CA X BA discussion

[The_Big_Boss]

Det, your my hero. You hit the nail on the head. I have to take this over to the xta forum. We've been wrestling with this problem for months now.

[Noruas]

Oh, the BA people want what the CA people's got
And the CA people want what the BA people's got
And the NOTA people want what the XTA people's got
And the XTA people want what the NOTA people's got

You can never please anybody in this TOPIC

The SA people want what the MA people's got
And the MA people want what the SA people's got
The GUNDAM kids want what the EE kid's got
And the EE kids want what the GUNDAM kid's got

You can never please anybody in this TOPIC

Oh, the girls with short hair want long hair
And the girls with long hair want short hair
Oh, the boys with spring want girls
And the boys with girls want spring

You can never please anybody in this world

It doesn't matter what you do
It doesn't matter what you say
There will always be
One who wants things the opposite way

It doesn't matter where you go
It doesn't matter who you see
There will always be
Someone who disagrees

We do our best
We try to please
But we're like the rest
Whenever at ease

Oh, the BA people want what the CA people's got
And the CA people want what the BA people's got
And the XTA people want what the NOTA people's got
And the NOTA people want what the XTA people's got

You can never please anybody in this TOPIC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTNo80YmRVM

[Teutooni]

The XP morphing seems like a good thing to me, in some water matches I specced the players (Sak and det IIRC) often tried to get ships up to an XP level at which they could be morphed into T2 ships which made high exp units very valuable and meant there were occassional T2 units in play without either player paying the huge cost for teching up.

This is another reason I don't like morphing. I hate RTS's with RPG elements. I get too attached to certain elite units, and it clouds my judgement. I'll be reluctant to throw them into certain death, even if it is the only way to win. It also tempts me to overmicro units to farm more exp, and leaves less time for the strategy part.

Personal preference of course.

[manored]

I also disagree with the xp morphing stuff, tough I never ever remember that units have xp in TA, and thus dont care for it :)

I disagree mostly because I also dont like rpg elements on strategy games, but a bit because it makes no sense as well, like, the robots have hive mind (for example if one sees something other robots with enough attack range start shooting immediatly, almost like they were the ones to see it) so all robots should learn something if one learns something from battle...

[BlueTemplar]

It's about gameplay: some people will rather concentrate on building their base and sending waves of units, others will like more to control a small group of units harassing the enemy.
With both options everyone will be happy.

[KDR_11k]

I think arguments about preferring strategy in an RTS are borderline silly, almost nothing in an RTS is really strategic level. Strategic decisions would be like "do I econ boom or rush the enemy?", tactics is how you implement that strategy. If you reduce an RTS to strategic decisions you click once every five minutes and once you memorized the right strategies for each map it's just boring.

[rattle]

But I like games that play for themselves...

[Machiosabre]

you make the strategic choices in the lobby, like what side you're on and what map and then in game your start pos, thats about it.

[Crayfish]

For my part, I love morphing.

I also just thought of a bizarre solution for the T2 dilemma, large amounts of constructors, morphing and the separation of economy.

The research centre. It divests resources into researching a single higher tech unit or factory at a time, selected as a build queue. Before research has opened up the unit/building, it cannot be built or morphed to. Players would need to start the game with a plan of which units and buildings they want to be able to build, predicting their palette of options in advance. This would mean that different games would look quite different with varying subsets of units in play (at least in the early-mid game).

This measure would obviate the need for a T1/T2 constructor distinction at all (with the build list of a single constructor tech level expanding during the game), and would eliminate the requirement for the economy centre (with mohos etc. being separately researched items in the researched centre).

Not sure how it'd fit into the story - maybe it could be called a 'Pattern Downloader' or something, extracting information from a central galactic repository.

I realise this doesn't really fit into CA's ethos of opening up build options and encouraging quick games, but on the other hand it would promote the use of T1 units, with T2/T3 units becoming harder to reach and more 'special'. It'd require major changes to balancing of course, with most T2/3 units becoming a bit stronger.

[Otherside]

as it stands tier 2 dusnt obsolete tier 1 in CA..

I still find myself using alot of tier 1 more so than tier 2 even wen i can build tier 2. This isnt to say tier 2 is weak just that tier 1 dusnt rilly get obsolete and can still do fairly well vs tier 2 and is still required thru out the later stages of a game. This ofc dusnt mean its not worth teching to tier 2 cos u get alot of options u dont get at tier 1 (long ranged arty and specialised units)

This is all Ultimately CA's goal to make tier 2 advanced options whilst preserving tier 1 thru out all stages of the games and at the same time making tier 2 highly viable aswell as tier 1. Once tier 2 is more balanced the goal will be achieved :]

[manored]

I think it already was :) At least in most part, tough some units might need some balancing. The Krow for example, it doesnt seens to be worth
its cost if compared to other gunships. I imagine that due to the fact it uses the same anti-spam laser than the sumo that it is probally meant to be a anti-spam unit rather than a raiding one, but I dont think a anti-spam unit costing 5000 metal is very usefull :)

[Teutooni]

I think arguments about preferring strategy in an RTS are borderline silly, almost nothing in an RTS is really strategic level. Strategic decisions would be like "do I econ boom or rush the enemy?", tactics is how you implement that strategy. If you reduce an RTS to strategic decisions you click once every five minutes and once you memorized the right strategies for each map it's just boring.

By strategy I mean stuff like taking a good look of the battlefield, how allies are doing, guessing or scouting what the enemy is up to, and making of long term decisions based on that. Like deciding to aid an ally in a combined offensive, how to balance each offensive action vs economy growth, which units to build etc. Yes, a game purely based on strategy would most likely be boring. I never said CA/BA should be pure strategy.

[manored]

Well in some pure strategy games you can see the results of your strategy in a tactic manner, so they are fun :)

[Gota]

Shit i dont want anything from other mods i just want someone to play 1v1 SA with me.

[manored]

AI :)

[Complicated]

This is why I left :]

Too many bugs, too much danger of being involved with Illegal unpermissioned Mod.

[manored]

Atari doesnt even knows that it owns TA rights... :)

[CarRepairer]

I also disagree with the xp morphing stuff, tough I never ever remember that units have xp in TA, and thus dont care for it :)

I disagree mostly because I also dont like rpg elements on strategy games, but a bit because it makes no sense as well, like, the robots have hive mind (for example if one sees something other robots with enough attack range start shooting immediatly, almost like they were the ones to see it) so all robots should learn something if one learns something from battle...

Here is my take on explaining experience in TA derived games, including CA:

Each robot is made in a factory, and due to imperfections in the manufacturing process no two will ever truly be alike down to the molecular level. Thus each robot must go out on the battlefield and perfect itself by firing its weapons, taking in the results of the data as it hits and kills enemy units. Also, each map has different environmental factors as well and the robot must test its own abilities in this brand new world. It analyzes the data which it collects and then is able to make adjustments to its programming and its body as needed. This makes it a better soldier as an individual. So it gains better accuracy and HP (although I'm iffy on the HP).

As for XP morphing, I was not a fan of that either (and I work on CA) for the reasons some of said in this thread. It does seem RPGish and it takes from the realism that I want reflected in a game by implying there's some sort of inner nanolathe. But I can't help but admit it is fun and a good gameplay element. Try combining it with retreat, it's really cool.

[manored]

YA, but I would rather have units be morphable then the factory or contructor that built the unit they were going to morph to existed, just like with mohos...

[LBF_Vachequirit]

ok, it's funny cause even though the majority of players still play BA, there's a huge bias towards CA in this thread, maybe cause CA believers are more around the forums ?

Now i played a few CA games in the last month. The 1V1's i did were extremely tactic and interresting games. The team games i did were clearly not as entertaining.

I think the whole way T2 econ and units are, make them totally uninterresting (IE, not worth the time building/ using them) and that is IMO a shame. BA suffers a little bit from the same phenomenon, but it's not nearly as bad as in CA.

Since the L2 eco is highly uninterresting (wich is a pity, i mean, making porc eco uneffective may be good, but making the whole L2 eco uneffective is silly IMHO, you might aswell remove it), L2 units are too expensive, and not powerfull enough to balance L1 units.

In 1V1 this is not a problem since 1V1's rarely reach T2. In team game it's a really big problem, since you'll always have someone trying to reach and use T2 , and making the game immediately slow and unfun.

For now, even if CA is way more promising (more fun in some ways, more tactics, better graphisms) BA is still WAY more balanced imo.

and , even if i understand the principle of an evolving mod, and if i see how it can be extremely fun to play it for CA's devellopers, CA is simply very hard to learn at the moment,cause it's always changing and i won't seriously invest into playing it before it gets into some sort of a mature version.

you really shouldn't underestimate the power AND good sides of a mod that simply doesn't change, or very little. It justs allow you to develop things that you couldn't develop if the mod changes everytime. After one year of playing there are still things i don't master in BA.

As for the comments about BA being silly in tactics, and players of BA being silly aswell , you guys should just grow up and get some interresting topics to talk about in your life, so you don't uselessly rant about what other people love. Being ignorant and meanlessly proud at the same time shouldn't be allowed.

BA tactics are a lot more than just doing the more units possible. Most wise CA devs know that, and the fact that some silly fanbois just choose to ignore it, is highly detrimental to the image of the community imo.

Learn from saktoth attitude, that may only cause some good