Balanced Annihilation V5.91 - Page 9

Balanced Annihilation V5.91

All game release threads should be posted here

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
Harbinger
Posts: 82
Joined: 26 Mar 2007, 22:14

Post by Harbinger »

I think MM are fine as they are. M Geneators are useless though.
User avatar
LordMatt
Posts: 3393
Joined: 15 May 2005, 04:26

Post by LordMatt »

Harbinger wrote:I think MM are fine as they are. M Geneators are useless though.
+10
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Post by Pxtl »

Perhaps the MG should be a "safe" metal-maker, analogous to the "safe" Prude geo? Less efficient, but less of a gamble.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Post by YokoZar »

Pxtl wrote:Perhaps the MG should be a "safe" metal-maker, analogous to the "safe" Prude geo? Less efficient, but less of a gamble.
I really like this idea. It already has a close-up mechanism similar to solar panels, it'd be nice for that to actually be useful.

Since it's tier 2 and has to compete with Fusions/Moho Metal Makers (which are pretty safe as it is, since they have quite a bit of hit points and don't chain easily), the metal generator should probably be at least more efficient than the tier 1 stuff.

Unless, of course, we make it a tier 1 building.
User avatar
MR.D
Posts: 1527
Joined: 06 Aug 2005, 13:15

Post by MR.D »

Not for T1, MM's work best for T1.

And its a struggle to keep economy stable with MM's, which is how it should be.

You don't want to be giving away free metal no matter how much E&M investment.

It may sound strange and I am not sure why it bothers me, because with MM's & solar/wind farms you get the same free metal, but you have to manage your spending alot more.

I still just like the idea of making T1 MM's, and T2 FMG's to not chain explode, but rather just have very low armor, so they're susceptible to even the weakest attack, and could die even if shrapnel from a unit's death nicked it.
User avatar
kiki
Posts: 859
Joined: 05 Nov 2007, 03:06

Post by kiki »

I never use metal gens, but I saw someone use them once. Really, I think the best thing would be to make them t1, for them to have any good use in a game.
User avatar
Sleksa
Posts: 1604
Joined: 04 Feb 2006, 20:58

Post by Sleksa »

lbctech wrote:I never use metal gens, but I saw someone use them once. Really, I think the best thing would be to make them t1, for them to have any good use in a game.

:::_____DDDDDDDddddddddddddfasd
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Post by Neddie »

I'm all for dropping them. The Juno was made into a monster, but these have no good place in the game proposed for them.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Post by YokoZar »

MR.D wrote:It may sound strange and I am not sure why it bothers me, because with MM's & solar/wind farms you get the same free metal, but you have to manage your spending alot more.
What are you talking about? With metal makers and energy farms you need to manage your spending less, since the AI will automatically turn them off if you need energy.
User avatar
MR.D
Posts: 1527
Joined: 06 Aug 2005, 13:15

Post by MR.D »

If you're putting all of your metal and E into Economy, what will you have left for putting units on the battlefield.

Thats what I mean.

And it depends on the map too, such as Delta_siege_dry, or on the other side Altored Divide.

When you plan what units will be building, you have to spend the time to assign each unit where it is going to build windmills, how much space between them, and then you assign units to build MM's.

Spending in the terms I meant is not strictly E&M, but the ammount of "time" to assign builders their orders, and between that, managing your combat units too.

Once all your build orders are set, you can pretty much let them go on their own, but keeping enough metal in storage to give you slack if the enemy wins a few battles is tricky if you've got tons of ConBots or COnVehicles building windmills and MM's all over the place.

And even more so if you're forced to use Solars.

FMG's simplify the process marginally, and takes alot of the micro out of getting a stronger economy.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Post by YokoZar »

MR.D wrote:FMG's simplify the process marginally, and takes alot of the micro out of getting a stronger economy.
It totally depends on the cost we give them. Metal generators still take metal and energy to build, there's nothing "free" about them.

Once you build enough energy to cover your metal makers, they're essentially "free metal" as well. It's just as reasonable to think of an advanced solar + metal maker as giving 1 metal and 15 energy for free as it is to think of a metal generator as free metal.
User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Post by ginekolog »

Harbinger wrote:I think MM are fine as they are. M Geneators are useless though.
yeh remove em.

btw i noticed that Razorback does full damage to air units (thats 1000 DPS). I attacked razors with some crows and crow would drop like files if i didnt back off.

Water plays fine so far. Battleships are still crap compared to cruisers though. They need buff to be usefull. (range and health?)

L3 subs are now battle subs but they are still clumsy and have firing angle of 45! Thats hardly usefull in real life. As sharks kill them easy i would give them some angle and rotation speed.

Seaplanes are rly now T1.5 as they lost a lot of cost/effectivnes. Thats fine as they were op before.
User avatar
LOrDo
Posts: 1154
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 00:21

Post by LOrDo »

Sleksa wrote:
lbctech wrote:I never use metal gens, but I saw someone use them once. Really, I think the best thing would be to make them t1, for them to have any good use in a game.

:::_____DDDDDDDddddddddddddfasd
Remember kids, dont drink and post!
DZHIBRISH
Posts: 357
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 22:28

Post by DZHIBRISH »

I know its kinda hard but maybe make them have a gun? so u can use them a sort of light t2 defence that also makes resources...
User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng »

or remove them entirely, they are redundant and just spamming up buildques
Klopper
Posts: 146
Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 14:31

Post by Klopper »

Or, just make them so that they are slightly less m-efficient than moho makers + fusions but give them good hp (closing animation?), smaller explosion and cheaper cloak so they can be used as safe m generation in tight bases or in exposed territory near the front, kinda like cloakable fusions or safe moho geos...
BTW what about dropping Commando's stealth and giving him Cloak instead? Now that countermeasures are buffed it might work good (countermeasures are Juno-immune i think?).
User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Post by NOiZE »

How about some more feedback of T2 Sea
Harbinger
Posts: 82
Joined: 26 Mar 2007, 22:14

Post by Harbinger »

I play small supreme battlefield and tropical fairly often (5v5 etc)
In these maps I find either I or my opponent are pushed out of the water entirely prior to T2 so I can't really comment on T2 vs T2.
Against land/air I think T2 sea is very good. The T2 antiair ship could perhaps do with a little buff or a rethink, as it's still often better to get lots of T1 scout ships instead. Missle ships are great against land targets, destroyers work well against hovers, and a captial ship, if you manage to build one, can wipe out entire bases with ease.

Also, the "T1.5" seaplanes are well balanced and the submerge feature is a nice touch too.
User avatar
Evil4Zerggin
Posts: 557
Joined: 16 May 2007, 06:34

Post by Evil4Zerggin »

NOiZE wrote:How about some more feedback of T2 Sea
A few slight inconsistencies:

CORE seaplane bomber's HP was reduced, but not ARM (I think Otherside first pointed this out).

CORE battle sub has a net energy drain of 14.5 (produces 0.5, uses 15); the ARM one does not.

Initial impressions (probably not terribly accurate, since my actual in-game experience with the new ships is limited, but just throwing them out there):

I like the cheaper AA ships. They're actually worth building now.

It seems that idea of T2 combat is that subk -> battle sub -> cruiser -> subk. The battle sub might be the weak link in the equation, though; it is the least maneuverable of the three, and while the cruiser has a small chance against the battle sub (getting behind it) and the subk has a small chance against the cruiser (range), there's very little the battle sub can do about the subk. Of course, I'd have to play more to be sure.

Battleship needs some help. It's too expensive to be of use in naval combat, and for shore bombardment you should just get as much range as possible. Not to mention that there are no naval static defenses that are worth bombarding with a battleship; cruisers and T2 subs can already take out T1 defenses from outside their range, and the T2 torpedo launcher is generally too expensive and fragile to be much of a factor.

Flagship range buff really helps sea project its power onto land in late game. It's nice to have sea actually have a strategic-level option. Unfortunately it's often a strategic option that gets killed halfway through construction when the ASY gets shelled by VLRPC, but on the other hand, jammer + flagship is bad news for VLRPC.

Seaplane fighters may have been nerfed a bit too much. They're not much less expensive than T2 fighters, but they have only one missile, which is weaker than each of the T2 fighter's and fire less often, fewer hit points, no stealth, and are slower than T2 fighters (although they do turn faster). I realize you may not want to make the seaplane fighters as good as the T2 fighters, but the cost of the seaplane platform is much closer to T2 than T1.
Last edited by Evil4Zerggin on 12 Dec 2007, 02:44, edited 2 times in total.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Post by YokoZar »

Evil4Zerggin wrote:
NOiZE wrote:How about some more feedback of T2 Sea
Seaplane fighters may have been nerfed a bit too much. They're not much less expensive than T2 fighters, but they have only one missile, which is weaker than each of the T2 fighter's and fire less often, fewer hit points, no stealth, and are slower than T2 fighters (although they do turn faster). I realize you may not want to make the seaplane fighters as good as the T2 fighters, but the cost of the seaplane platform is much closer to T2 than T1.
Yeah. Even if seaplane fighters were just as good as hawks, it wouldn't be that much of a problem since they're more of a defensive counter unit than an offensive monster.
Locked

Return to “Game Releases”