Balanced Annihilation V5.91 - Page 16

Balanced Annihilation V5.91

All game release threads should be posted here

Moderator: Moderators

YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by YokoZar »

Evil4Zerggin wrote:Is it intended that the advanced shipyard does not leave a corpse when destroyed by torpedo bombers (not sure about other units or torpedoes)?

Also, in a few games yesterday I saw a lot of Gimp spam, which succeeded in doing major damage to several sea players. Some people complained it was OP; I myself am split on the issue. A non-exclusive list of points:

Arguments For Gimp Being OP
360 degree torpedo offsets its slower speed relative to subs.
Cheapest underwater unit with an attack.
Amphibious, so has some use outside of water.
Sea players often have a hard time defending against attacks; they rarely have chokepoints, and they must defend against air, hover, and underwater, of which no weapon can defend attack more than one of these effectively at a time. Once a sea player owns the sea, the generally-held assumption is that they no longer have to worry much about underwater attacks, but with the Gimp this is no longer true.

Arguments Against Gimp Being OP
Built only at the T2 Kbot lab, which is not terribly popular otherwise, and has less underwater capability otherwise, and by the naval engineer, which is sea anyway.
Gimp is not very good on land.
Vulnerable to torpedo bombers.
If the sea player owns their sea, they should be able to scout the enemy regularly and thus see the Gimps coming. If the sea player does not own their sea, they should have ASW anyway.

Other Issues
ARM has no equivalent to the Gimp.
I'll take credit for starting this Gimp spam trend.


Some other things to note:
  • Gimps destroy sub-killers. They cost 1/3 as much, don't take bonus damage, and have about 3x the hit points.
  • One on one, a gimp can often kill a t1 destroyer or submarine. It's much cheaper than either. The advanced kbot lab costs about as much as 4 or 5 ships.
  • For some reason, gimps can attack floating radar towers but not hovers.
  • Gimps are very vulnerable when entering the water. A cruiser or floating heavy laser tower could probably pick off about 6 of them. This is a good thing for balance, unless you're stuck with a very large coastline
I'm split on what role gimps (and pelicans) should play. On the one hand I'd like to see a unit for a land player to try and take back the sea other than spamming artillery near the shore and digging in hard - gimps fulfill this role quite nicely, though pelicans are substantially weaker vs ships, especially stuff like cruisers.

Gimps are also the only land unit other than torpedo planes that can kill submarines. This is important, since otherwise a sea player can easily prevent an opponent from creeping back in by just having a few basic subs around the coast and picking off any t1 torpedo launchers or shipyards that attempt to get built.

Pelicans, on the other hand, are much better on land than gimps. Their included AA also provides a great defense for a common counter to surprise attacks from the sea by using planes defensively.


Currently, the gimp is a bit counter-intuitive. No one was really expecting gimp spam to work as a sea strategy - most people think it's basically a can with fewer hit points that can go underwater. In fact it's weapon is much weaker than a can, and its torpedos are quite strong vs the rather low hit point sea units.


One possibility I'd like to raise is to substantially raise both sub unit hit points and asw damage. It's kind of weird that a gimp has as much hit points as a battle sub.
User avatar
Sleksa
Posts: 1604
Joined: 04 Feb 2006, 20:58

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by Sleksa »

Evil4Zerggin wrote: Arguments For Gimp Being OP
GOOD JOB ON LOSING ALL YOUR RESPECT IN ONE, WELL THOUGHT OUT SENTENCE
YokoZar wrote:I'll take credit for starting this Gimp spam trend.
yeah like forboding took credit of mass ak/lev after day used it in a couple of games
User avatar
KingRaptor
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 838
Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 03:44

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by KingRaptor »

I imagine rigging the coast with T1 subs and torp launchers would work, as would a microed cruiser.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by YokoZar »

KingRaptor wrote:I imagine rigging the coast with T1 subs and torp launchers would work, as would a microed cruiser.
You'd need the advanced torp launchers. Cost for cost gimps kill the t1 ones pretty well. Same with the t1 subs.

edit: also, it takes about 10 cruiser depth charge hits to kill a gimp. It takes at most 47 gimp hits to kill a cruiser (though likely less due to bonus shield and the gimps hitting the cruiser from multiple sides). Gimps cost about 1/5 as much. So far it seems about even... until we consider that gimps shoot twice as fast as the cruiser. The cruiser does outranges them slightly, so you'd need really good micro (and a lot of space to run to) in order to come out ahead.

Really, the cruiser's best hope is to shoot them before they get into the water.
DZHIBRISH
Posts: 357
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 22:28

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by DZHIBRISH »

Blasphemy!!!There are no unbalanced units in BA.
can someone torture this heretic till he confesses of working for the devil.
User avatar
LordMatt
Posts: 3393
Joined: 15 May 2005, 04:26

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by LordMatt »

I've found torpedo seaplanes effective against gimps.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by Neddie »

The funny thing is that all respondents with real replies are addressing the assertion that the Gimp is overpowered, which is not what Zerggin was stating in the initial post. There are two positions, and I assert that by showing you both he intends to demonstrate the subjectivity of balance and close the discussion on the Gimp until something... new... occurs.
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by el_matarife »

Every single mobile vertical launch rocket unit is screwed up when using the SVN version of Spring. They're all shooting way way short of their maximum range, and in the case of T2 vehicle / kbot rocket launchers very very much so. They need a case of Viagra pronto.
User avatar
Evil4Zerggin
Posts: 557
Joined: 16 May 2007, 06:34

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by Evil4Zerggin »

I posted here because I saw Gimps do a lot of damage in a couple games, and I hadn't really seen Gimps used much before. Now, I'm not the most experienced player, and of course it wouldn't be right to go OMG GIMPS OP on the basis of watching a couple games. But at the same time I can't ignore it either. I'm just throwing it out here so that I can see what other people, who probably have more and/or different experiences with Gimps, think about them.
User avatar
LordMatt
Posts: 3393
Joined: 15 May 2005, 04:26

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by LordMatt »

el_matarife wrote:Every single mobile vertical launch rocket unit is screwed up when using the SVN version of Spring. They're all shooting way way short of their maximum range, and in the case of T2 vehicle / kbot rocket launchers very very much so. They need a case of Viagra pronto.
Well the complete list of units affected is:

Code: Select all

MERL ARMTRUCK_ROCKET
Diplomat CORTRUCK_ROCKET
Dominator CORHRK_ROCKET
Wombat ARMMH_WEAPON
Nixer CORMH_WEAPON
Ranger ARMMSHIP_ROCKET
Messanger CORMSHIP_ROCKET
Shiva CORHRK_ROCKET
I'm trying to fix this.
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by el_matarife »

LordMatt wrote:I'm trying to fix this.
Static launchers did seem to work, but the missiles seemed a little slower and lower flying I think.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by YokoZar »

They're on cylinder rather than sphere range right?
[Krogoth86]
Posts: 1176
Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by [Krogoth86] »

LordMatt wrote:Well the complete list of units affected is:

Code: Select all

MERL ARMTRUCK_ROCKET
Diplomat CORTRUCK_ROCKET
Dominator CORHRK_ROCKET
Wombat ARMMH_WEAPON
Nixer CORMH_WEAPON
Ranger ARMMSHIP_ROCKET
Messanger CORMSHIP_ROCKET
Shiva CORHRK_ROCKET
I'm trying to fix this.
Well I had those problems for all V-Launch two phase missiles i.e. Nukes, Anti-Nukes and Tactical Missiles suffer from this too (although I could fix the Nukes etc. by setting up a very high acceleration which is what is wrong about them in SVN)...
User avatar
LordMatt
Posts: 3393
Joined: 15 May 2005, 04:26

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by LordMatt »

I'm fixing them by adjusting flighttime and weapontime, which don't affect the balance of the missiles at all (e.g. make them better at hitting things), rather they just make them do what they do currently.
User avatar
Pressure Line
Posts: 2283
Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by Pressure Line »

changes made in KDR's weapons patch btw. all those tags that never used to do anything with vlaunch 2 stage missiles now do.
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by el_matarife »

The final testing of the SVN version of Spring is going on today, are we going to have a working BA version to go with it? :)

EDITED TO ADD: Looks like LordMatt's fixes work, vlaunch units seem better now.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by KDR_11k »

Weapontimer affects the time it travels vertically. Flighttime, startvelocity and weaponacceleration are new (as well as turnrate for the turn at the top). Removing any of those restores the default behaviour.
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by el_matarife »

Proposal: Add the Bladewing EMP beam to the Core Spy. It already costs more and takes long to build than ARM's spy, so why not add a small EMP gun to it? Yes, you'd have to set it to return fire or hold fire if you didn't want to use it, but it would let you get away from small attacking units if you get caught.
User avatar
Machiosabre
Posts: 1474
Joined: 25 Dec 2005, 22:56

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by Machiosabre »

:-/ it has the emp explosion already I dont see why it should get a gun, if you're just spying on a single weak unit its a waste of time anyway.

though its stupid that another carbon copy has extra costs for negligible hp boosts or something.

same with the core windmill extra 7 metal and 80 buildtime for 3 extra health! alright! its not a big difference but its just so pointless.
north
Posts: 2
Joined: 01 Jan 2008, 23:12

Re: Balanced Annihilation V5.91

Post by north »

Machiosabre wrote::-/ it has the emp explosion already I dont see why it should get a gun, if you're just spying on a single weak unit its a waste of time anyway.
It's not for spying on a unit, it's for getting away from a unit and surviving to spy another day.

Cores spy also turns slower which is a problem because spies have to run around things alot.

It would be able to make use of its extra HP this way, the arm emp spider turret would fit on the spy if it needs one.
Locked

Return to “Game Releases”