BA 7.78 Released! - Page 3

BA 7.78 Released!

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

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

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by knorke » 17 Jul 2013, 00:02

abma wrote:BA has more movedefs than xta...
xta:23
ba: 25
not a big difference
0 x

abma
Spring Developer
Posts: 3536
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by abma » 17 Jul 2013, 00:07

then really weird... :-|
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3570
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by Silentwings » 17 Jul 2013, 11:29

I know the answer is probabl yes, but did you try with a model/featuredef that's the same in both BA/XTA?
0 x

User avatar
Cheesecan
Posts: 1571
Joined: 07 Feb 2005, 21:30

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by Cheesecan » 18 Jul 2013, 12:12

The changes you made to sea are HORRIBLE. Please reverse them. You need to learn how to balance, or you should leave this to other people who play regularly.
0 x

User avatar
Beherith
Moderator
Posts: 4933
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by Beherith » 18 Jul 2013, 12:27

Horrible is an insufficient qualifier. Please elaborate on which points you feel the balance is worse, the more detailed the better. This helps us immensely in tweaking the balance.
0 x

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

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by Johannes » 18 Jul 2013, 12:49

Basically you get everything too fast. When you have to spend so much metal so fast, you cannot really base unit choice on scouting info but you just do something and hope you win the RPS. Before you had to follow a certain pattern, first get a scout or corvette or conship. Then react to what the enemy did, and decide when you want a sub or destroyer. Now you must spend so much metal before a real contact that it's a pretty blind guess. Go sub first, make a squad of corvettes, a ton of conships and torp launchers... Then hope your rush counters the enemy rush.
And starting with a non-sea lab is suicide on water maps. The destroyer comes out so fast you won't ever get into the water if someone's already there.


Just roll back to how it was, sea was always good if you used a proper map with defensible starts and sensible economics.
0 x

User avatar
Cheesecan
Posts: 1571
Joined: 07 Feb 2005, 21:30

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by Cheesecan » 18 Jul 2013, 13:24

As I said, you should reverse all changes. They are all bad.

Hint: If you find yourself changing so many things, then you are not carefully tweaking balance. I think you played too much ZK, and decided to make BA sea into ZK. Sea was already the most balanced part of the game. Only sea porc and eco whoring on FFA was op - but this is NOT balanced by changing all sea combat mechanics in T1 sea. In fact, you boosted T1 eco so resulting T2 eco will be even stronger.

- Commanders now have an underwater weapon, a short range laser which fires when they are not building/repairing (dps similar to the existing red laser)
This shit is retarded and the sound effect sounds like a cartoon, like something from ZK.

- Commanders can now build Floating Radar Towers
No. What next, com builds all your porc turrets too?

- T1 Torpedo launchers built by Commanders and Amphibious vehicles are now initially created on the sea floor and pop-up once when complete.
This makes sea more porcy.

- Arm T1 Torpedo launcher reload time reduced (1.9->1.7), AoE increased a little (16->48 with 40% edgeeffectiveness)
- Core T1 Torpedo launcher reload time reduced (1.9->1.7), AoE increased a little (16->48 with 40% edgeeffectiveness)

Porcy.

- Arm T1 Shipyard metalcost reduced (615->425), health increased (2990->3700), workertime increased (100->220), energymake added (+15)
- Core T1 Shipyard metalcost reduced (600->415), health increased (2990->3850), workertime increased (100->220), energymake added (+15)

This is stupid and changes whole the early game for the worse.

- Arm Tidal Generator energycost reduced (412->288), health increased (256->358)
- Core Tidal Generator energycost reduced (417->292), health increased (253->354)

Tidal farming.

- Both T1 Floating metal makers energy build cost reduced 10%
Farming wasn't good enough for you?

- Core Amphibious lab metalcost increased (917->1192)
- Arm Amphibious lab metalcost increased (860->1118)

Arm amphib is useless compared to core. Nobody will build this shit just to get triton, a shit unit compared to croc and poison arrow. Also this costs almost 3x what a shipyard does now.

- Arm Floating HLT Energy Per Shot reduced (75->40), Reload time reduced (1->0.9), Target move error reduced (0.2->0.1), Special damage vs Commanders added (210->300)
- Core Floating HLT Energy Per Shot reduced (75->45), damage increased (210->231), Target move error reduced (0.2->0.1) Special damage vs Commanders added (210->250)
- Both Floating HLT Turret turn speeds increased a little
- Both Floating HTLs Energymake added (+5)
- Both Floating HLTs Buildtime reduced 5%

P.O.R.C = Porc On! Retarded Change

- Arm T1 Floating Anti-air Tower Metalcost increased (71->85), Health increased (252->340)
- Arm T1 Floating Anti-air Tower Weapon reload time reduced (1.7->1.2), damage increased (113->125)
- Core T1 Floaring Anti-air Tower Metalcost increased (72->86), Health increased (290->355)
- Core T1 Floating Anti-air Tower Weapon reload time reduced (1.7->1.2), damage increased (113->125)

What happened to scout boat, fighter? Why the fuck should this need a boost. Oh wait, for porc.

- Both T2 Ressurection subs moved to T1, costs reduced a little, movement enhanced (Ressurection Workertime 450, Repair Workertime 250)
Why do you do these things. Who told you this is a good idea? Do you even playtest?

- Both T1 Construction ships Repair Workertime reduced (250->125), Build Workertime still 250.
As if repairing ship in combat wasn't already cheesy enough.

- Both T1 Construction ships added Dragons Teeth & Pop Up turrets (Arm Claw for Arm, Dragons Maw for Core) for anti-swarm coastal defense
- Arm Dragons Claw & Core Dragons Maw maxslope increased (10->18)

You had to go and add more useless turrets, didn't you? Who the thinks "ohey, uknowwhat, sea needs more turrets!". SEA = BOATS not fucking turrets. Do you see US Navy building pop-up turrets under water? Is this ZK where you have 1000 turrets with the same use case?

- Core T1 Scoutboat footprint reduced, renamed 'Patrol Boat', health increased (228->345), autoheal added (1.5)
- Core T1 Scoutboat laser redone, range increased (220->260), more rapid fire, about 40% more total dps
- Arm T1 Scoutboat footprint reduced, renamed 'Patrol Boat', health increased (224->345), autoheal added (1.5)
- Arm T1 Scoutboat laser redone, range increased (220->260), more rapid fire, about 40% more total dps

Now a few scoutboats will kill a destroyer. Good job breaking the game.

- Core Corvette metalcost reduced (367->294), energycost increased (1912->2294), energymake added (+3)
- Core Corvette weapons tweaked, energypershot reduced (20->5) & now do more damage at max range
- Arm Corvette metalcost reduced (378->302), energycost increased (2055->2466)
- Arm Corvette lasers replaced with EMG cannons, no energy cost, roughly the same dps.
- Corvette corpses health reduced, can now become heaps, metal reduced in line with unit metal cost reduction

Flash corvette? This is plain bad. Corvette were fine as they were. You force these idiotic changes on player base with no warning. It also feels ridiculous to see a boat shooting some kind of rapid fire plasma ball.

- Arm Destroyer health increased (2575->3090), sight distance increased (490->550)
- Core Destroyer health increased (2800->3360), sight distance increased (465->550)

Destroyers didn't need more HP before you broke sea. HP is not going to keep them from getting raped by 5 of your uber scouts either.

- Arm Destroyer Turret Gun reload time reduced (1.4->1.2), damage increased (160->175)
- Arm Destroyer Depth Charge tweaked (fires a little faster, lower damage, more AOE, less move accuracy)
- Core Destroyer Turret Gun damage increased (310->385)

Destroyer was fine before you broke it. Before you could counter them by charging with corvette. Now they kite corvette and kill them easily. They are like sniper on sea. The DPS on their gun is ridiculously high.

- Core Destroyer Depth Charge AOE increased
This is a somewhat (only?) good change, because depth charges could hardly ever hit a com before. But now that they do the DPS is too high - much higher than a torpedo.

- Arm T1 Sub handling improved, small autoheal added, sight distance increased, corpse metal reduced.
- Arm T1 Sub weapon AoE Increased a little, damage increased a little (600->650), accuracy improved
- Core T1 Sub handling improved, small autoheal added, sight distance increased, corpse metal reduced.
- Core T1 Sub weapon AoE Increased a little, damage increased a little (600->650), accuracy improved

As if t1 subs needed a boost. They were only bad when compared to t2 subs.

- Arm Sea Transport metal cost reduced (919->735), energy cost increased (4639->6239), buildtime reduced (14538->10176)
- Arm Sea Transport small autoheal added (+5), sightdistance increased
- Core Sea Transport metal cost reduced (887->710), eenrgy cost increased (4768->6286), buildtime reduced (13663->9564)
- Core Sea Transport small autoheal added (+5), sightdistance increased
- Both Transport ships can now load and unload units again (workaround for an engine bug)
- Both Transport ships operate in any water depth

No comment, have not tried. Hardly anyone uses these units anyway.

- Arm Advanced Shipyard Health Increased (4512->5415), energymake added (+25)
- Core Advanced Shipyard health increased (4416->5300), energymake added (+25)

Who told you shipyard need this much HP? Why should T2 lab make E? WTF! What is wrong with you. Did you just learn about unit tags and decided to go crazy adding bonuses everywhere? Good luck attacking sea porc when you cannot even kill the factory.
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3570
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by Silentwings » 18 Jul 2013, 15:16

The sea rebelancing is more than one persons work, but I think Johannes has some good points here (& some already discussed in another thread). In particular;
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 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.

As to Cheescan:
[quote]Do you even playtest?[/quote]
Yes, in this case ~20 hours with 5 people; all regular, well known, strong players. (& thanks very much to them, also to others who offered to help in future :-) )

[quote] I think you played too much ZK[/quote]
Actually, none of us do.

[quote]Sea was already the most balanced part of the game. [/quote]
You're entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think you'll find many others sharing it there.

Tbh, I haven't heard what the other devs have to say about your opinions yet, but statements like "Now a few scoutboats will kill a destroyer. Good job breaking the game." are obviously not a measured response and will probably mean few take you seriously. The vast majority of people who've spoken to me, at least, found patrol boats too flimsy to use in battles. I do agree with a small number of your points; on subs and floating aa towers, but not really on the rest.

[quote]Who told you...[/quote]
We often ask people what they think, but not just anyone; I (the other devs, idk) can't say I've ever been inspired to talk with people who lack real explanation or who state their opinions as unquestionable facts peppered with insults.
0 x

User avatar
Cheesecan
Posts: 1571
Joined: 07 Feb 2005, 21:30

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by Cheesecan » 18 Jul 2013, 15:34

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.

Oh and also, in ZK they at least poll the player base about changes. In here, you just hijacked the game that the community played and start going nuts with your own private vision of how it should play. There should be a consensus about these changes because this is a strongly conservative player base.
0 x

User avatar
scifi
Posts: 848
Joined: 10 May 2009, 12:27

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by scifi » 18 Jul 2013, 15:41

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.
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.

Now i agree that the t1 torpedo launcher being built on the sea floor makes it a bit to strong as a defence, i wont comment on the rest since i havent played mutch.

Also i doubt most of these changes hapened in the dark, im sure most people knew what they were making.
0 x

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

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by Johannes » 18 Jul 2013, 15:56

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.

They usually feature at least 2 out of 3 major flaws.
One is that you start with just 1 mex near a start location.
Second is that the comm starts in water, unable to use dgun. Adding an uw laser doesn't help much, it's slow to kill anything but scouts just like its ground counterpart.
And thirdly there's little in the way of islands or any kind of coastal mexes, which could be raided by corvettes.
The first two points make starts a simplistic gamble (and makes having a teammate sharing m crucial), and the third makes the later game dull due to lack of interesting positional play.


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. Still that messes with maps that do have more interesting and varied starts. Rather than try to salvage the Wet Tabula, Small Supreme Islands, Tropical, TheRock, Wet Deltasiege etc. as they are into enjoyable water maps, I'd rather keep the mod as is and either remake those maps or come up with new water maps entierly.


And one good change would be to make uw mexes bigger/taller. Then you could do maps where you've got uw mexes that stick out of the ocean, and so are targetable by non-torpedo weapons. This would add more diversity to sea maps at the discretion of the mapmaker (sea depth can vary in different parts of map). IIRC the arm mex can already be visible in a certain very specific water depth, but the core one is always submerged in the depth levels where it's buildable.
0 x

luckywaldo7
Posts: 1397
Joined: 17 Sep 2008, 04:36

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by luckywaldo7 » 18 Jul 2013, 17:29

Cheesecan wrote:strongly conservative
Aha! I knew there was a reason I didn't like some of you. D:
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by smoth » 18 Jul 2013, 17:43

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.
what do you need to have a sea map? a sort of sunken comet catcher?
0 x

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

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by Johannes » 18 Jul 2013, 17:53

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.

a sort of sunken comet catcher?
There's already Blue Comet which is just that, and it's an awful map.
0 x

dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1190
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by dansan » 18 Jul 2013, 18:09

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
Why doesn't he get at least warned for being the douchbag of the day?
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by smoth » 18 Jul 2013, 18:16

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.
It be a GIAAAAAANT ROBOT with LOTS OF GUNS! IT'll HAVE TO HAVE LIKE COOL EYES ETC..

not going to really help me out. If you want something specific(which is really what you want) you are going to have to give me specific details. Because otherwise I will be altering the same map >9001 times essentially allowing you to proxy map through me. I am willing to do that, if you want to pay my billable rate but not for free.

*edit* alternatively, if you want to go and get something like world machine and you just need a bit of help establishing your texture macro I can help for free :P
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3570
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by Silentwings » 18 Jul 2013, 19:13

dansan wrote:Why doesn't he get at least warned for being the douchbag of the day?
I :lol:'ed, idk... tempting...
cheescan wrote:And here I thought BA Maintainer meant...
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.
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
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.

Now you mentioned it... I wonder why undersea mexes are nearly always spaced out?!
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.
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.
0 x

User avatar
scifi
Posts: 848
Joined: 10 May 2009, 12:27

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by scifi » 18 Jul 2013, 19:28

still am i the only one who thinks sea needs a bit more than just better maps :| .
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by smoth » 18 Jul 2013, 19:51

Make them.
0 x

User avatar
scifi
Posts: 848
Joined: 10 May 2009, 12:27

Re: BA 7.78 Released!

Post by scifi » 18 Jul 2013, 20:51

smoth wrote:Make them.
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.

But thats beside the point, why people dont play what you guys call awesome sea maps?

Maybe because people dont find them fun to play, or the maps themselves arent suited for the current 8v8 7v7 6v6 formula.
0 x

Locked

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”