Balanced Annihilation 7.60 - Page 4

Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Baracus » 14 Sep 2011, 13:10

nvm :)
Last edited by Baracus on 14 Sep 2011, 17:02, 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 » 14 Sep 2011, 13:22

Baracus wrote:with the HP buff they got now. Its no fun to play against.
There's no HP buff?
0 x

User avatar
wahoo
Posts: 16
Joined: 02 Sep 2011, 20:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by wahoo » 14 Sep 2011, 22:49

TheFatController wrote:
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.
Fido fails even in that role. Its too high cost in energy means you practically can't produce them without a fusion. And once you do have fusion, you can afford units that actually don't suck in combat.

Compare ratio of energy cost to metal cost:
Fido: 20.8
Stumpy: 9.5
Morty: 5.4 <-- the lowest ratio of all land units

Now let's assume you have 3 moho mines and you want to produce Fido/Morty without fusion. How many advanced solars you need, so that you don't e-stall?

In case of Fido, you need 8.
In case of Morty, you need 3.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Johannes » 14 Sep 2011, 23:02

^Then try assuming a situation other than a DSD fast techer
0 x

User avatar
wahoo
Posts: 16
Joined: 02 Sep 2011, 20:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by wahoo » 14 Sep 2011, 23:51

The assumprion of 3 moho mines is de facto good reference to illustrate the situation for a reader, regardless your personal opinion on DSD games. Assume different metal income, and conclusion will be the same.

I lurked here long enough to learn the "reference to DSD wins all arguments" elitism, so I kind of saw that coming sooner or later. I also understand why it was easier for you to pull that card, rather than actually argue:
- why you think 3 moho mines assumption makes the described condition exclusive to DSD
- why you think a "fast DSD techer" would tech to Fidos
- how a non 8v8 DSD game, with usually more mexes per player, would improve e-stalling while making Fidos (because in my logic, that would make it even worse)
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by albator » 14 Sep 2011, 23:53

wahoo wrote:
TheFatController wrote:
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.
Fido fails even in that role. Its too high cost in energy means you practically can't produce them without a fusion. And once you do have fusion, you can afford units that actually don't suck in combat.

Compare ratio of energy cost to metal cost:
Fido: 20.8
Stumpy: 9.5
Morty: 5.4 <-- the lowest ratio of all land units

Now let's assume you have 3 moho mines and you want to produce Fido/Morty without fusion. How many advanced solars you need, so that you don't e-stall?

In case of Fido, you need 8.
In case of Morty, you need 3.
build a t2 arm engineer
reclaim t2 fact
spam more panther casue u have more metal and they are E-cheap
rape the core

or just let it go, you cannot make 1unit vs 1unit reasoning
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Johannes » 15 Sep 2011, 01:12

wahoo wrote:- why you think 3 moho mines assumption makes the described condition exclusive to DSD
Because it's kinda unique to DSD situation to have 3 mohos and nothing else making m? Elsewhere you might have that sufficient e production anyway (even if not always).
- why you think a "fast DSD techer" would tech to Fidos
No idea actually why I'd think that
- how a non 8v8 DSD game, with usually more mexes per player, would improve e-stalling while making Fidos (because in my logic, that would make it even worse)
Totally depends on the game - mex size, wind strength being some obvious set factors for example. And you can complement them with building something m-intensive simultaneously, mohomexes for example. Or build an m-intensive unit like fatboy right after them to balance.
An example of where fido can be useful is Battle for Planet or similar map.

This isn't really meant to say fido is perfect now or whatever, since recent and not so recent changes arm t2 bots are kinda weak compared to any other t2 usually, but still your arguments are too 1-dimensional.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Senna » 15 Sep 2011, 05:56

Btw hi Wahoo and welcome to forums :o
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Baracus » 15 Sep 2011, 12:45

Johannes wrote:^Then try assuming a situation other than a DSD fast techer
The morty is by far the best Comet catcher unit ever, because you can spend all the metal you want with little E production.
It doesnt matter if you are a DSD teccer, an FFA player, or a 1v1 player, morties low E cost is insane in all senario's and should at least be doubled.
Also the speed of the morty is really high for a kbot and for mobile artillery, compared to snipers for example, or even veh arti.
Morties with the current stats are by far the most powerfull t2 unit for cost.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Pxtl » 15 Sep 2011, 16:05

Do remember that all the maps we're talking about have very low available E - both DSD and Comet have solar-only economies (barring the tiny amount of geos on DSD).

Not disagreeing that the Fido needs work, but just pointing out that these maps are a skewed sample.
0 x

zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by zerver » 16 Sep 2011, 12:54

I dislike that you no longer can nap enemy units with transports. To disallow comnap is maybe good, but to disallow everything just takes away an interesting strategy/aspect of game play.

The com bomb damage reduction is good, but I think it was reduced a bit too much. Again it takes away some strategic possibilities, making the overall game experience less eventful and interesting.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Johannes » 16 Sep 2011, 16:23

Baracus wrote:
Johannes wrote:^Then try assuming a situation other than a DSD fast techer
The morty is by far the best Comet catcher unit ever, because you can spend all the metal you want with little E production.
It doesnt matter if you are a DSD teccer, an FFA player, or a 1v1 player, morties low E cost is insane in all senario's and should at least be doubled.
Also the speed of the morty is really high for a kbot and for mobile artillery, compared to snipers for example, or even veh arti.
Morties with the current stats are by far the most powerfull t2 unit for cost.
Yeah, I agree to an extent but that's about morty, not fido.
0 x

User avatar
jamerlan
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 683
Joined: 20 Oct 2009, 13:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by jamerlan » 16 Sep 2011, 17:43

>I dislike that you no longer can nap enemy units with transports. To disallow comnap is maybe good, but to disallow everything just takes away an interesting strategy/aspect of game play.

+1
I like changes to air units! But except napping. Why impossible to nap enemy units??? It was so fun! I like napping so much!!! Please change it back!!!


Also, please upload new BA version to "http://modinfo.adune.nl" site.

Thank you for the great job!
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Beherith » 16 Sep 2011, 18:38

Modinfo.adune.nl no longer supports BA (as BA has moved to Lua unitdefs).

Here is the other working modinfo:
http://imolarpg.dyndns.org/modinfo/ba760/
0 x

zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by zerver » 16 Sep 2011, 19:37

albator wrote:or just let it go, you cannot make 1unit vs 1unit reasoning
+1

The important thing is that the opposite side has some kind of unit that can compete with X. In case of morty, fatboys can reach them unless the microing is absolutely flawless. Then add the advantage of snipers and penetrators on top of that.
0 x

User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 17 Sep 2011, 09:55

Compare ratio of energy cost to metal cost:
Fido: 20.8
Stumpy: 9.5
Morty: 5.4 <-- the lowest ratio of all land units
Re: fido, tech 1.5 implies that it is a unit you build before you can afford to mass produce tech 2 units proper.. that e cost looks a bit prohibitive to run off t1 economy
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by albator » 18 Sep 2011, 11:42

/take still does not give you an extra +1k storage and metal and energy are lost
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by Niobium » 18 Sep 2011, 12:54

albator wrote:/take still does not give you an extra +1k storage and metal and energy are lost
I posted this on the BA dev team forum almost 2 months ago, thread still hasn't got any replies.

Maybe it will be fixed in the next release, should only be a few months away.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by albator » 18 Sep 2011, 17:10

Niobium wrote:
albator wrote:/take still does not give you an extra +1k storage and metal and energy are lost
I posted this on the BA dev team forum almost 2 months ago, thread still hasn't got any replies.

Maybe it will be fixed in the next release, should only be a few months away.

The only reason i posted is because tfc told me he will fix it in this release and he sarted to work on it a few weeks ago

It was like that since the change from 7.31 to 7.4, so yes a few months
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.60

Post by TheFatController » 18 Sep 2011, 18:26

Just write "!bset mo_storageowner com" and vote it 1, I never personally agreed with moving storage to teams and am aware that nio posted he couldn't fix the take behavior so not sure what he expects me to do.. happy to set it back to com owns storage by default if that's what people want
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”