Balanced Annihilation 7.60 - Page 2

Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

Ares
Posts: 315
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Ares » 11 Sep 2011, 14:44

Thanks Beherith, for your time as lead developer, adding a lot of lasting changes and making BA a much more enjoyable and smooth experience overall.

I think this update is interesting, especially the zeus/fido/bulldog changes, which should stack up well for Arm.

The Bertha looks more cost efficient next to the Vulcan, which should make for more interesting battles in the late game.

Fighters have their niche back for intercepting air over more hostile areas than before, rather than just doing a job of glorified base defense.

I'm afraid that the Juno will be too effective at its anti-nano role, given its low cost, range and spam factor.

The "com wrecks vanish before 2minutes," change seems trivial and confusing. Once a commander is near death, the controlling side just needs to remember to watch their in-game clock pass the 2min mark before the killing blow, or be left sorely disappointed and confused.
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3597
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Silentwings » 11 Sep 2011, 15:04

The "com wrecks vanish before 2minutes," change seems trivial and confusing. Once a commander is near death, the controlling side just needs to remember to watch their in-game clock pass the 2min mark before the killing blow, or be left sorely disappointed and confused.
Could be addressed by making com metal value change continuously with time. E.g. linearly from 0 at time 0 to 2500 after 120 sec, and then fixed at 2500.
0 x

User avatar
MiNiMi
Posts: 39
Joined: 05 Oct 2010, 18:38

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by MiNiMi » 11 Sep 2011, 18:10

Nixa wrote: ..., but I do feel sorry for the remaining 95% of the community that have to put up with this.
don't worry i guess 95% of the community would like these changes :mrgreen: or do you mean the "old" and "active" players make 95% of the BA Community??? :lol:

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.
Is a good point. agree with you.

BTW: It was the 7.50 which let the people spam vulcanos and krows!
0 x

Senna
Posts: 315
Joined: 17 Mar 2009, 00:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Senna » 12 Sep 2011, 02:38

Silentwings wrote:
The "com wrecks vanish before 2minutes," change seems trivial and confusing. Once a commander is near death, the controlling side just needs to remember to watch their in-game clock pass the 2min mark before the killing blow, or be left sorely disappointed and confused.
Could be addressed by making com metal value change continuously with time. E.g. linearly from 0 at time 0 to 2500 after 120 sec, and then fixed at 2500.
hmm this seems a Gay Tactic, rush 1 air lab, make trans, kill 1 enemy com, no metal left so game its over to the other player and you still got air lab making 1 air con
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Johannes » 12 Sep 2011, 03:25

- Teams that die in FFA mode before 2 minutes get killed without leaving wrecks
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Beherith » 12 Sep 2011, 10:55

Yeah, I added that cause it is highly improbable anyone could kill an enemy at 2 minutes on current FFA maps, but most leaves and drops happen then - and they break the game by leavings tons of free M.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by TheFatController » 12 Sep 2011, 12:40

On a side note re: "find out what the players really want!!", I spent over 11 hours in a 6v6 autohost playing (and spec'ing when i had to eat etc.) on Sunday and I saw no rage or evidence that the sky had fallen, got some nice suggestions from people and some good gameplay (got non-full-damage-combombed 3 times :o + had good success pushing with T2 assault/arti), didn't witness much teching/fighter screens either aside from on CenterRock...
0 x

User avatar
very_bad_soldier
Posts: 1371
Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by very_bad_soldier » 12 Sep 2011, 13:23

I dont think you can expect people to instantly adapt to such a set of changes. It will take days and weeks until people realize the changes and adapt their playing style to them.
I am not sure how many players even actually study the whole changelog when a new version comes out.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by TheFatController » 12 Sep 2011, 13:29

very_bad_soldier wrote:I dont think you can expect people to instantly adapt to such a set of changes. It will take days and weeks until people realize the changes and adapt their playing style to them.
I am not sure how many players even actually study the whole changelog when a new version comes out.
I realise that, I was commenting more on the suggestion that this is a horribly broken release that is despised by 95% of the community, I've seen absolutely no evidence of that.

Time will tell re: the Fighter changes etc and I would expect these to be adjusted again off the back of how they turn out..
0 x

User avatar
Baracus
Posts: 33
Joined: 29 Sep 2009, 18:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Baracus » 12 Sep 2011, 13:39

I would find it nice to see more reasoning behind changes then just a list of things being changed.

It's better for discussion and clarity if not only the new stats are displayed in the change log but also the the old stats and why it has been changed. To go further it should also say what is hoped to be achieved by the modification (educated guess or beta tested).

For example, why would the can need more HP?

Plus I feel most of these changes just undo the changes being made by beheriths team. I was looking forward to more balance change discussions, instead of just a list of how it is gonna be. But that might be just me.

I guess going back a little to go forward in the future can be a great step in development.

Thnx for all the work
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3597
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Silentwings » 12 Sep 2011, 21:23

I think explaining each unit change individually is too much work, and more information than most people are looking for. Besides, the BA devs all seem willing to discuss changes before and after. I'm not against having a small number of general comments with each release.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22300
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by smoth » 12 Sep 2011, 21:41

To be fair:
Plus I feel most of these changes just undo the changes being made by beheriths team. I was looking forward to more balance change discussions, instead of just a list of how it is gonna be. But that might be just me.
It does look like he kept the technical fixes and armor class fixes..
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Wombat » 12 Sep 2011, 22:37

madness D:

there is many changes i dont understand, but what hurts my eyes most are bulldog and can buffs, no idea why these would need buff, bulldog especially.
0 x

User avatar
Jonny5isalivetm
Posts: 168
Joined: 04 Jul 2006, 02:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Jonny5isalivetm » 13 Sep 2011, 00:11

So I take it reducing T2 Factory costs was a bad idea ?
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Johannes » 13 Sep 2011, 01:59

Wombat wrote:bulldog and can buffs, no idea why these would need buff, bulldog especially.
Missed these initially, and gotta agree. These are good units for their roles and this makes the t2 units >> t1 units cap wider still.
0 x

User avatar
Baracus
Posts: 33
Joined: 29 Sep 2009, 18:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Baracus » 13 Sep 2011, 02:28

Johannes wrote:
Wombat wrote:bulldog and can buffs, no idea why these would need buff, bulldog especially.
Missed these initially, and gotta agree. These are good units for their roles and this makes the t2 units >> t1 units cap wider still.
This is why telling why a change was made isnt to much work. Randomly changing the bulldog and can, while in the previous balance the only thing i would say about a can is that it might have been one of the best t2 units, since a cheap freaker can build it + great DPS and HP, absolutely no need for a buff.
But if I see a change like this with an explanation and an idea of what the result might/will be, it might prove me wrong. Is it because the zues was buffed, the can needs a little more HP?
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Wombat » 13 Sep 2011, 03:47

btw, fido buff is definitely not enough, comparing fido and morty stats still makes me lol hard.

core kbots are good at breaking hill porc and regular porc (dominator + morty), i always felt like arm is missing such units. u could head that direction while tweaking fido, currently its as useless as it always been.

dunno what is ur plan, how is ba supposed to play/look like with these changes, but gl.

EDIT - if by buffing missletrucks like this u wanted to nerf combomb, then good job, but +20% damage is too much. it nerfs banshees badly and smaller buff should be enough to kill trans in 2 shots (FINALLY)
0 x

User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5302
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Jazcash » 13 Sep 2011, 04:00

Wombat wrote:smaller buff should be enough to kill trans in 2 shots (FINALLY)
Been saying this for a long time. Needs to happen.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Wombat » 13 Sep 2011, 04:15

aww, broke my edit combo :<

anyway, i think i didnt post any rant here about core amph but stopped at conversation with kix. to make long things short:

core amphs are rape in many team games (charlie, ssb, tropical etc). very often (charlie, tabula) these are pretty much substitute of normal land units, what is wrong. amph should sux on land. for me triton is perfectly balanced amph unit - eats llt, lose to normal tanks, rape shitz when attacking by suprise.

was always strange to me nobody ever bothered with these :<
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Nixa » 13 Sep 2011, 05:56

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.
Btw, as a side note, fighters were basically unchanged for 3 years or so. There was plenty of time to come up with a way to change them but noone did - and when finally someone does (and it worked relatively effectively to achieve its goal) it gets reverted. Now 3 1/2 years in, they're back to the same old. If you acknowledge "The fighters in 7.60 are likely not perfect" plz fix them before releasing.

Same goes with the can and bulldog changes. Also now that the armor classes have been fixed the krow change will be unneeded.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”

cron