Balanced Annihilation v4.7 !! - Page 60

Balanced Annihilation v4.7 !!

All game release threads should be posted here

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Post by NOiZE » 08 Feb 2007, 21:18

QMan wrote:As to the maxSlope thing, here's the code that pulls the maxslope from the unit file:

Code: Select all

tdfparser.GetDef(ud.maxSlope, "0", "UNITINFO\\MaxSlope");
...
ud.maxSlope = cos(ud.maxSlope*(PI/180));
That looks like it expects degrees to me. :)
however i have the feeling that only the info in the moveinfo.tdf is being used. Although i never fully tested it.
0 x

User avatar
Guessmyname
Posts: 3301
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07

Post by Guessmyname » 08 Feb 2007, 21:53

Noize is correct - it's only the movement classes, unless the movement class doesn't specify the slopetolerance
0 x

KlavoHunter
Posts: 141
Joined: 28 May 2006, 21:41

Post by KlavoHunter » 09 Feb 2007, 06:09

The main problems right now with T3 are as follows:

1. Buildtimes are too long. It takes way too long to make anything but Banthas or Krogoths. You're basically forced to make a giant field of nanoturrets if you want to use Kargs or Catapults or Razorbacks right now.

2. T3 units are too slow. They're giant mechs, they should move faster. It takes a Krog ages to cross a map, which is why people are so unhappy about T2 transports not being able to pick up T3 anymore.

3. They cost too much. A Jugg is like a third or half the cost of a Krogoth, and two or three Juggs definitely aren't as useful as one Krogoth. Juggernauts move way too slow and don't do enough damage to be useful. They also have an overly long buildtime.
0 x

User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Post by ginekolog » 09 Feb 2007, 08:23

T3 should be transportable. Who cares if it looks funny with big robot hanging in air, it ads A LOT to gameplay. T3 is horribly underused atm anyway. This made it worse. Transporting T3 is risky but well awarded when u get bantha behind enemy lines.

Revert this plz. Other changes feel fine.
0 x

User avatar
MR.D
Posts: 1527
Joined: 06 Aug 2005, 13:15

Post by MR.D » 09 Feb 2007, 10:19

IMO, everything except Krogoth should be transportable.

Krog is like 5x the size fo the transport, and in relation to scale.. at least the other mechs below Krogoth look the size of something that could be transported.

Krog is OP anyway, so that should be 1 place that Core should suffer.
0 x

Uberleechen
Posts: 36
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 23:48

Post by Uberleechen » 09 Feb 2007, 11:21

Something I find a little odd is the Core Storm vs Arm Rocko comparison.

Both have the same range, same weapon/DPS.
The Core Storm costs 85/879 vs. 97/944 but has 670 hp vs 650 hp.
Both aim at essentially the same speed.

The Arm Rocko is marginally faster. (ArmRocko: 1.74, CoreStorm: 1.65)

If the logic is that you pay for movementspeed, then alright. Someone more experienced than me judging this is perfectly acceptable, as long as it is judged to be correct and not simply an artifact of the past or just random.

It just seems odd that the Core bot would have higher hp (negligible, really) and lower cost (8:9, roughly). To me, at least, it would just make sense to have the Core rocket bot cost more, have notably more hp, and be somewhat slower in fitting with Core Tradition.[/i]
0 x

Lippy
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Jul 2006, 00:24

Post by Lippy » 09 Feb 2007, 13:24

Uberleechen wrote:Something I find a little odd is the Core Storm vs Arm Rocko comparison.

Both have the same range, same weapon/DPS.
The Core Storm costs 85/879 vs. 97/944 but has 670 hp vs 650 hp.
Both aim at essentially the same speed.

The Arm Rocko is marginally faster. (ArmRocko: 1.74, CoreStorm: 1.65)

If the logic is that you pay for movementspeed, then alright. Someone more experienced than me judging this is perfectly acceptable, as long as it is judged to be correct and not simply an artifact of the past or just random.

It just seems odd that the Core bot would have higher hp (negligible, really) and lower cost (8:9, roughly). To me, at least, it would just make sense to have the Core rocket bot cost more, have notably more hp, and be somewhat slower in fitting with Core Tradition.[/i]
I've looked at this some time ago and also was about to say something, but in the end does it really matter? Yes core has an advantage in this respect, but arm has an advantage in other units e.g (from the top of my head) stumpy/raider balance. With so many similar units, the arm/core balance probably equals itself out.
0 x

DemO
Posts: 541
Joined: 18 Jul 2006, 02:05

Post by DemO » 09 Feb 2007, 15:25

Rocko is better than Storm imo. And the extra move speed does make a difference in micro, all be it a small difference. (dodge rockets more often due to quicker speed, chase comms etc)

For some reason i remember the rocko having a marginally higher DPS than storm, and always knew storms had more hp. Dunno if it's been changed or if I am just imagining things.
0 x

User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Post by TradeMark » 09 Feb 2007, 16:58

Rocko and Storm uses same weapon, so no, they dont have different DPS.

Im not really happy when i hear that rocko is faster than storm. Speed is never balancing solution for anything... its just not fair when your rockos can retreat, and my storms cant.
0 x

MasterChiefRulZ
Posts: 15
Joined: 07 Dec 2005, 02:52

Post by MasterChiefRulZ » 09 Feb 2007, 17:51

Where the Dragon's teeth changed? Played a game of BA last night with a friend, and we both (as Arm) had enemy units slipping through the DTs.

It seemed as if gaps were bigger than usual, and we had to go two rows deep to cut any ground troops off. :?:
0 x

User avatar
jackalope
Posts: 694
Joined: 18 Jun 2006, 22:43

Post by jackalope » 09 Feb 2007, 21:37

with regards to the rocko/storm thing, if you look you will noticed that hammers are bit better to spam than thuds, though thuds still have a bit more health (about 10% more),while hammers cost about 21% less metal. Arm effectively gets more firepower (becasue the number of actual units will be higher) and they are slightly faster and almost as durable.

Hammer:
M:121
Health:810
Speed:1.54

Thud:
M:147
Health:900
Speed: 1.5

But in the end these kind of differences are really insignificant and just add a little flavor to play.
0 x

User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Post by TradeMark » 09 Feb 2007, 21:44

well, 21% is actually much. If you build 100 units, other side can build 121 units instead of just 100. That is 2600 less metal used with that cheaper unit..
0 x

User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Post by NOiZE » 09 Feb 2007, 23:30

MasterChiefRulZ wrote:Where the Dragon's teeth changed? Played a game of BA last night with a friend, and we both (as Arm) had enemy units slipping through the DTs.

It seemed as if gaps were bigger than usual, and we had to go two rows deep to cut any ground troops off. :?:
Really?

The new DT´s should prevent that..... (only ARM for new DT)

can you upload the replay?
0 x

User avatar
jackalope
Posts: 694
Joined: 18 Jun 2006, 22:43

Post by jackalope » 10 Feb 2007, 02:23

TradeMark wrote:well, 21% is actually much. If you build 100 units, other side can build 121 units instead of just 100. That is 2600 less metal used with that cheaper unit..
exactly, but this contrats well with people saying the storm was better/cheaper than the rocko.

Arm hammer is better than core thud
core storm is better than arm rocko (according to some)
0 x

manored
Posts: 3179
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 00:37

Post by manored » 10 Feb 2007, 02:37

Since there are small diferences between all units in the game its natural that
one of the 2 teams may have this one or that one better and its also natural that one of the teams is better. (Core! :P )
0 x

MasterChiefRulZ
Posts: 15
Joined: 07 Dec 2005, 02:52

Post by MasterChiefRulZ » 10 Feb 2007, 02:44

NOiZE wrote:
MasterChiefRulZ wrote:Where the Dragon's teeth changed? Played a game of BA last night with a friend, and we both (as Arm) had enemy units slipping through the DTs.

It seemed as if gaps were bigger than usual, and we had to go two rows deep to cut any ground troops off. :?:
Really?

The new DT´s should prevent that..... (only ARM for new DT)

can you upload the replay?

Demo would be at my friend's house, don't know if he still has it. The gaps look pretty big though. You can go ingame real quick and just lay a straight line of DTs, and you'll notice even though the exo-skeletons (when you cue them up) are side by side, when they are lathed they are spaced apart.

Apart from that, I disconnected late ingame, but I think that's a Spring (not a BA) issue.

May I suggest, if it's possible, to add Airborne Mass troop carriers to BA? I detest having to do airborne troop drops one at a time per one troop carrier. Could unit makers create a "Flying Hovercraft" or something? :wink:
0 x

Andreask
Posts: 282
Joined: 16 Dec 2005, 21:08

Post by Andreask » 10 Feb 2007, 03:18

I recently noticed that the Nuke launchers became cheaper a few iterations ago. Scince then, i build them in every game, which makes gameplay just a little bit more dull than before, dont you think ?

The "find the anti-nuke-bomb-it-and-win" game is entertainig for a while. Sadly, if we want to prevent nukes having to be disabled before the start of every game, we should double the cost for a nuke launcher, and also double the time it takes to build one.

They are too easy to obtain and ruin most games when you could have faught decent land or air battles instead.
0 x

User avatar
jackalope
Posts: 694
Joined: 18 Jun 2006, 22:43

Post by jackalope » 10 Feb 2007, 04:56

Andreask wrote:I recently noticed that the Nuke launchers became cheaper a few iterations ago. Scince then, i build them in every game, which makes gameplay just a little bit more dull than before, dont you think ?

The "find the anti-nuke-bomb-it-and-win" game is entertainig for a while. Sadly, if we want to prevent nukes having to be disabled before the start of every game, we should double the cost for a nuke launcher, and also double the time it takes to build one.

They are too easy to obtain and ruin most games when you could have faught decent land or air battles instead.
1. im not sure wtf you are talkinga bout

2. anti nukes are so much cheaper than regular nukes
0 x

User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Post by NOiZE » 10 Feb 2007, 11:32

Do not rely on one antinuke IMO.
0 x

User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Post by ginekolog » 10 Feb 2007, 12:28

nukes are fine. They are somtimes the only way to kill porcers.

wanna good anitnuke defense? Get 3 mobile antinukes, move them around and noone can touch em :( (they are not ghosted and they move - some say, they dont allways fire though )
0 x

Locked

Return to “Game Releases”