BA sea balance - Page 2

BA sea balance

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
MasterBel2
Posts: 347
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 12:03

Re: BA sea balance

Post by MasterBel2 » 05 Nov 2017, 04:48

very_bad_soldier wrote:Also please use BA subforum here for proper discussions. Discord is just a chat room and not suited well for true discussions (e.g. it does not even support threads?).
(I'll keep this brief)Yes, it supports a thread equivalent. I like discord discussions because they tend to end up more conversational, end up with sharing of more ideas.
1 x

User avatar
very_bad_soldier
Posts: 1371
Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10

Re: BA sea balance

Post by very_bad_soldier » 05 Nov 2017, 10:05

Would you please tell me where to find it?
0 x

Ares
Posts: 314
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: BA sea balance

Post by Ares » 05 Nov 2017, 14:43

PtaQ wrote: Sadly ppl that complain the most about doo and flows work don't bother discussing their points in a proper, constructive way.
These changes are pushed through without any justification. (10,000+ in sea alone)

And you expect people asking for justification to provide justification for disliking unjustified changes?

lol hypocrite
0 x

Ares
Posts: 314
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: BA sea balance

Post by Ares » 05 Nov 2017, 14:57

Just looked on the Discord, whatever is happening there is totally unrecognizable. (can you spot the nanoturret?)

It's beyond comprehension of words:

Image
0 x

User avatar
PtaQ
Posts: 158
Joined: 15 Sep 2009, 10:40

Re: BA sea balance

Post by PtaQ » 05 Nov 2017, 18:27

Ares wrote: These changes are pushed through without any justification. (10,000+ in sea alone)
I'm curious about the way you are counting this. Since the beginning of BA github repo there were 8k commits done. If doo has done 10k out of 8k he must be an interdimensional being and questioning his competence might be dangerous.
Ares wrote: And you expect people asking for justification to provide justification for disliking unjustified changes?

lol hypocrite
Who are the people you're talking about? Who is asking for a justification? If I'm to assume that you are included in that "people" definition of yours, then I'm confused about what "asking" means in your dictionary. Every change is a result of the discussion which is carried mostly on discord. I realize it is not the most fortunate choice in terms of archiving, but you can find every justification if you know how to use search window. If it cannot be easily found, you can always ask ppl responsible for the changes or others, who are following what is going on. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned I have never been asked by you about anything. Most often I was insulted and accused of things I had nothing to do with. Still your comments are limited to blaming everyone around about stuff you don't understand or don't bother to dig into. Posting a photo from discord without any context is one more example of that. Three of the models shown on that pic are temporary, and only serve a purpose of testing some new concepts like floating mexes or advanced tidals, These ideas are controversial, but it doesn't mean they aren't worth trying out. If you cared to read anything instead of just simply cherrypicking a hilarious screenshot I wouldn't have to explain that to you.

Anyway, as I said before lets reduce this conversation to its subject. If you have anything constructive to say, please do. If not, just stop.
0 x

Ares
Posts: 314
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: BA sea balance

Post by Ares » 05 Nov 2017, 18:51

PtaQ wrote:I'm curious about the way you are counting this.
Count is public info: https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... f...master
PtaQ wrote:testing some new concepts like floating mexes or advanced tidals
this exactly my point about sea balance
0 x

[Fx]Doo
Posts: 66
Joined: 30 Aug 2013, 16:39

Re: BA sea balance

Post by [Fx]Doo » 06 Nov 2017, 17:27

Quick reminder to Ares. If you are going to blame me for you own helplesness in understanding how a game works, and how changes are done, please do so somewhere far away from us, where it won't bother the people actually actively participating in the developpement of the new version.
That said, you are referring to "10k changes".
It is in fact, 8k commits total, and as shown in the link you provided, 2.1k since 9.46 . Some of them affecting 100+ files (as global script rework, for exemple) and others affecting 1 file.
I will also remind you that, "changing a change", like reverting a change for any reason, or finetuning, or any modification of what has already been modified, is counted as a whole new commit.
I could easily provide you with a version identical to 9.46 while counting up to 100k commit.
Talking about how far new ba will be from 9.46, based on the amount of commits is biased.
If you are going to spread rumors of BA being completely different from the game you are used to play, please, at least provide your audience with relevant data.

Split discussion of measuring changes to viewtopic.php?f=44&t=36552&p=584114#p584114. (Silentwings)

Regarding the sea balance, we are proposing to make sea a stand alone, and not just a side option. This is the reason why so much is being tested and so much changes have happenend until now.
By "make sea a standalone", i mean that:
- Ground units and structures shouldn't be needed to provide a complete and versatile gameplay within sea. This implies a variety of units and tactics bigger than what 9.46 has to offer.
- Sea to ground and ground to sea interactions should become more permissive and interesting tactical-wise. Sea should synergize more with land, with units such as hovercrafts, amphibious units and seaplanes, in addition to the longer range bombardment ships (battleship, flagship, missile ship).
- While the "high risk, high reward" gameplay of sea, due to the high m cost of units, should be kept as it is part of BA legacy and what has made sea appealing until now, sea games/battles should be slowed down. The sea players want to enjoy a game while tuning their skills but end up winning too fast or being excluded from the game after the very first encounter, without a single chance to show any skillful plays and mastery. Sea games should, again, be more permissive and allow longer encounters.

These are just a few lines of what we are trying to achieve for the sea balance, a standalone gameplay that synergizes with land but can be played on its own and bring its amount of joyful micro, painful losses and complex tactics, not relying on using one single unittype until you can make hovers.

I can get that people are not very enthusiastic as to where this is going based on all the different ways this has been handled, and all the different changes that are being tested, but I would appreciate that you would stop judging a work in progress based on your expectations of an "Official Release".
Take it for what it is, a place where we are testing good and bad stuff, judging and giving players a glimpse of what is being tested aswell as an opportunity to state their very own opinion.
You can't decide on changes based on some preliminary assumptions and therefor testing is an important step in the process of releasing a new version.
0 x

tp40
Posts: 13
Joined: 20 Sep 2017, 21:32

Re: BA sea balance

Post by tp40 » 19 Nov 2017, 11:32

I'm very happy to see that BA is alive and under development.

Its a great goal that sea should be able to stand on its own, IMO.

A little more love for hovercraft (and sea planes?) is a step in the right direction. Beyond that, in the distant future, I'd also like to see subs reach parity with boats in a new take on the way kbots and vehicles complement each other. It would be great fun to be able to exist purely on the bottom of the ocean.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”

cron