xta:23abma wrote:BA has more movedefs than xta...
not a big difference
I disagree about the old sea though - it was widely unpopular (also near-unchanged since years and not much played). I certainly think that the old sea was a good game once you knew it well, but I didn't find anyone outside of long-time sea players who enjoyed it. It was also really unsuited to ffa, although that's mostly a t2 issue and will come later.Johannes wrote: You get everything too fast. When you have to spend so much metal so fast, you cannot really base unit choice on scouting info.
i for one enjoy that they are developing the game(PS:i want them developing not just mantaining), now that doesnt mean i agree with most of the changes, but a change was indeed necessary.Cheesecan wrote:And here I thought BA Maintainer meant you maintain the game, not try to develop it into something else. You changed t1 sea from the ground up and announced that next up will be t2 sea. This is a slap in the face to all of us who enjoyed the game as it was for years.
what do you need to have a sea map? a sort of sunken comet catcher?Johannes wrote:I think sea was/is unpopular because all the usual sea maps (at least I can't think of a good one, not that I know all maps by heart) for big games are not good. And they are fundamentally bad in a way that's not really fixable mod-side.
There's already Blue Comet which is just that, and it's an awful map.a sort of sunken comet catcher?
Why doesn't he get at least warned for being the douchbag of the day?Cheesecan wrote:not good enough for you
Why do you do these things.
Who told you this is a good idea?
Do you even playtest?
You had to go and ... didn't you?
You force these idiotic changes
you broke sea
you broke it
Who told you
What is wrong with you.
Did you just learn
It be a GIAAAAAANT ROBOT with LOTS OF GUNS! IT'll HAVE TO HAVE LIKE COOL EYES ETC..Johannes wrote:As described in that post (or rather, the opposite was) - a start on an island or coast with several mexes within reach. And instead of simple open sea, have islands, straits, etc., mexes right on the coastline, and so on. Sands of War and Flooded Valley for examples.
I 'ed, idk... tempting...dansan wrote:Why doesn't he get at least warned for being the douchbag of the day?
It's the title of the usergroup of moderators of the BA forum. The sea changes are not anyones personal vision, least of all mine. As I said, multiple contributed and even more were asked. You were not asked, for what I can now safetly describe as obvious reasons.cheescan wrote:And here I thought BA Maintainer meant...
I actually tried making a map that fixed flaws 1 & 3 that you mentioned - it's called Malibu beach. It did turn out reasonably popular for a while, especially since I made it so winning sea didn't let you just overrun land.Johannes wrote: I think sea was/is unpopular because all the usual sea maps (at least I can't think of a good one, not that I know all maps by heart) for big games are not good
We had talked about something similar - the problem we had with that was once you get 'unluckily' raided by patrol boats and lose your e, it would be quite hard to recover. I think (and have heard from many others) that another thing that made sea traditionally unpopular is that a single event like that, or who gets the m from a single first battle, would often decide the sea game. That's the motivation for alot of the changes. Ofc this problem is related to sea usually being a 1v1/2v2 within a big game, but we cant change it being that.If I'd have to come up with something to make a map with 1 mex start passable, I'd try having a cheap lab but more e cost on tidal - so you'd have a lot of m in use but you couldn't get to use it as fast.
Not that i cant, its just i dont think it needs better maps, there are great maps out there, granted some are old and could use a graphical remake.smoth wrote:Make them.