Balance considerations

Balance considerations

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 441
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Balance considerations

Post by Ares »

I have played a lot of BA recently and over the time have been considering the following adjustments.

It would be nice to see more variety of kbots being used competitively in the early game. Rocket kbots dominate t1 with peewees/ak/rez and although plasma kbots can pay off as com snipers they are outranged and outperformed cost-wise by their rocket counterparts. I propose Hammer 121 -> 115m and Thud 132 -> 126m, reducing m cost by 0.5%.

Croc range 440 -> 420, to reduce their group effectiveness and compensate for their sheer speed and all terrain ability. Their ability to hit and run bases and element of surpise wont be affected, but it makes them marginally less effective as a Croc-only blob. They are already the strongest amphibious unit up to t2. They would still out-range reapers (410).

At t2 there is a big difference between kbot and vehicle AA. Vehicle AA are significantly stronger, cheaper and faster and it is easy to tell in-game as well as from their stats:
e m dps
phalanx 8510 425 267
arcangel 5266 483->411 129

copperhead 9487 443 267
manticore 5814 608->517 116

The reduced e cost is no where near enough to compensate for the huge m cost (at conversion rate it is equivalent to under 11 metal difference). Their all terrain ability does not justify this cost, in addition to the fact that they deal half the damage. I think reducing m costs by 15% would be a good start. The arcangel seems the superior unit of the two, why does it costs so much less?

These are just suggestions, but I feel they would have a positive effect on gameplay, not being biased towards one side or the other.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5306
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Jazcash »

Pretty much agree with all of this
User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: Balance considerations

Post by albator »

croc unba is meant to balance panther unba.

I still prefer E increase for both panther and croc about 30%. Also t3 amphi need its AA missile to be removed

About plasma kbot: they are meant not to be good on flat ground, so I disagree. Switch to veh on plains
(and btw 0.5 % != 5%)

About the rest (AA): i dont care, but for sake of stability and because at that point of the game ressources is not what matter, it is more about "did u make an AA or not ?" than "did you made 9 or 10 AA ?"
User avatar
very_bad_soldier
Posts: 1390
Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10

Re: Balance considerations

Post by very_bad_soldier »

Sidenote: I think it would be better to split up every balance suggestion to a separate thread (unless they are actually related). Balance discussions are a hell to keep track off and imo it is impossible to discuss two or three different suggestions in parallel in a proper way. Discussing a single suggestion and getting to a consensus is hard enough.
(Maybe also use http://www.balancedannihilation.org)
User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Re: Balance considerations

Post by ginekolog »

Overall balance is very good ATM tbh, even sea has delicate balance at T1 or T2.

Core units that are allmost never used and need some love:

Goli - increase turnrate of turret or reduce cost
tremor - improve health or reduce cost
catapult - improve health or reduce cost

I agree with changes Ares porposed.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Johannes »

Don't see problems with hammer/thud, they might not stand up to rockos of the same cost in a direct fight between the 2, but that's not what they're supposed to do well, anyway.

Croc, well, all t2 tanks are all a bit too good since their big buffs. They own everything t1, and t2 bots too. It's just boring that straightforward assault vehicles are so good. Slight nerfs to all of Croc, Panther, Bulldog, Reaper, and Goli would be a nice change I think.
I don't agree with reducing range though, it'll make the unit less distinct and duller to use. Here you just need something to make it less effective, like a cost rise.

T2 aa bots, hmm, worse than both t1 aa bots or t2 flak veh... Some evening out across the board could be good here, true.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5306
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Jazcash »

Johannes wrote:Don't see problems with hammer/thud, they might not stand up to rockos of the same cost in a direct fight between the 2, but that's not what they're supposed to do well, anyway.
In my own opinion, they do nothing well. I never ever make hammers or thuds. Ever. There are more efficient alternatives to do whatever you're trying to do when you build hammers/thuds.
User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: Balance considerations

Post by albator »

Jazcash wrote:
Johannes wrote:Don't see problems with hammer/thud, they might not stand up to rockos of the same cost in a direct fight between the 2, but that's not what they're supposed to do well, anyway.
In my own opinion, they do nothing well. I never ever make hammers or thuds. Ever. There are more efficient alternatives to do whatever you're trying to do when you build hammers/thuds.
When metal is flooding and u need to defend, onhills so you can use parabola trajectories of plasma, in a middle of wreak for same reason, to hunt com, to outrange stumpy close to some porc...
I still agree those are niches though

Johannes wrote: Croc, well, all t2 tanks are all a bit too good since their big buffs. They own everything t1, and t2 bots too. It's just boring that straightforward assault vehicles are so good. Slight nerfs to all of Croc, Panther, Bulldog, Reaper, and Goli would be a nice change I think.
I don't agree with reducing range though, it'll make the unit less distinct and duller to use. Here you just need something to make it less effective, like a cost rise.


I only had that feeling recently. What did happen actually ? Is it engine related ?
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5306
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Jazcash »

albator wrote:
Jazcash wrote:
Johannes wrote:Don't see problems with hammer/thud, they might not stand up to rockos of the same cost in a direct fight between the 2, but that's not what they're supposed to do well, anyway.
In my own opinion, they do nothing well. I never ever make hammers or thuds. Ever. There are more efficient alternatives to do whatever you're trying to do when you build hammers/thuds.
When metal is flooding and u need to defend, onhills so you can use parabola trajectories of plasma, in a middle of wreak for same reason, to hunt com, to outrange stumpy close to some porc...
I still agree those are niches though
Peewees do a much better job of that for a much cheaper price :P
User avatar
Beherith
Moderator
Posts: 5034
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Beherith »

Things that I agree need a bit of changes:

Archangel DPS nerf (its already very good)
Manticore DPS buff

Catapult HP buff (small)
Vanguard HP nerf (big, its all terrain long range unit with insane hp)

Tremor (hp buff)

Hammer/thud: I would propose a higher firing rate with the same DPS.

Alba: assault vehicles have returned to their goodness because of turninplace fixes.
User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: Balance considerations

Post by albator »

Jazcash wrote: Peewees do a much better job of that for a much cheaper price :P
They fly too easily against AoE weapon (riot janus).
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5306
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Jazcash »

albator wrote:
Jazcash wrote: Peewees do a much better job of that for a much cheaper price :P
They fly too easily against AoE weapon (riot janus).
Counter riots with rockos and fleas beat riots and janus.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Johannes »

Behe, compare Archangel with jethro. Less dps/cost and a slower unit, it definitely shouldn't be nerfed.


As for thud/hammer, I just don't see how it will necessarily make the game better to have them used more. They already have their own niche as demonstrated by them constantly being used, a shift from using pws or from rockos to using hammers, doesn't necessarily make the game more fun.
If something is deemed necessary though, I'd opt for a hp buff. Very slight ofc, 2-3%. It's still compounded by the repair speed being increased as well, which is often noticeable because of rezzers. Or, slightly lower its buildtime for same kind of effect. I think those changes would make it more distinct and interesting instead of slightly more like anything else.

Remember http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=18585
User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: Balance considerations

Post by albator »

Beherith wrote:Things that I agree need a bit of changes:

Archangel DPS nerf (its already very good)
Manticore DPS buff
-1

Actually, I prefer more T1 AA since u need to individually stun/kill them which requied mirco. That the reason higher Tier most of the time is better than summing equivalent lower tier unit.

Plus I like stability
Beherith wrote:Things that I agree need a bit of changes:

Catapult HP buff (small)
Vanguard HP nerf (big, its all terrain long range unit with insane hp)
+1.
I suggest:
vangard: 15k hp -> 12k hp
catapult: 7.5k hp -> 8.5k hp

Beherith wrote:Things that I agree need a bit of changes:

Tremor (hp buff)
+1, still, that is not going to fix anything i guess, cf new thread I am making
Beherith wrote:Things that I agree need a bit of changes:

Hammer/thud: I would propose a higher firing rate with the same DPS.
-1

They are already good for all the reason I explain above.

+1 at johan also
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Johannes »

To make t2 aa bots somehow distinct and not just a better/worse version of t1 aa bots, maybe give their missile weapons some more range?

Though it needs to be said that t1 aa bots are damn good. I wouldn't mind them getting nerfed to be honest.
klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Balance considerations

Post by klapmongool »

very_bad_soldier wrote:I think it would be better to split up every balance suggestion to a separate thread (unless they are actually related).
OT:
Agree with some of the stuff said above. Most important thing is that all changes need to be minor.

About the thuds; I think they do have their uses. Especially when your comm is around they can break porc very well in smaller numbers and in the bigger fights with a lot of wreckages they own rockos.
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3695
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Silentwings »

I'd like to see com metal reduced a bit, say to 1.5k. Afaik the only big effect would be to slow the techers down by a 3-4 minutes.

I agree with behes proposals above, too.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Johannes »

Silentwings wrote:I'd like to see com metal reduced a bit, say to 1.5k. Afaik the only big effect would be to slow the techers down by a 3-4 minutes.
It wouldn't be. 1k m is a big deal almost anywhere.

And saying it'd completely stop self-d teching is a better way to put it than to say they're slowed down.

A change to 2200 or 2300 m could be nice though, it'd fuck up DSD techers without really affecting other situations too much.
Then to have a sensibly timed teching build you'd actually have to cooperate and share resources within the team.
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3695
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Silentwings »

I didn't say it would 'completely stop self d teching'? I'm not sure where you got that idea and I'm certainly not wanting that to happen.

Sure, 2.2k would have the basically same effects as 1.5k only smaller, maybe slow a self d tech down by 2 minutes. I like that too, although I don't think it would 'force people to cooperate' to tech.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Balance considerations

Post by Johannes »

What I meant was that 1,5k m wreck would stop self-d teching totally. It's fact whether you figured that or not.


But yeah, maybe a smaller wreck wouldn't make people to cooperate to get tech out fast, even if it made some more difference than now - it'd be optimal now as well to share m for a better build but people just cba to figure out things they can't do alone.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”