Balanced Annihilation 5.3 is OUT

CautionToTheWind · Post by **CautionToTheWind** » 17 May 2007, 13:32

Lolsquad_Steven wrote:Yeah but to make a decent mm economy you sacrifice resources for units.

While BA is my choice of mod, i too think the MM could be toned down a bit. You are right in that building a MM economy reduces the size of your army, but in maps wich chokepoints and reasonable metal in the base area, MM are too good. The MM user's smaller army is only a liability for a short duration of time, after which the increased production becomes dominant. During that short duration of time, the non-MM-using player must do a decisive assault with tier 1 units, risking failure and feeding metal to the enemy, which already has a superior economy... The MMs seem too useful. Maybe someone can elaborate on this?

By nature, the metal makers should take an awful amount of energy (speed of light shows up squared in that equation). If one is too keep current energy ratios, maybe make the metal makers explode harder? Maybe half the explosion of an Adv-fusion. That would be fun.

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 17 May 2007, 13:43

CautionToTheWind wrote:
Lolsquad_Steven wrote:Yeah but to make a decent mm economy you sacrifice resources for units.
the non-MM-using player

must have been a newbie then, everyone should build MM's , don't be lazy, use them. If you think a unit is OP, USE it ffs.

submarine · Post by **submarine** » 17 May 2007, 16:31

well of course we could all start to dig in an build lots of mm; however i doubt it will add to the game

on many maps ba games lack the element of terrain domination. ppl dig in and start building hundreds of pplants and mms. therefore you dont get much of an advantage if you control a few more metal spots than your opponent

KingRaptor · Post by **KingRaptor** » 17 May 2007, 16:43

I think the problem isn't that MMs are a good substitute for mex spots (they aren't), but rather the insane econ you can get by stacking MMs on top of mex spots.

I still say the 1/100 and 16/1000 values of AA 2.23 were just fine.

CautionToTheWind · Post by **CautionToTheWind** » 17 May 2007, 16:44

NOiZE wrote: must have been a newbie then, everyone should build MM's , don't be lazy, use them. If you think a unit is OP, USE it ffs.

You know, in my old wc3 modding days i too used to give this reply to ppl that used my mod. Quite enlightening.

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 17 May 2007, 17:06

i never understood why caydr changed the OTA values tbh...

very_bad_soldier · Post by **very_bad_soldier** » 17 May 2007, 18:18

I think too that MM should take more energy to operate. They make the metal spots irrelevant quickly which leads to an IMHO not so nice game...

Zenka · Post by **Zenka** » 17 May 2007, 18:33

I don't see the problem. using metal extracters is so much more efficient people ifght over them. there is a moment you need more income but cannot expand. Or need to turn the tide when you are being pushed back. IMO 1/80 MM and 16/800MohoMM is good. as it always was.

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 17 May 2007, 18:37

/me points to OTA

60 E for 1 M

Was good, we just put it back....

some spreadsheet i made a while back:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... Dpn5U-1tSw

jackalope · Post by **jackalope** » 17 May 2007, 22:04

if your enemy is stocking up on MMs just make some L1 bombers and blow em up, he probably doesn't have enough AA to stop you.

el_matarife · Post by **el_matarife** » 17 May 2007, 22:14

NOiZE wrote: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... Dpn5U-1tSw

Heh looks a lot like the one I made for BA 4.41, are you sure you didn't just modify mine? I was going to update mine for 5.2 anyway I think, I'm interested in how the Wind vs Solar/AdvSolar debate shakes out now that the costs have been tweaked.

Edit: Actually now that I look at it more closely a lot of the math is different since you're messing with MM costs vs energy production costs. I'm trying to figure out exactly where you got some of these cost figures, like 220 for the Mex economy since on the right column it claims that the Mex cost is 59. Anyway, mexes are clearly more metal per energy and probably in general since they usually give at least 1 metal per spot and usually more like 2 or 3, but I can see how MMs have a big advantage from a micromanagement standpoint since you can just assign 4 or so construction units to build Adv Solar -> MM -> Repeat.

ginekolog · Post by **ginekolog** » 17 May 2007, 22:33

i like 60 E metal makers, this makes TA unique RTS where your enemy controls 70% of land and u still have some chance if u have some mm eco behind. This makes TA full of surprises, not like other RTS where map control makes them so predictable.

So far new version seems just fine.

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 17 May 2007, 23:46

el_matarife wrote:
NOiZE wrote: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... Dpn5U-1tSw
Heh looks a lot like the one I made for BA 4.41, are you sure you didn't just modify mine? I was going to update mine for 5.2 anyway I think, I'm interested in how the Wind vs Solar/AdvSolar debate shakes out now that the costs have been tweaked.

Edit: Actually now that I look at it more closely a lot of the math is different since you're messing with MM costs vs energy production costs. I'm trying to figure out exactly where you got some of these cost figures, like 220 for the Mex economy since on the right column it claims that the Mex cost is 59. Anyway, mexes are clearly more metal per energy and probably in general since they usually give at least 1 metal per spot and usually more like 2 or 3, but I can see how MMs have a big advantage from a micromanagement standpoint since you can just assign 4 or so construction units to build Adv Solar -> MM -> Repeat.

in included the costs for making the energy required, but that sheet is for 4.7 though.

jellyman · Post by **jellyman** » 18 May 2007, 00:04

I think the current metal maker aspect adds another strategic angle to the game. You have to decide a balance of resource expenditure between expansion economy, metal maker economy, defence and attack. The wrong balance, which for many maps (moreso in team games?) includes 0 metal maker economy is a significant disadvantage....

Torrasque · Post by **Torrasque** » 18 May 2007, 15:05

IHMO, metal maker are fine metal/energy wise.

They should just explode more ! So you need to space them more and it's more important to protect them.

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 18 May 2007, 15:37

they already explode quite heavily...

KingRaptor · Post by **KingRaptor** » 18 May 2007, 15:43

Chaining people's wind farms and metal maker blocks is always a hobby of mine.

Foxomaniac · Post by **Foxomaniac** » 18 May 2007, 17:13

The "explode harder" request translates to :

Make MMS require more space.

This can be done by halving their 1/60 to 0.5/30.

Same output, just need 2 MMs instead of one

.

It also doubles the initial investment, I suppose?

MR.D · Post by **MR.D** » 18 May 2007, 17:36

As long as their build costs are cut in half, I'd be down with a 0.5/30 ratio.

CautionToTheWind · Post by **CautionToTheWind** » 18 May 2007, 19:08

Yep, 0.5/30 sounds like an improvement.

Spring RTS Engine

Balanced Annihilation 5.3 is OUT