who is currently maintaining BA? - Page 3

who is currently maintaining BA?

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by smoth » 25 Nov 2011, 17:46

luckywaldo7 wrote:
very_bad_soldier wrote:I argue that 75% of the player base is not that keen on balance tweaks as some people here seem to think. You guys forget that 75% (roughly estimated) are casual gamers that just want to have some fun games who dont care if a flash tank costs 120m or 130m if they have their fun.

I am not saying they totally dont care but I guess there are lots of points that would have a higher priority on their list: a proper UI, Save/Load-support, a BA website (including player forum, unit stats, replays), a proper installer etc etc. All that is stuff that a BA maintainer could put work into to take BA to the next level. There is sooo much more to do about BA than just tweaking some balance stats :/
What BA needs is VBS already nailed it. ^
Image
0 x

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

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by sillynanny » 25 Nov 2011, 18:38

Johannes wrote:
sillynanny wrote:If you break porc by spending more metal in static buildings than they did, are you really winning?
Sometimes very much yes. The guardian gives you a big zone of control, valuable in itself since it turns the initiative over to you, and in a good situation you get to reclaim the wrecks of those turrets, and still have the option to reclaim your own guardian too if it later turns obsolete.

And someone using a unit in a bad way is hardly a concern, since that's definitely not limited to guardians.
Well if you start with a time and metal advantage (you could build a guardian and not get immediately swarmed), and the enemy is a passive entity that does not attack, and doesn't suck his own wrecks, then pretty much any unit will do.

And more: The guardian zone-of-control is a big illusion, and a jeffy can wreck your plans.
It doesn't give you the inititative, it takes it away. Your enemy porced, you had the inititaive. You porced harder and wrecked their porc, meaning you spent your metal and the enemy is now able to suck metal and adapt to your play, which is already made. More, your confortable zone-of-control will, if anything, make it less likely that you take an initiative, because you feel you have the advantage already.

So even if the guardian were free, it would be giving the inititative to the enemy. Since it costs so much, it gives them the initiative and possibly the game.
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by KaiserJ » 25 Nov 2011, 18:54

my two cents: if you don't like how BA is balanced, satisfaction is as simple as creating your own mod.
0 x

keijj0
Posts: 57
Joined: 12 Jun 2010, 13:39

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by keijj0 » 26 Nov 2011, 07:32

very_bad_soldier wrote:
albator wrote: Maintening BA has nothing to do with "improving" it.

To give you an exemple, the "improving" of the last BA team that decided to "make BA better" results in 90% of the top 20% best BA player to leave BA (for Lol)

And the end, the modifications got reverted, and that was for a reason.
A big part of that reason is that those BA "elite players" (>2000h ingame) refuse to relearn gameplay elements they invested literally years into learning them.
BA will die for sure if it only does what is needed to keep those 20% top players happy while ignoring the other 80%.
you damn fgts. i think i speak for few players here: balance changes didnt affect any way us leaving BA. try to guess which 3 letter word might be the reason?

yeah you guessed right, ITS DSD (and 8v8+ hosts). i got tired of seeing only the big 8v8+ shit 247, and most of the time that shit is dsd. no ffa no small games, just big ass noobfest. so gl bringing BA back to life with dsd..
i just came to check if new models had arrived, another disappointment in that area.
0 x

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

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by Wombat » 26 Nov 2011, 09:07

If such a large number of people don't like the changes in a BA release, they should just keep playing the previous release, mass ragequiting is just stupid.
HOLYMOTHERBEACH AF HOW CAN YOU BE THAT AWESOME <3
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3585
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by Silentwings » 26 Nov 2011, 11:34

I think this thread has kinda lost its thread, if you see what I mean... some questions I think we should get back to:

1) Does BA have enough maintainers/devs, or should we look for more?
2) Does the BA community want BA to remain basically static, or not?
0 x

User avatar
SirArtturi
Posts: 1164
Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 18:29

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by SirArtturi » 26 Nov 2011, 13:04

sillynanny wrote:
very_bad_soldier wrote: You are seriously saying the guardian is a defensive structure? The first time you mentioned it I thought you were kidding.
The guardian is a noob trap because it only APPEARS to be a defensive structure. In fact its proc breaker meant to actually prepare an attack. At least thats my understanding of it...
The noobs use it defensively, which is what was talked about. Its better to break porc with something that will move with you on to their next porc.

If you break porc by spending more metal in static buildings than they did, are you really winning?
this.

It shouldn't be a defensive structure like hlt^2. It should be either area-control or sieging weapon. I think guardian should be area-control weapon and punisher sieging weapon, this would make more variation for factions.

Guardian should be high range but low damage weapon, low trajectory, you probably would like to build it in areas where is a lot metal, either as metal spots or wrecks.

Punisher should be a real porc breaker, high damage, high trajectory, but slow reload.

Both of the units should be cheap enough to build, but fragile enough to be able to be destroyed fast.

So yeah, here's other idea to go around.
sillynanny wrote: And more: The guardian zone-of-control is a big illusion, and a jeffy can wreck your plans.
But isn't the fact that its an illusion a problem? Well obviously it's not clever to build on flatlands. I'd build it on top of hills and cliffs. Guardian should be tweaked more towards area control.
0 x

Manmax
Posts: 76
Joined: 19 May 2011, 13:57

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by Manmax » 26 Nov 2011, 15:29

What is clear enough is that when a unit a nearly never used (eg guardians or other useless units), it means it has a big drawback somewhere and something must be tweaked to improve that...

Of course, amphib tanks will never be built on dsd but you see what i am aiming at...
0 x

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

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by Johannes » 27 Nov 2011, 14:43

Manmax wrote:What is clear enough is that when a unit a nearly never used (eg guardians or other useless units), it means it has a big drawback somewhere and something must be tweaked to improve that...
If a unit is nearly never used, it's not necessarily a matter of the unit being useless but that people just haven't found the correct uses for it.
0 x

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20669
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by AF » 27 Nov 2011, 16:51

Or that there's nowhere to build a shipyard on DSD?
0 x

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

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by Wombat » 27 Nov 2011, 23:18

^ proved to be lie many times :D
0 x

dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1191
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by dansan » 28 Nov 2011, 00:42

<disclaimer>
This post may sound like manager bla bla, but it's actually just my personal experience working with/in groups, and getting results and satisfaction - or not.
Please transfer it into the BA-dev-community-problem-setting.
</disclaimer>


What feels strange to me about the BA development I have observed, and it's surrounding community, is what I am only used to from soccer: everybody is a national team trainer: knows exactly what's best, and that in astonishing detail!

Professional relationships work completely different: customer tells producer what should be made - and not how it should be made!

Think about your own job: what do you think when someone (not a colleague ofc) comes to you and tells you not only what he wants, but also how to implement it --> inner-eye-rolls-up - right?

On the other side: you give someone an assignment, and later that person presents you with his work. Assuming the work is non-trivial, then decisions had to be made, and so the outcome must be explained. It will not be enough to say "it's better like that", what you want to hear is the intention the producer had in mind when he made decisions.

If the producers and consumers intentions overlap, then all that's left to do is to see if the implementation is successful!
If it's not the case, then discussion can be about alternative implementations of the same intention. Eventually, after some tries, consumers and producers can agree that the goal is met, or at least the direction is right, and satisfaction can come to both parties.

Effort is necessary from both sides: producers must ask the right questions to measure intentions and results - and make some effort to get replies! - and consumers must at some point agree on if they like/want something or not!!


IMO as long as talk about BA dev follows the soccer model there will be lots of frustration. If discussion and development should be productive then proper moderation of the process is necessary.

The last team tried that, imo the next one should be even more forward and more explicit/transparent with it.
0 x

User avatar
knorke
Posts: 7971
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 01:02

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by knorke » 28 Nov 2011, 13:43

dansan wrote:Assuming the work is non-trivial
Fixing bugs, maintaining the game (like converting fbi to lua, make game work with new engine versions) or creating new content, that would non-trivial.
But most BA spinoffs are not non-trivial. It is as simple as thinking "hm, I twice died to flash. nerf flash." *open file, edit health=-50%*
Then make a thread about how in your *A-variante "now every unit fills a niche and everything has a use and T2 is really strong but T1 remains viable the whole game."
Yes, balancing a game is not trivial but does anybody take these phrases serious? They have been sprayed around since years.

What is the idea behind mods such as Rebalanced Annihilation?
The only balance related difference to normal BA is this:
-Screamer Range increaed [2400 to 3100], +1000hp added
-Mercury Range increased [2400 to 3100, +1000hp added
The rest of the changes are small bugfixes - why can they not be done in BA, why does this try to be a new game?
0 x

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

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by Senna » 28 Nov 2011, 13:51

Ofc i would like make a newer BA version, its stupid make another TA game, but i dont wanna get banned because making a BA version without authorization of TFC
0 x

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20669
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by AF » 28 Nov 2011, 15:41

Wombat wrote:^ proved to be lie many times :D
Who seriously builds a shipyard o_0 ( show pics! )
0 x

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

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by Wombat » 28 Nov 2011, 17:29

The rest of the changes are small bugfixes - why can they not be done in BA, why does this try to be a new game?
coz people got issues, read other threads.
making a BA version without authorization of TFC
op sounds as if u didnt need any?
0 x

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

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by TheFatController » 28 Nov 2011, 19:03

Wombat wrote:
The rest of the changes are small bugfixes - why can they not be done in BA, why does this try to be a new game?
coz people got issues, read other threads.
making a BA version without authorization of TFC
op sounds as if u didnt need any?
Anyone with commit rights to BA SVN is free to make a release if there is an urgent bug/exploit to be fixed, also i'd be happy to "QA" a changelog of improvements or give feedback for anyone who wanted to add to BA, if there's no big balance changes there's no need to fork the mod. I do apologise that I haven't had the will do put more work into 7.61+ mainly it's frustration with the engine (after several consecutive afternoons wasted on cool ideas that turn out to be unimplementable) and a combination of RL stuff and getting addicted to other games..
0 x

Google_Frog
Moderator
Posts: 2434
Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by Google_Frog » 29 Nov 2011, 08:01

TheFatController wrote:cool ideas that turn out to be unimplementable
What?? Outrageous. I didn't think there were many 'little' cool ideas that couldn't be implemented (as opposed to big ideas like spherical maps).
0 x

User avatar
Lord Juzza
Posts: 60
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 11:50

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by Lord Juzza » 29 Nov 2011, 09:19

He means by him, I'm sure other people could code them.
0 x

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

Re: who is currently maintaining BA?

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 29 Nov 2011, 15:44

was someone arguing that the gaurdian is useful?! madness
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”

cron