Absolute Annihilation 2.3 Beta 2 - Page 7

Absolute Annihilation 2.3 Beta 2

All game release threads should be posted here

Moderator: Moderators

pintle
Posts: 1762
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 16:01

Post by pintle » 31 Dec 2006, 18:01

Caydr wrote:
pintle wrote:radar detects cloaked units (in XTA at least)
Thereby making sneak attacks more difficult and scouting purposeless. AA's not about rushing massive number of units together and watching the fireworks. There are units in this mod that don't even have weapons, and they're the most dangerous.
Not flaming but dude, thats bull and anyone who actually plays XTA knows it.
0 x

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

Post by DemO » 31 Dec 2006, 18:12

Exactly what machio says. Example 1v1 comet you had to build a new radar every 2 mex at least to get guaranteed full coverage. Then ofc they get raided and die.
0 x

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

Post by Caydr » 31 Dec 2006, 18:29

What, you leave your mexxes completely undefended?

This might be another symptom of my lack of gaming skill, but I typically build defense around mexxes, my main source of metal income and therefore my ability to fight a war.
0 x

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

Post by NOiZE » 31 Dec 2006, 18:32

Caydr wrote:What, you leave your mexxes completely undefended?
because the map is HUGE and you can't get DFENS up on every spot quickly enough.
0 x

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

Post by Caydr » 31 Dec 2006, 18:49

So I should balance the mod around a certain map?
0 x

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

Post by NOiZE » 31 Dec 2006, 18:58

Caydr wrote:So I should balance the mod around a certain map?
no, but you asked why...... so i gave a answer on that situation.
0 x

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

Post by DemO » 31 Dec 2006, 19:01

Even with an LLT guarding every single mex you make, plenty will die in a 1v1 comet. Fast expansion is important and with an LLT to guard every single mex it is a slower progression. You just have to weigh it all up depending on how the game is playing out, but the point is you make mex's in the expectation that they last a minute and thus at least pay back their cost in metal, you dont make them with 6 llts to guard because then it takes far longer to pay itself off, hinders your expansion massively, uses lots of your metal/energy and thus puts you at a disadvantage.

Obviously if you invest metal in large amounts of defence you dont have that metal to spend elsewhere (on units) where the enemy most likely will invest in more units, and gain an advantage in doing so (considering its units that ultimately win games and not defences). Comet is a map where making defences around your mex's wont necessarily stop the enemy from making more metal himself. Theres so many mex's on the map that it doesnt matter if you have 12 mex's around your base solidly guarded because theres so many unclaimed mex's left that the opponent doesn't have to forcefully take your own mex's. You not only have to defend your own expansion but you have to prohibit the enemy from expanding, and there is a balance to be found where frankly you can't afford to heavily gaurd every mex you make because you wont have any units to take out your opponents.

This is done with units for the most part in the game until each side converges to a point where neither can expand further without having to push the opponent off the territory he has already claimed, in which case HLT's/popups etc may help but ultimately units are favoured in the vast majority of situations.

Go to the replay site and find a replay of a high level player against someone that try's to guard everything heavily from the start, and you'll see just how impossible it is to win by doing that.

So how does this all relate to the discussion on radars? Well, from my experience, radar is less important on small maps where you can easily have a good LOS coverage of your entire expansion with units and structures, because there's not much space to cover. As the maps get bigger, radar becomes more important and more useful, to get information on large areas of space which are hard and expensive to cover with units and structures.

Comet is an example of such a map, where radar in AA2.23's state really doesnt help much at all. On smaller maps radar isn't as important anyway because it's easy enough to get extensive LOS with units, so where is the actual benefit from radar being short ranged? The absolute proof is that when radar range was reduced, a lot of people stopped building it, and it's importance as a structure became far smaller. Sure, radar with bigger range helps to react to sneaky raids coming in from places you wouldnt see, but ISNT THAT THE WHOLE POINT OF BUILDING IT?
0 x

User avatar
LordMatt
Posts: 3393
Joined: 15 May 2005, 04:26

Post by LordMatt » 31 Dec 2006, 19:35

Solars must cost energy to inhibit exponential growth of the metal maker economy. When you start making energy free, and therefore metal also free, you've completely borked the entire game. You're toying around with the most basic of TA's resourcing units, around which the entire game has been built. For economy to so easily exponentially increase... it just boggles my mind.
I didn't like this change either when I first READ about it. However, having PLAYED BA for a while I haven't seen the economic balance come crashing down (and even if it did, it would be fixed immediately). Actually, zero e cost solars are quite convenient if you find yourself e stalling when plenty of metal as they provide a means to convert metal into energy. I've not been beaten by someone because the abused metal makers + solars and I failed to do so (I never really make metal makers, even though I probably should to burn of excess energy). Solars are not free, remember, they are the least efficient energy producers in terms of metal cost. And spamming solars and mms takes away from your unit production (assuming 3 solars and 1 metal maker cost ~450 metal, thats how long it takes to make up the cost, 450 seconds or 7.5 minutes if you manage it perfectly, taking metal patches and reclaiming are still far more efficent). Additionally, managing that kind of economic balance (so that you aren't estalling or excessing) takes away from your time to micro your offensive units, which is what actually wins games (see this thread).

A couple of points regarding DemO's radar comments:

1) I find a radar on high ground (so it has full range) very useful in the very early game on any map, including small ones. The reason is you can see enemy raiders looking for your cons and avoid them, along with sending units to kill them. Later on radar becomes less important on small maps, I agree.

2) Radar is absolutely vital if you are going to com rush the frontline and keep your com up front. The reason is that you need to see incoming attacks with sufficient notice to position your com to assist defense by dgunning, but not die in the process (a very delicate balance). You need the time to set up the battle in your terms, rather than having to react to your enemy's surprise.
0 x

pintle
Posts: 1762
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 16:01

Post by pintle » 31 Dec 2006, 19:54

*more xta based thoughts*

Some units (missile units) fire a lot further than their LOS, radar at least doubles the effectiveness
0 x

User avatar
Machiosabre
Posts: 1474
Joined: 25 Dec 2005, 22:56

Post by Machiosabre » 31 Dec 2006, 20:05

nobodies arguing whether or not radar in general is useful, the problem is with the current stats it has lost all that usefulness.
0 x

User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Post by Dragon45 » 31 Dec 2006, 22:45

Bset qoute evar
LordMatt wrote: The reason I and many others have been on your case about this so much is that we fundamentally think you're a good guy, and are grateful for all the work you put into AA. [...] the majority of the good players have come over to BA, so it probably isn't worth arguing any more. Those whose opinions are worth listening to (IMO) have already voted with their feet.
0 x

User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Post by Dragon45 » 31 Dec 2006, 23:49

Day wrote:yay im a pr0 1337 g4m3r
Just cuz we're saying you're all that don't let your head get big, you buffoon :P
0 x

Sefidel2
Posts: 6
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 02:19

NanoResurrection

Post by Sefidel2 » 31 Dec 2006, 23:50

How about a Nanoturret that autoresurects? could make games way more interesting.
0 x

User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Post by Dragon45 » 31 Dec 2006, 23:54

Any builder can do auto reclaim/repair/rezz (if they have it) if you shift-drag the command and set "Repeat On"
0 x

User avatar
Zydox
Lobby Developer
Posts: 453
Joined: 23 May 2006, 13:54

Post by Zydox » 03 Jan 2007, 10:00

Hmm... there's no discussion about the gameplay in AA 2.3 B2?

I tested it yesterday with Goolash, and we had some troubles with air... seems like fighters doesn't fire at other air or ground targes... a bit silly ;)

Caydr, give me the next AA version :-)
0 x

Iklash222
Posts: 36
Joined: 01 Mar 2005, 14:35

Post by Iklash222 » 04 Jan 2007, 05:23

MM why do 2.3 block out 2.23 from showing?
(Even reinstalled chacked none file wrote over the other except the manual and such)

(Not a good way to "force" new version out)
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14564
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Post by Forboding Angel » 04 Jan 2007, 10:34

this entire thread = groan


I find this funny. Many of the suggestions I made for AA a LONG time ago that EVERYONE hated, are in BA in one form or another. 12 pages of flaming about vehicle and building slope tolerance and OMG GASPED it's that way in BA and people are now defending it! Wow it actually did make the game more fun, shocking that I might know what I'm talking about.

Meh, caydr, do whatever you please, but you would do well to listen to the more experienced people here as many of them (read most) know what the heck they're talking about.
0 x

imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Post by imbaczek » 04 Jan 2007, 12:50

Forboding Angel wrote:Meh, caydr, do whatever you please, but you would do well to listen to the more experienced people here as many of them (read most) know what the heck they're talking about.
+1

I've said it before in the thread about slopes: the majority of players don't know what they're talking about (this is true everywhere, not only in spring community), so don't listen to them. The experienced minority is where you should ask for opinion and suggestions.
0 x

User avatar
Tired
Posts: 302
Joined: 14 Nov 2005, 07:19

Post by Tired » 23 Jan 2007, 08:37

I meant more like that fighter screen everyone's always saying you should have, since they're the most effective form of air defence.
You mean that I'm not the only n00b saying that? Well, that's refreshing. ~~

Since we're all having such fun in here, and since I still haven't seen too many veterans comment yet (I don't think too many people even know this thread is here yet - DemO, you're surprisingly well spoken, btw Oo), I thought that I'd throw out a few points for S&G:

1) BA is not perfectly balanced, nor free of uber units: no idea why no one's mentioned Vamps, Hawks and AKs yet, but VAMPS, HAWKS and AKs! =) Gunships are a little weak now, and DDMs are getting a little out of hand, too (not that I don't like it that way <3).
2) Level 1 ground in both AA and BA is disproportionately powerful to level 2. Outside of siege games, I'm not sure what level 2 fighting units're even for anymore as their targetting speeds don't often match their firepower, although BA's level 3's in proper perspective to level 1.
3) Overall, most of BA's changes from AA have been positive (most especially the Fusion changes, which were as immediately noticeable and almost as positive as the Weasel fix).
4) More units almost always = more fun, as more options, even incredibly similar options, are what make AA more than Classic TA (although I'm still up for Classic if any of you bums are); can't think of a single removed AA unit that I haven't missed to some degree or another.
5) Caydr, NOiZE and DayWalkeR all pwn, and if you can't be friendly to one, two, or any of them, then they're at least due the respect of neutrally phrased arguments.

What I don't understand is why people tend to favor, or even largely differentiate between, Caydr's mysterious math or/and veteran intuition like NOiZEr's and Day's when both've proven to have primarily the same flaws, and primarily the same benefits. Every release of every mod has units which have better exploitive purposes than others. Success in games will always depend firstly on overall capacity - a combination of understanding the exponential nature of TA and the capability to keep up with it - which's largely based on experience (in both Spring, TA, and pc games in general) and possibly intelligence, and secondly on veteran's tricks and who can spot the exploits first, or is the fastest to adapt when others spot them.

Why none of you sit down and make an Excel spreadsheet listing all units and their variables, develop a function that converts Metal into Energy into Build Time to determine Overall Cost, decide on arbitrary relative values for most similar units (tier 2 functions as per tier 1 but with 20% more armor and firepower per cost invested; tier 3 functions as per tier 2 but with 20% more armor and firepower per cost invested; Core equivalents function as per Arm but with 10% more armor in exchange for 10% less speed; static defenses have 40% more armor and firepower per resource investment than mobile units per cost invested; +/-1% damage = +/-1% range = +/-1% speed = +/-1% turn rate = +/-1% rate of fire = +/-1% targetting speed = +/-1% armor = +/-1% Line of Sight = etc.; abilities like Cloaking, Jamming, Radar detection, stealth detection, and Capturing cost +20% to overall unit cost; movement benefits like hovering cost +20% to overall unit cost and flying cost +35%), and force all fighting units into that pattern so that Overall Costs for all units are equivalent (with only functions and abilities differentiating between units), then play test the crap outta them in order to adjust _the arbitrary values_ instead of tweaking each unit individually (perhaps with a modified scale for excessive specialization - +20% range translates into -20% firepower on a 1/1 bases, but anything over 20% translates into a 1/2 exchange for any single attribute - all also arbitrarily set and then tested) is beyond me, save possibly that it's too much of a pain in the ass to sit down and do all at once, which I, being terribly lazy, can certainly appreciate.

For that matter, maybe mods are less fun when they don't have OP and UP units that're constantly in flux - it's kinda like "Where's Waldo?" with exploding robots. It's just less fun when it's obvious. ~~

Overall, and I'm not saying this as a slight to anyone, I've found BA's OPing and UPing to be less extreme on average than AA's has been (both historically and recently), so I'll probably stick with it for the time being (unless further BA updates are discontinued and AA's start up again, in which case I'll whore myself out to whatever's staying fresh). Aside from that, may the best mod win. =)

p.s. Forboding, try not to be so angry all the time. It's bad for your skin. Oo
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth » 23 Jan 2007, 08:45

Tired wrote: Why none of you sit down and make an Excel spreadsheet listing all units and their variables, develop a function that converts Metal into Energy into Build Time to determine Overall Cost,
http://cs.selu.edu/~ssmith/spring/balance.xls

This excell document will tell you what the energy/metal usage per gametick is for a unit it wasn't hard.

Bear in mind that even though it says X per second ingame and on here it is not truely that way(long story). Just know that it works out to the same numbers that you would see in spring.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Game Releases”