:15

I think your plan is to do so many changes at once that alba's head will explode when he tries thinking about them =p

+1 to changes
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by ginekolog » 10 Sep 2011, 21:35

Nice set of changes. I only wonder if T2 figters will again be gamebreakers (with bomber runs ofc)
0 x

User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by albator » 10 Sep 2011, 21:49

ginekolog wrote:Nice set of changes. I only wonder if T2 figters will again be gamebreakers (with bomber runs ofc)
I hope they will be, I have seen enough advanced fusion spam already, that could only be breached by 100 krows attacking all at once going through 500 t2 fighter and 100 t2 flack and kill other eco.


About the release:

I would increase EMP launcher range to match core berta

I would decrease dps of slasher/smason by 30% cause hlt have been bluff from 30% (7.31-> 7.50)


Otherwise all seems good (or too wierd to say anything before playing it)
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Silentwings » 10 Sep 2011, 22:06

+1, emp launcher range needs an increase. Also in 7.50 it was bugged when trying to emp vulcan/buzz and only affected it for 3 seconds

Idea for slasher/samson: make it so as they can't fire when running away (like lugars), to some degree.
0 x


User avatar
Niobium
Posts: 456
Joined: 07 Dec 2008, 02:35

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Niobium » 11 Sep 2011, 04:48

- Energy converter now uses correct efficiencies and capacities from BA 7.31
[code]7.42
T1 Normal: 60 @ 50:1
T1 Floati: 60 @ 50:1
T2 Normal: 600 @ 50:1
T2 Underw: 600 @ 50:1

7.50
T1 Normal: 60 @ 60:1
T1 Floati: 66 @ 60:1
T2 Normal: 720 @ 60:1
T2 Underw: 780 @ 60:1

7.60 (== 7.31)
T1 Normal: 60 @ 60:1
T1 Floati: 60 @ 55:1
T2 Normal: 600 @ 50:1
T2 Underw: 600 @ 46:1[/code]

So basically in 7.60 the metal output is buffed +20% relative to 7.50 and the varying conversion rates are unintuitive random numbers (i.e. 46:1)
- Fighter HP reverted to 7.31 levels
And again, the progress made in 7.42/7.50 is reverted. The fighter HP nerf in 7.42/7.50 was seen almost universally as a good change by the players involved in the balance changes. I fail to see how the state of the game in 7.31, where mass fighter would win the majority of the games independent of the state of the land battle/territory, is good or better than the more ground-focused state in 7.50.

---

My main concern with this update is with the state of BA development. 7.30 to 7.50 showed really good promise, with development finally having direction in its changes and gameplay changes finally being made.

The 7.50 release was three months ago now, with basically no development/discussion from the remaining devs since (Many quit after 7.50, including me), and now after those three months TFC returns to BA as apparently the only active developer now, and makes a tonne changes that overall put BA development in a backwards direction toward 7.31.

I don't think BA can remain so stagnant, both in development and in gameplay (tech-and-eco-or-die), when there is now real competition in the mod scene with the rising popularity of Zero-K.
0 x

gonpost
Posts: 77
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 00:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by gonpost » 11 Sep 2011, 05:43

Nio the mmker ratio thing is practically irrelevant. The fighter change, however, is the one thing that I'm inclined to agree with you on. I don't miss the fighter spam days...because that's how almost every long game was determined.

I like the rest of the changes, though.
0 x

User avatar
hoijui
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 4342
Joined: 22 Sep 2007, 09:51

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by hoijui » 11 Sep 2011, 09:08

+1 to what the other two said about fighters.
not only did it create boring and much less versatile end-games before 7.50, it also helped to bring down spring performance for 50+% of players to a level that is not worth playing in late game.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by TheFatController » 11 Sep 2011, 12:07

Niobium wrote:the varying conversion rates are unintuitive random numbers (i.e. 46:1)
No they're not random numbers, they're the numbers BA has had for years inherited from AA, you had no right to flatten them simply to make a gadget run more efficiently then omit that from the changelog.
Niobium wrote:I fail to see how the state of the game in 7.31, where mass fighter would win the majority of the games independent of the state of the land battle/territory, is good or better than the more ground-focused state in 7.50.
I honestly agree that BA should be more ground focused and less fighter spammy. I don't agree with the way this was accomplished with the massive HP nerf. The fighters in 7.60 are likely not perfect but at least it gives a stable base to work in that direction from.
Niobium wrote:The 7.50 release was three months ago now, with basically no development/discussion from the remaining devs since (Many quit after 7.50, including me), and now after those three months TFC returns to BA as apparently the only active developer now, and makes a tonne changes that overall put BA development in a backwards direction toward 7.31.
I hope Beherith can clear up why I'm releasing this version, he did not want to continue as lead dev and asked me to take it over again. I did consult with him and many other players via lobby and forum before releasing these changes.
Niobium wrote:I don't think BA can remain so stagnant, both in development and in gameplay (tech-and-eco-or-die), when there is now real competition in the mod scene with the rising popularity of Zero-K.
I've also heard people say they stopped playing BA due to the 7.4/7.5 changes so no comment.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Nixa » 11 Sep 2011, 12:14

Well since TFC deleted this post and PM'd me to try again I'll repost it again.

Basically this changelog is just a set of random or personal grudge changes made by an inactive developer/player for an active forum group who barely play BA and whom are a complete misrepresentation of the BA community.

Where BA should have gone from 7.50 ->

- less reliance on static defenses, less mass eco-ability
- more reliance on units, expansion and fighting
- no random changes to unitinfo that just pad the changelog but mean very little to the game overall

Overall, a game should've been created that was more flowing, rather than the standard <7.4 fighterspam or >7.4 krow and vulcan spam.

I'm off to Canada in a month so I don't really care about where this game is heading, but I do feel sorry for the remaining 95% of the community that have to put up with this.

And as Nio said, a really hard look needs to be taken into who should be developing BA now. The average player in BA is a gold star, zero k is rapidly outpacing BA and changelogs going backwards will only make the attraction of new players harder.

Though in all honesty it's probably too late now, all the good work by many people, and all these new models are going to be ruined by a few that refuse to keep up with the times and adapt to the changing/developing actual PLAYING community and what they want to see.

BA is not AA, nor is it OTA, so there should no use of reasoning that it's a legacy from AA or OTA. Both OTA and AA were played with a max of 5v5, and without the help of Lua to control much of the game for you.

GoodGame BA - fighterspam FTW
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by TheFatController » 11 Sep 2011, 12:17

Nixa wrote:Basically this changelog is just a set of random or personal grudge changes made by an inactive developer/player for an active forum group who barely play BA and whom are a complete misrepresentation of the BA community.
I meant try again without this bullshit :roll:
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Nixa » 11 Sep 2011, 12:19

But that's what it is in my eyes (and everyone I've talked to). I'm entitled to my opinion hurrah.

You don't play, and the people you get advice from are generally inactive elitests trying to hold on to the good old days which no longer exist.

Hell I've been playing this game longer than even you, and have watched it evolve from my old 1v1 days in 05/06 to the small games in 07 to the large games from 07 onwards. Not to mention all of the time has been mostly active
Last edited by Nixa on 11 Sep 2011, 12:22, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by TheFatController » 11 Sep 2011, 12:21

0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Nixa » 11 Sep 2011, 12:23

I was not flaming, merely stating a fact.

BTW heres a good idea to add something useful to this conversation. Go into a BA game with random players and ask them what they'd like to see, then repeat. After a few days see what you come up with.
0 x

User avatar
Beherith
Moderator
Posts: 4934
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Beherith » 11 Sep 2011, 12:42

I have returned the BA lead development torch to TheFatController, as I do not have the time to continue developing it.
Nixa wrote:But that's what it is in my eyes (and everyone I've talked to). I'm entitled to my opinion hurrah.

You don't play, and the people you get advice from are generally inactive elitests trying to hold on to the good old days which no longer exist.

Hell I've been playing this game longer than even you, and have watched it evolve from my old 1v1 days in 05/06 to the small games in 07 to the large games from 07 onwards. Not to mention all of the time has been mostly active
All the others who have been around a long time are old elitists, yet you being around a long time qualifies you? Nice.

With relation to the 'random numbers' argument:
Posts saying other peoples balance changes are just 'random numbers' will be treated as argumentative violations (#4), for the following reasons:
Your random numbers are no different from anyone elses random numbers. Just the fact that the numbers arent divisible by 10/100/1000 doesnt make them any different.
Nixa wrote:BTW heres a good idea to add something useful to this conversation. Go into a BA game with random players and ask them what they'd like to see, then repeat. After a few days see what you come up with.
Moar BADSD!

Also, if you feel it has evolved in the wrong direction, FORK THE GAME!
And before you ask, a version number bump and a revert does not constitute a fork.

The reason BA has a much lower player retention rate is that there are a lot of abuse people who just spec and harass all players. This hits newbies especially hard.
0 x

User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by albator » 11 Sep 2011, 12:58

Nixa wrote:
Basically this changelog is just a set of random or personal grudge changes made by an inactive developer/player for an active forum group who barely play BA and whom are a complete misrepresentation of the BA community.
Thanks for the idea, that is exactly the formula I was looking for change log 7.31->7.4. I would have use a little more diplomacy though :)

For the record, the game has been tested. However -and that is the main reason why I agree with that change log - it is always really difficult to see how all changes are going to interact with each other, as a result, not making too massive changes is a good way to fix a few problem (balance issue) at the time. Starting back from 7.31 for some aspects that are not clear yet (fighter spam pb), is easier to see where to go.

The average player in BA is a gold star, zero k is rapidly outpacing BA and changelogs going backwards will only make the attraction of new
players harder.
As long as CA has communist ressources system, it will be very hard for them to catch competitive players.
Though in all honesty it's probably too late now, all the good work by many people, and all these new models are going to be ruined by a few that refuse to keep up with the times and adapt to the changing/developing actual PLAYING community and what they want to see.
Balance is a long way to go. If some online game are still doing some balance changes 10 years after their first release, there is a reason. But to keep constitency, that should not be too hard changes in order not to get a totally new game each time a balance release is done.
0 x

User avatar
hoijui
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 4342
Joined: 22 Sep 2007, 09:51

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by hoijui » 11 Sep 2011, 13:28

albator wrote:As long as CA has communist resources system, it will be very hard for them to catch competitive players.
Godde, who was previously playing S44 a lot, and owned hard in every game he was in, switched to ZK (and was ELO leader when i last checked).

in S44 (no communism system), he was able to devestate the others cause eh usually teamed up with a few noobs (all were noobs compared to him), and started grabbing flags, much faster/more then everyone else.
so besides being an altogether better player, he also ended up with much more resources...
i would guess that it started to be boring for him after a while, which caused him, as a competitive player, to play S44 less.

so i would say, it is better to go for many players - and communism mode is definitely better for that, as it helps to smooth out the differences quite some - instead of optimizing for competitive team-play (communism mode or not does not matter in 1v1).
where from would you get competitive players of comparable skills in usable numbers from scratch?
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Silentwings » 11 Sep 2011, 13:40

As long as CA has communist ressources system, it will be very hard for them to catch competitive players.
The reason BA has a much lower player retention rate is that there are a lot of abuse people who just spec and harass all players. This hits newbies especially hard.
These two points are related - the 'communist' resource pooling system promotes more of a team ethic than the BA approach (to which I dare not give a political association =p).

But I agree that obligatory resource pooling puts off the better players. Another thing in ZK which effectively shares out responsibility and promotes team spirit is the ELO system - when the team all together lose a small amount of ranking on a loss.

If we adopted ZK's ELO system into BA balancing I think we increase peoples desire to cooperate with each other without putting off competitive players.

And even if it doesnt have much effect on the temperament of the BA community, it's not a step backwards; it's certainly not a *less* accurate way of balancing games than using ingametime rounded to nearest multiple of 3*10^n.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”

cron