9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
nixtux
TechA Developer
Posts: 100
Joined: 01 Mar 2009, 15:36

9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by nixtux »

Split from viewtopic.php?f=44&t=35793 at request (Silentwings)

@Forbs
We can't dl BA from springfiles anymroe BAW
I can see how if you are stuck in spring 7 years ago this might be an issue. It really isn't and Rapid is a far better method of distribution. That fact isn't up for debate. I even made a frontend for it (Windows) for those of you who have broken fingers:
PR-Downloader Menu - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing (Someone who knows python better than me should convert this *hint hint*)
Now lets tell everyone the real reason behind it shall we.

https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... fo.lua#L11

You added spring feature as a dependency which mean you can't just download it from springfiles with downloading spring features separately or it wont sync.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14637
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46

Post by Forboding Angel »

nixtux wrote: Now lets tell everyone the real reason behind it shall we.

https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... fo.lua#L11

You added spring feature as a dependency which mean you can't just download it from springfiles with downloading spring features separately or it wont sync.
Because that is somehow nefarious? SF gives the game access to pretty much all of the features made for spring, as well as the definitions for those features. It also gives mappers who make maps for BA access to all of that, but that doesn't really fit your narrative does it?

Oh, it might have something to do with this as well:
Image

Edit: Also -
pr-downloader --download-game ba:stable
pr-downloader --download-game spring-features:stable (this line only needs to happen once... sf is rarely updated unless there is an issue)
0 x

User avatar
nixtux
TechA Developer
Posts: 100
Joined: 01 Mar 2009, 15:36

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46

Post by nixtux »

@forbs
Because that is somehow nefarious?
That a harsh word, i would say dishonest you could have told the player base the real reason behind you change instead you choose to blame it on a manual download system. I don't need to say anymore on this matter.
Many AA units changed, I only fixed the scripts for the packo and madsam, Talk to Floris.
https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... 934bf04af5
https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... 3607e28387

And again your being dishonest you did adjust unitDef values (yeah it may end up the same dps --not checked) and you also removed proximitypriority both of which will change game mechanics of unit ergo a balance change which you denied doing but you blatantly did.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14637
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46

Post by Forboding Angel »

nixtux wrote:@forbs
Because that is somehow nefarious?
That a harsh word, i would say dishonest you could have told the player base the real reason behind you change instead you choose to blame it on a manual download system. I don't need to say anymore on this matter.
The real reason is that sdz method of distribution is far inferior and unless I'm mistaken, it's also deprecated.


Blatant balance change? Apparently you missed the part where Floris and I discussed everything.

The packo and madsam originally cost far more than a defender while only being marginally more effective(considering burst and 2 missiles at once, actually far less effective than a defender), hence why no one bothered to use them. I suggested instead of firing 2 missiles each round in a burst (seriously the use of burst here is just idiotic and makes it far less effective), fixing the script properly and having it fire twice as fast, lowering the damage to match the dps. So what you end up with is a far more capable unit that is less vulnerable to swarming. Floris upped the range as well. Eventually after testing the dps was upped as well due to it not being cost effective still. Now it is cost effective and fits nicely between the defender and the bomb resistant turrets.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that weaksauce, nixtux.
0 x

User avatar
nixtux
TechA Developer
Posts: 100
Joined: 01 Mar 2009, 15:36

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46

Post by nixtux »

@forbs

Blatant balance change? Apparently you missed the part where Floris and I discussed everything.
I think you should re-read what i said and find the right end of the stick. But to help you out as didn't understand i was calling your blatant lie out.
Many AA units changed, I only fixed the scripts for the packo and madsam, Talk to Floris.
Clearly you didn't just fix the scripts from thoses commits.
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3660
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Silentwings »

sdz method of distribution ... unless I'm mistaken, it's also deprecated.
You are, it is not.

(Iirc - the torrent system is whats deprecated, manual use of sdz/sd7 is not.)
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14637
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Forboding Angel »

Oh, I forgot to mention that proximity priority was no longer needed because the weapon fires faster and no longer fires in bursts.

See, the way that bursts work is that the units does not switch targets during a burst. So if you have a weapon that fires a burst over the course of 1.75ish seconds, then that units will not shoot at a different target until the burst is done. This is why proximity priority was important with the way it used to work, because if you're devoting nearly 2 seconds of AA time to something, those 2 seconds had better be vs the best target.

The way it works now is that it fires twice as often which allows for a missed shot to have less impact on dps and it prevents overkill from the same turret. Moreover if it's original target moves out of range, the turret can quickly and easily change targets whereas before it would have to finish it's burst first.

The changes to the packo and madsam made them far more effective and actually worth building. If you compare it's previous stats to that of a defender, you would find that a defender forest was far more effective, hence why no one used them.
0 x

Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 368
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Ares »

Core Sam was already one of the best AA turrets in the game after flak. Should not be changed.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14637
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Forboding Angel »

See? You don't even understand the massive positives of the way it works now, yet you want to sit there and say that things shouldn't be changed. If you have no idea how interaction and how units actually work, then your opinion can't really be trusted can it?

The fact of the matter is that this is pretty basic game 101 type stuff. The upshot of the changes is that it functions much the same as it already did, but far more efficiently with much less waste.

Edit: And this is why having number jockeys do balance is a bad thing, because they don't understand the interactions and depths of how units<>weapons<>engine work.
0 x

User avatar
nixtux
TechA Developer
Posts: 100
Joined: 01 Mar 2009, 15:36

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by nixtux »

Wind generators don’t chain, take a moment to think about how fucking stupid of a mechanic this is. Wind generators? You know why they were made to chain? Because the BA maintainer at the time didn't want people playing on greenfields, so in order to discourage it, windgens were made to chain. Pretty fucking stupid right? Regardless, I didn't have anything to do with it. Talk to Floris.

Ohh but you did !!!! tut tut tut..

https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... 5b21f6d6c1

So another lie (this is becoming a trend from you). Ohh and i wonder how many other balance changes are in there (quick look), bingo on my first go -- corpyro -- his selfD has allways been used a a valid part of BA game mechanics and now it gone and there was me thinking you didn't make any balance changes.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14637
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Forboding Angel »

You are making yourself seem incompetent.

First off, a little background. BA used to be on SVN. SVN cannot properly branch. Therefore, if you want to add cegs to projectiles, projectile impacts, and unit explosions, it must be done in master.

In BA this is a massive undertaking, one that Floris and I talked about at length. I set the stage for him so that he could then go and reimplement specific explosions for specific units. You'll notice that in that cluster of commits the comm explosions probably doesn't do any damage either.

This is in preparation for having different effects for each explosion, but having a random weapons folder with crap strewn everywhere is not a good way to build a foundation.

As you can see for yourself, that file contains all of the explosions used for when units explode now (except for crawling bombs maybe?), nullifying all of the extra junk in the weapons folder.

https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... osions.lua

I'm pretty sure I can cherry pick a single commit to the engine and exclaim AHA! AMBA BROKE THE ENGINE HERE HE'S TRYING TO RUIN SPRING!!! But the reality is that that commit is part of a much larger picture.

As far as windgens chaining, it was Floris' decision. I implemented the CEGs initially and set it all up for him to do his own work to them, letting him know that for various things he would need to add them in (like mm chaining or fusions doing damage when they die or comm explosions doing damage). If you don't understand what a framework is, then you have no business speaking to me.


A trend from you, is taking out of context commits and pointing at them as if they were some sort of smoking gun. Additionally the addition of CEGs was done at a time when there was an understanding that there wouldn't be a BA release for quite some time.

After completing this, I made it clear that moving to git was an absolute necessity, simply because of the fact that the CEG framework should have been done in a branch (so that BA releases could be done on the original schedule), and that's what I wanted to do, but it was impossible because of SVN.
0 x

gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3032
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by gajop »

I'd like to ask all participants in this thread to keep things less personal and raise the quality of dialogue. The other guy didn't sleep with you wife and shoot your dog. As this is the developer discussion, please keep it technical.
0 x

Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 368
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Ares »

You removed Pyro Self D explosion.

Good players use this, it is an unlisted balance change.

It is one of many,

and the players take notice.

It is not personal, but he is the one doing this to our beloved game.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14637
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Forboding Angel »

Ares wrote:You removed Pyro Self D explosion.
You seem to be mistaken, Pyro self d explosion was not removed:
https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... ns.lua#L35
0 x

User avatar
Floris
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 606
Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 20:00

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Floris »

After all this time it seems that Nixtus is just ignoring my involvement in all of this, Forb is pointing to me all the time. Sorry for my delay from my side aswell. I think I should mention that Forb had my blessing for the commits he did. We discussed everything via (voice) chat in discord. I just don't have the experience to know all the details about every aspect like unit scripts. He helps. He explaines what he did and why he did it, live. Any resulting balance implications are in scope, usually.

Ofc Forb has had his influence, but you have to remember that I' m the one that should make accusations if he does overstep. He has been beyond helpfull and his intentions clear (to me), we dont always agree on things and he seems fine with accepting that. And mistakes are made sometimes, like not listing every change or just simply forgetting some stuff in the process. Its a work in progress, but we' re getting closer and closer by the day.
1 x

Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 368
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Ares »

How long until the balance changes are reverted to 9.46?
0 x

User avatar
Aether_0001
Posts: 228
Joined: 25 Feb 2008, 03:41

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Aether_0001 »

Can we please make arm jethro anti-air kbot open up again like in OTA when it shoots? then i will be happy, like a small child who just discovered total annihilation
0 x

User avatar
nixtux
TechA Developer
Posts: 100
Joined: 01 Mar 2009, 15:36

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by nixtux »

@forbs

Darn missed out one word in my sentence, it should have said corpyro selfd damage, so let me say it again so we are clear, what you and floris have done by adding your "FRAMEWORK" which includes a mass generalisation of unit explosion values, has removed many of the quirks that made BA what it is today (Eg chaining wind, corpyro selfd) and what the player have come to love over the many years. And they seem to be unaware that your commits has rework so many unit explosion damage, aoe, etc. For instance corpyro had 1000 damage and a 200 aoe, but now it has 350 damage and an aoe of 240, so now there is no point in selfd them anymore. You many try and spin what your doing as need maintenance saying the old dev didn't work on the projects or 40 odd files in one folder is too hard to manage or the current dev didn't like windfarming but trust me the players see what your doing as bleaching all the quirks which made BA what it is.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14637
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Forboding Angel »

So you don't like the balance of the pyro's self d explosion. Tough shit? Why are you talking to me? That wasn't my decision nor was I even aware of it.
0 x

User avatar
Floris
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 606
Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 20:00

Re: 9.51 Forboding Angel revert to 9.46 (dev discussion, split)

Post by Floris »

The unit explosion damages are still being worked on...

Like I said, Forb made clear and asked for my permission to go ahead and remove all explosion damages, for the sake of maintainability. I still need to add them in again for a lot of units, or tweak them to match old behavior better like the pyro. That said... the changes in favor of maintainability will mean that we probably don't get to exactly mimic old values. And besides it doesnt really have to either.

So yes while you are not completely wrong here... your hostility isn't helping, so please hold your horses.

(Nixtux, I don't care much about your opinion any longer when I saw you helped setting up a Ba 9.46 fork for commander_spice a few days ago. Feels like I am getting backstabbed... because you have issues with forb)
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”