Where does/will AA differ from BA? - Page 3

Where does/will AA differ from BA?

[ARCHIVED]

Moderators: Caydr, Moderators, Content Developer

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Argh » 31 Jul 2009, 02:12

Meh. Let me put it in another, less-inflammatory way: they're game designers, but they're working on a very limited scope.

There's nobody in charge of overall balance and gameplay direction on the CA team. Caydr, whether you like him or not, has a proven track record in this regard, and might be a good fit for that position, if he can get over his technophobia and the CA folks can get their minds wrapped around the idea that somebody who's utterly ignorant of coding can nontheless know what people find fun.

As an alternative to seeing a BA 2.0, I think it would be a lot more interesting. I wouldn't be at all interested in playing yet-another BA retread, but I'd try a CA with a Caydr rebalance, considering what he's had to say about what he'd like to do.
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Licho » 31 Jul 2009, 02:27

CA works in a very open and democratic way. Its open project, anyone can join and start making changes at any time. We put no prior restrictions.

But in case of conflicts of ideas, those who put biggest effort into the project have strongest voice - again we decide in transparent way using polls. http://gov.caspring.org/

Most balance and design changes are discussed and decided collectively, so arrgh is right. There is no "chief designer" now. We have key design principles written down and try to follow them.

We certainly welcome valuable insigts/input and even more valuable work :)
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Argh » 31 Jul 2009, 02:33

Well, that's what I'm saying here (again, not trying to pick a fight, or mis-characterize CA's process). Caydr... your chances of dethroning BA are pretty slim, as I'm pretty sure NOIZe / TheFatController don't have a lot of incentive to be super-helpful about porting BA Lua... and without Lua support, your entire game is unlikely to fly, these days- it's pretty much a requirement for a non-nub project.

So... why not sit down with CA and jazz it up? I am sure that once the CA guys saw that you were willing to work really hard (and I know that you're a very hard worker) they'd welcome the work on that area. Moreover, with your experience and skillset as a modeler / skinner, you could do double-duty for that project, and even have other people to do that annoying BOS stuff ;)
0 x

User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5301
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Jazcash » 31 Jul 2009, 02:42

You didn't read any of the above.

You are still remaking AA.

You hate CA.
0 x

User avatar
quantum
Posts: 590
Joined: 19 Sep 2006, 22:48

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by quantum » 31 Jul 2009, 03:53

Most CA devs are very experienced players turned game designers, many of which realized that Lua is often the only way to materialize your design. You'll find CA's game design very consistent and fine-tuned, definitely not a coder sandbox.

The GUI, however, fits your description. It's a collection of widgets from various authors without coordination or planning.

Back on topic, I'd really consider starting from BA or CA. BA has years of improvements while trying not to diverge too much. CA has diverged a lot, but in the direction of your goals, apart from a couple of easily changed points.
0 x

User avatar
Noruas
XTA Developer
Posts: 1266
Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 02:58

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Noruas » 31 Jul 2009, 05:00

I think the xta 9.55 you used caydr had bugged lua, i would suggest checkings arm and core commanders walking speed as they differentiate, even in levels of morphing and races, of course other differences balance out arms faster walking speed for core. (try xta 9.58)
It seems XTA is the slowest, CA is the fastest and BA is in the middle... Balanced :)
Have any of you seriously played Nota?

Nota/Xta/BA/CA

Actually Ba and Xta are in the middle.

Ca speed can be represented by this sword fight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XqjIUXgf9I&NR=1

As you can see, their speed is impressive, but it makes the blade flimsy. BA is kindof similar but with toothbrushes, you just end up dropping the toothbrush and punching someone.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14552
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Forboding Angel » 31 Jul 2009, 10:19

quantum wrote:Most CA devs are very experienced players turned game designers, many of which realized that Lua is often the only way to materialize your design. You'll find CA's game design very consistent and fine-tuned, definitely not a coder sandbox.

The GUI, however, fits your description. It's a collection of widgets from various authors without coordination or planning.

Back on topic, I'd really consider starting from BA or CA. BA has years of improvements while trying not to diverge too much. CA has diverged a lot, but in the direction of your goals, apart from a couple of easily changed points.
CA defies many of the principles of AA gameplay. Massive nano spam being one of the most obvious.

Edit: Or wait, are you saying use CA as a base to create AA? Well that would be interesting, but several of the new models in CA imo look worse than their OTA counterparts and with the haphazard state that CA is in at the moment, using it as a base would be much more trouble than it's worth.
0 x

User avatar
Otherside
Posts: 2296
Joined: 21 Feb 2006, 14:09

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Otherside » 31 Jul 2009, 11:04

CA isnt in a haphazard state. At most its got alot of widget clutter(that will hopefully be culled soon).

But it is probably easier to start with another mod as a base especially if you dont wish to use the new models.

Anyway this thread has been derailed into a CA design discussion. So let's get back on topic.

If Caydr wants the CA team's help he can just ask :].
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Licho » 31 Jul 2009, 11:42

What are you talking about FA .. you mean that CA violates core AA principles by not having massive nano spam?

In CA all nanos build at 12metal/second you rarely need more than 2.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14552
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Forboding Angel » 31 Jul 2009, 17:09

In CA nanotowers are replacements.

In AA they were always assistance.

In CA you are punished in cost if you don't use nanotowers. In AA nanotowers were very much optional. There is a pretty big difference there, and it changes the gameplay by a heck of a lot.
0 x

User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Caydr » 31 Jul 2009, 17:52

Even if BA was awesome beyond imagination and had no flaws, and even if CA rendered all other RTS obsolete through imaginative use of LUA and moar ossum, I would still want to make one more final version of AA that I could personally be happy with. I don't like the way I left things. The last version of AA is an embarrassment, a blot on my record that I don't want to cloud peoples' opinion of my future projects.

Fortunately BA has its flaws, and most of the people I ask about CA do not have wholly positive opinions of it. I think I can do something they can't.

Add another design goal:
-Less bullshit nobody likes but puts up with because it's "TA" and therefore is unchangeable
0 x

User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by JohannesH » 31 Jul 2009, 20:58

Bit offtopic, but about nanos/facs in CA... When the units are built ready they "teleport" a short distance from the fac to the front of the fac. Does this make the BA build of making 2 facs of same type next to each other (to have nanos assisting also when units are moving out of fac) obsolete?
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14552
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Forboding Angel » 31 Jul 2009, 21:20

I don't understand the reason for the teleport. Is it so that the factory doesn't waste any time not building in-between units? If so that's a novel idea, but I don't get how that relates to BA in any way. I also imagine it would look a little funny, but not so much that it would matter.
0 x

User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Caydr » 01 Aug 2009, 00:44

I do not hope to "dethrone" BA, but I certainly hope to produce a better mod than BA. Otherwise why bother?

I don't think I've ever said that I have no intention of using any form of LUA. It's just not my main focus at this time. As nice and helpful as LUA can be, the core gameplay needs to be solid first or nothing else matters. That's my main focus right now - I can't start worrying about nonessentials when the game is barely playable.

Maybe I'm not emphasizing this enough - right now, I have barely touched AA from where it last was as far as gameplay is concerned. I am basically rebuilding the entire mod from the ground up, there will be barely a single line of unchanged code besides scripts.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Argh » 01 Aug 2009, 01:28

As nice and helpful as LUA can be, the core gameplay needs to be solid first or nothing else matters.
Lua can create gameplay. You're basically talking yourself into accepting a lot of limitations here, by not understanding this basic concept.
0 x

User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Caydr » 01 Aug 2009, 06:14

You're right, LUA can create gameplay, for instance I think BA's shared commander death option is a neat idea. And I understand it's possible to do squads of units rather than individual units, for instance. But the foundation that it's all built on is broken right now. I need to fill the cracks before I can paint the wall.

That's... just all kinds of stuff that I know how to do better now. AA/BA is so limited in what it does compared to what it can do, and I want to expand it. But before I start worrying about LUA, I should at least make the most out of the basic functions of the engine itself.

If/when you play the finished product you'll probably understand what I'm on about here, but I'm not the type of person to go blabbing all my ideas before I even know for certain that they can be accomplished effectively. This kind of crap is my specialty, have a little faith.
0 x

User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Caydr » 01 Aug 2009, 17:54

First test with overhaul applied worked incredibly well, better than I anticipated. This is going to be a good day... Now on to the good stuff.

Really, I have to repeat this now, AA is going to be out of this world compared to its previous version and, I suspect, any TA-themed mod to date. That's before I even start with any LUA.

This is a completely new kind of development for me... I'm anxiously awaiting the day when I can post this.

Haha, helps that I'm listening to Imperium Galactica's soundtrack. Music to rule a universe to ^^
0 x

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

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by knorke » 02 Aug 2009, 17:24

I don't understand the reason for the teleport. Is it so that the factory doesn't waste any time not building in-between units?
I thought its to avoid units getting stuck in factories or to stop abuse of units staying in the lab.
0 x

User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by JohannesH » 02 Aug 2009, 17:34

Forboding Angel wrote:Is it so that the factory doesn't waste any time not building in-between units?
That what I was asking. For the reason that it makes nanos better, when all you'll ever need is a single lab to get maximum bp from nanos.
0 x

User avatar
Cephei
Posts: 8
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 15:46

Re: Where does/will AA differ from BA?

Post by Cephei » 17 Sep 2009, 18:34

i need to speak out to the RPS issue.

in my opinion RPS is a bad thing, it causes weird things to happen, for example rocket troopers in CnC 3 taking less damage from tanks. i think game balance should be achieved through natural cause and effect of what weapon does what. specialized damage types or resistance is ( in my opinion ) bad game design. then again i think that starcraft is terribly overrated, so i might be the only one that actually thinks this way. thankfully i don't care :)

dawn of war 2 for example is cluttered with damage resistance that don't even make sense. the wraithlord mounted brightlance does less damage than the platform mounted version, although they are the same weapon. on a different info, the tabletop ( where 40k originated ) does not have any RPS element at all, weapons have stats like strength or accuracy and that's it. they are more or less effective against certain targets because of an organic way of design, or because they have the traits they have, i know i can't really tell this any better.
maybe like this: there is no damage difference if i chose to fire my tanks main barrel at another tank or some infantry. in fact, most tank mounted weapons are powerful enough to kill infantry instantly without a chance to resist or armor mitigation ( there is a rule, if the weapons strength is twice as much as the targets armor, then the target is instantly killed on hit ). and guess what, the tabletop is awesome ( although expensive :< ).

RPS is a tool that can be used to finetune design flaws that can't be resolved in another way. anti air weaponry for example, normally airplanes fly way to high for any conventional weapon system to hit them. but if you give anti air towers the range they'd need to be an organic counter to aircraft ( and on a different note, make aircraft fly as high proportionally as they would in real combat ) they would have an insane amount of range if fired on ground targets. so you either need to have them reduce their range on ground targets, or reduce damage into uselessness, or make aircrafts fly lower and subsequently lower the anti air weapons range too; anyway all of them are RPS solutions that can't be resolved in another way, and if you only use it to finetune stuff, i'm fine with it. but full scale RPS gameplay design just plays stupid. i feel alienated if infantry survives tank shells or aircraft bombs because they are anti air / anti tank, ESPECIALLY if the generic soldier dies from that.

the really great thing about OTA has always been the freedom to utilize weird and strange strategies, that are not hardcoded into the engine. ie. manually using torp bombers to bomb land targets or the now overused combomb.

i think RPS would destroy the OTA flair
0 x

Locked

Return to “Caydr's Projects”