Balanced Annihilation 7.60 - Page 3

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by TheFatController » 13 Sep 2011, 11:25

- Core Can HP increased (4350->4850)
- Arm Zeus weapon now does 50% splash damage to up to 2 nearby units
- 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
These 4 changes go together and the aim is to make T2 assault more viable as opposed to bombers or eco porcing. Panther and Croc were given a 'make more useful' treatment a few releases ago and Bulldog & Reaper should be bought inline along with them, Zeus buff is situationally huge, when looking at Can the most obvious adjustment to bring it inline with these 3 changes was more HP due to the style of the unit.

A few other changes are complimentary to these (Merl, Diplo, Anni, DDM etc).
Jonny5isalivetm wrote:So I take it reducing T2 Factory costs was a bad idea ?
Never got to test it properly so yeah it was safest to leave that out.
Wombat wrote:btw, fido buff is definitely not enough, comparing fido and morty stats still makes me lol hard.
Fido should not just be a 4 legged morty, current Fido is being buffed in baby steps at the moment, it should be treated a tech 1.5 skirmisher.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Niobium » 13 Sep 2011, 12:13

TheFatController wrote:
- Core Can HP increased (4350->4850)
- Arm Zeus weapon now does 50% splash damage to up to 2 nearby units
- 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
These 4 changes go together and the aim is to make T2 assault more viable as opposed to bombers or eco porcing.
What was changed:
- Buffed T2 fighters
- Buffed T2 bombers
- Buffed T2 economy
- Buffed T2 ground to account for buffed fighters, bombers, and economy

What's missing:
- Buffed T1 to account for buffed T2 fighters, bombers, economy, and ground

---

The reasoning behind the T2 ground changes is sound in that it helps offset the other buffs to T2, but another way to perfectly offset the air/economy changes would be to not do them in the first place.

I'm more interested in the reasoning behind buffing the T2 air/economy in the first place, especially as the changes by themselves apparently imbalance T2, requiring additional buffs to other areas of T2 to compensate.

Was T2 really so weak/underused in 7.50 that it required a buff? I don't think so.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by TheFatController » 13 Sep 2011, 12:49

Niobium wrote:- Buffed T2 fighters
- Buffed T2 bombers
- Buffed T2 economy
None of these have been buffed in comparison to 7.31, ignoring .4/.5 changes these have all been nerfed.

I've explained the reasoning between T2 fighters & T2 economy revisions already in this thread so i'll finish with bombers.

The actual nerf to bomber damage that should have been made originally (and had been playtested) was detailed in the Eternal Annihilation changelog however due to a few creeping changes BA bombers were inadvertently made weaker than this. Upping the damage was a sanity correction as it should not have been so low with the bombs per drop reduction.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Niobium » 13 Sep 2011, 13:24

TheFatController wrote:I've explained the reasoning between T2 fighters & T2 economy revisions already in this thread
I'd like to see more elaboration, something like this: http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=487981. All you've said in this thread re economy/fighters is basically 'metalmaker ratios used to be these, so they should be these' and 'I didn't like the way fighters were changed, so I changed them back'.

Why are the old ratios better than flat 60:1? Why are 7.31 HP fighters better than 7.50 HP fighters? And if the answers are 'it's a temporary revert' then why was a revert needed right now, and what are some of the ideas you have for future changes?
0 x

User avatar
Floris
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 599
Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 20:00

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Floris » 13 Sep 2011, 15:43

Why are 7.31 HP fighters better than 7.50 HP fighters?
.......
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by TheFatController » 13 Sep 2011, 15:47

No previous BA changelogs have required a long written justification for every change and this is not a common requirement for changelogs in the gaming world, If this was a genuine community want and I expected a good discussion out of it I'd have done it ages ago, at the moment I feel you only want me to lay out this theoretical write-up so that you and Nixa can "prove me wrong" as part of whatever agenda you have for BA - so yeah it's not a very exciting prospect.
Why are the old ratios better than flat 60:1?
Cause that's what BA always had and the change was stealthily put in, if it was caught earlier it would never have gone in in my opinion (maybe Beherith can confirm that).
Why are 7.31 HP fighters better than 7.50 HP fighters?
The intention of the fighter nerfs in 7.4 was to remove fighters from the game by making them a waste of metal, 7.5 was a compromise between this and 7.31. It was a false compromise and not fully reverting the 7.4 change was a mistake.
7.60 fighters are also different to 7.31 in terms of their special damages, reload times and sight distance and this is currently experimental as far as I'm concerned pending further adjustments from in-game feedback.
what are some of the ideas you have for future changes?
There's a very big difference between 'my ideas for future changes' and 'what id actually implement in BA'. I have tons of ideas like the anti repair juno and commander upgrades and mod options noone will play and all sorts of other nonsense but realistically so far I have got most of my ideas from talking to people in the lobby or here on the forum.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Johannes » 13 Sep 2011, 17:24

TheFatController wrote:
- Core Can HP increased (4350->4850)
- Arm Zeus weapon now does 50% splash damage to up to 2 nearby units
- 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
These 4 changes go together and the aim is to make T2 assault more viable as opposed to bombers or eco porcing. Panther and Croc were given a 'make more useful' treatment a few releases ago and Bulldog & Reaper should be bought inline along with them, Zeus buff is situationally huge, when looking at Can the most obvious adjustment to bring it inline with these 3 changes was more HP due to the style of the unit.
I don't think that's a good way to go about it. Buffing a few good units to compensate for there being even better ones leaves you with much less variety than just bringing the great units in line with the good ones.

Panther and Croc ought to be nerfed, not every other straightforward t2 assault unit brought to "their level".
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by TheFatController » 13 Sep 2011, 17:35

With T2 ground assault the risk of handing your enemy a load of metal at that stage in the game is huge, not so much an issue in T1/T3 so a bump to their stats lowers the risk and should mean more mid-game ground fighting.

The intention and scale of the changes is not to turn Bulldog and Reaper into super units which exclude all others - just make them more rewarding to use.

If they are OP then examples would be great, ideally replays.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Baracus » 13 Sep 2011, 18:04

Floris wrote:
Why are 7.31 HP fighters better than 7.50 HP fighters?
.......
`

I think nio means better gameplay instead of an actual better unit
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by ginekolog » 13 Sep 2011, 19:37

Comeone guys dont just bug TFC and devs that did great job with improving BA. Rahter play some games and then report if anything major is wrong.

From what I see all changes are OK, nothing gamebreaking etc.
We will have to play and see if new T2 air figter bomber raids are still by far the best way to win games like in 7.31. That was not very pleasant, but not boring eather. Whats super boring is endles porc where noone can win and decent air fixes that. (or lolcanon ofc :) )
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Pxtl » 13 Sep 2011, 19:39

TheFatController wrote:With T2 ground assault the risk of handing your enemy a load of metal at that stage in the game is huge, not so much an issue in T1/T3 so a bump to their stats lowers the risk and should mean more mid-game ground fighting.

The intention and scale of the changes is not to turn Bulldog and Reaper into super units which exclude all others - just make them more rewarding to use.

If they are OP then examples would be great, ideally replays.
Maybe it's time to look at wrecks for air then? Bombers could feed metal into your enemies too.
0 x

dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1192
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by dansan » 13 Sep 2011, 21:23

Pxtl wrote:Maybe it's time to look at wrecks for air then? Bombers could feed metal into your enemies too.
I find the idea actually interesting: not the metal from the bombers is interesting - that's not the issue with bombers, but the bombers build time!
So if the wrecks could be rezzed, that would give the enemy a decent chance of hitting back, as they can use cheap, moving build power with rezzers.
(Teamplay: revenge your bombed buddy with some rezzed bombers :)
Maybe it would make air more fun...

As a side effect it would automatically raise the value of AA.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Wombat » 13 Sep 2011, 22:43

i wouldnt implement airplane wrecks just becouse of the terrible 'animation'.

also killing techers/porcers would be slightly less effective (m to rebuild)
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by albator » 14 Sep 2011, 00:19

TheFatController wrote:With T2 ground assault the risk of handing your enemy a load of metal at that stage in the game is huge, not so much an issue in T1/T3 so a bump to their stats lowers the risk and should mean more mid-game ground fighting.

The intention and scale of the changes is not to turn Bulldog and Reaper into super units which exclude all others - just make them more rewarding to use.

If they are OP then examples would be great, ideally replays.
Just download ANY ffa replay (with t2 battle) to see panther/croc spam only as t2 tank

Like I already explained, even if the panther/corc are not as good as repear/bulldog in static battle, the fact that they move really fast (one cause it is a raider, the other one cause of its amphib ability make climbing slope easy), allow them to be faster at the figthing point, then concentrating more firepower at the same time than if u had spammed repear/buldog

This is especially a problem for panther since it is easily spamable after you reclaim your t2 fact.


edit:

+1 for NOT make air wreck (make game porcier)
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Johannes » 14 Sep 2011, 01:26

TheFatController wrote:With T2 ground assault the risk of handing your enemy a load of metal at that stage in the game is huge, not so much an issue in T1/T3 so a bump to their stats lowers the risk and should mean more mid-game ground fighting.
I'm not so sure if most games/gametypes have a stage like that to start with.

And that even for DSD games if buffing the most straightforward way to attack is a good change. If you slam your bulldog army into the enemy bulldog army and turrets and hope you have more stuff, it's not really any less riskier depending on how good bulldogs are, it just makes building more bulldogs mandatory. And the leftover t1 army size less relevant since those stumpies will get crushed under the AoE even faster than before.

If you want to encourage committing to T2 ground attack in DSD-style games, seems better to buff artillery instead. They won't overpower t1 armies as easily, you'll have to keep a more varied army composition, armies like that allow for much more micro and more varied builds/tactics. As it is spamming panthers or crocs or bulldogs is way too effective compared to how simple and straightforward it is.


And banshees should get a buff I think, since they take more damage from both samsons and fighters than before, more damage vs commander doesn't compensate since they still suck at that.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Johannes » 14 Sep 2011, 01:30

dansan wrote:
Pxtl wrote:Maybe it's time to look at wrecks for air then? Bombers could feed metal into your enemies too.
I find the idea actually interesting: not the metal from the bombers is interesting - that's not the issue with bombers, but the bombers build time!
So if the wrecks could be rezzed, that would give the enemy a decent chance of hitting back, as they can use cheap, moving build power with rezzers.
(Teamplay: revenge your bombed buddy with some rezzed bombers :)
Maybe it would make air more fun...

As a side effect it would automatically raise the value of AA.
Rezzing air wouldn't be very good, unless you really can't make a lab for them and really could use that handful of bombers the enemy can easily anticipate, since they've got such a long buildtime.
Remember that when rezzing you effectively have to go through the buildtime twice, once to rez and once to repair. And since their m cost is so low you barely save anything on that either - it'd be just more efficient to suck the air wrecks and build your own new ones.
0 x

dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1192
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by dansan » 14 Sep 2011, 01:36

I see... it was a stupid idea :mrgreen:
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by albator » 14 Sep 2011, 02:03

I suggest tfc the idea to increase dps of sasmon/slasher vs air and in the same time to reduce dps vs ground so damage vs air stay same.

The purpose of that was the revert the change that has been made in 7.4/7.5 that make samson/smasher suck even more vs t2 gunship since they have lower hp. (reminder: slasher/samson are supposed to be AA, not hlt killer)

I think wrt 7.31, samson/slasher hp should be same, dps vs ground -30%, dps vs air : same, but maybe bluff it a bit vs t2 gunship

Also, according what I saw, banshee special damage 3->5 seem to be op, but lets wait to see if everyone abuse from it.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Johannes » 14 Sep 2011, 02:07

albator wrote:Also, according what I saw, banshee special damage 3->5 seem to be op, but lets wait to see if everyone abuse from it.
I'm not so sure, they're hardly better at that than t1 bombers still.
0 x

djmad
Posts: 13
Joined: 25 May 2009, 16:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by djmad » 14 Sep 2011, 08:55

How can it be, that a fully healthy commander can be killed with one shot from a MP-Cannon?

i was standing on the front, almost at 100% when a High Adj. ball hit me which ended in an instant explosion.

Replays are aviable, my commander was moving after the hit around 5 pixels, which should not be able to do 2500+ Damage

may you can find a solution for this in 7.61+

greets djmad
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”

cron