Tired can you please either write down the exact equation you used for t1 units and scouts amongst them? or can you please pm me all this information.
Would be best if you could just pm me all the equations u used and explain for what each equation was used specificly.
If thats not too hard.
I was looking through your spreedsheet and it is a mess ^^ its hard to really extract the needed info from there.
I cant seem to get a hold of you in the lobby so..
Supreme Annihilation V1.0
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
General gameplay is much more "balanced" than BA's unit setup, and this follows all the way across the board through T2, T3 I havn't seen much of in games so its hard to debate them.
Though very few ,there are a couple unbalanced exceptions (there always will be) and the ARM banshee light gunship does seem like it is a bit OP, but maybe just in comparison to BA's settings for it.
Its just to bad that more people won't take the time to play the mod, as its far superior to BA.
Though very few ,there are a couple unbalanced exceptions (there always will be) and the ARM banshee light gunship does seem like it is a bit OP, but maybe just in comparison to BA's settings for it.
Its just to bad that more people won't take the time to play the mod, as its far superior to BA.
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
Interesting mod, but some strange things exists, for example
http://modinfo.adune.nl/index.php?act=e ... arm&MOD=sa - since what time Infiltrator is amphibious?
http://modinfo.adune.nl/index.php?act=e ... arm&MOD=sa - since what time Infiltrator is amphibious?
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
Isn't it the same in BA as well?
-
[Krogoth86]
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
It once was but that was changed quite some time ago. Maybe you still remember the "bug" that you could build them in subpens although they weren't amphibic anymore...Gota wrote:Isn't it the same in BA as well?
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
Hooray for dead threads.
1v1s are a bit boring because at present they revolve around micro. One of BA's advantages is that its effective combat unit count of 37, combined with similar combat strength / cost for statics and mobile units (disregarding a mobile unit's ability to... move), allows for a rock, paper, scissors environment that discourages defense. 1v1s aren't so much about strategy in BA as reflexes. People who enjoy fps games prefer BA. Most people fall into this category (although I would've expected a smaller portion than we have in such a tiny community).
Which's annoying, as I'm a strategy gamer, and as such prefer the S over the RT. Some people get bored with protracted games that have a lot of downtime - I suggest that these people aren't running numbers in their heads the whole while to keep them occupied.
Banshees are stronger than in BA. They, like almost everything, build faster, they cost 10 less metal, and they do 50% more damage to Commanders (Commanders still get huge damage resistance either way). Getting rid of damage resistance, though desirable from a purely arbitrary point of view, can have a very negative impact where Commanders are concerned. Besides, we're all pretty used to BA legacy damage now anyway (artillery doing 1.5x damage to ships, etc.).
Amphibious Infiltrators make amphibious labs cool. Cool things are cool.
For the tier 1 scouts, the problem arises from the way I combined dps and health to make a single value - "Combat Strength" - instead of keeping them seperate. As such, I could lower the maxdamage to "0" and dps cost would remain high. This, and the high cost of speed, makes the equations less than ideal when units fall out of a certain range (super fast units have trouble).
The simplest solution is to disregard the equations in this specific circumstance and set the dps to whatever you think is fair. I refuse to do this because the whole point of equations is consistent balance that follows the same rules, as opposed to changing units one at a time (works great with specific unit limits, strict unit classes, and a very low overall variety of unit types, but not well at all in a game where roles are flexible and unit counts per faction approach 200. By the same token, the equations support anti-air weapons firing at ground targets, but only if all anti-air weapons do so - Slashers only, for example, wouldn't work at all). This doesn't mean that someone else can't take what exists and do whatever they want with their own mod.
The harder solution is new equations. I resist the idea of calculus's sloping curves as those both place strict limits on attributes that otherwise don't have caps, and haven't proven necessary. I have a thought for a new relative equation that should support scout dps, but it would require subtly changing every other unit cost and several attributes as well, and that's a lot to do by hand. Playtesting would take even longer. If you want, I can post a starter equation that you can fine tune on your own.
1v1s are a bit boring because at present they revolve around micro. One of BA's advantages is that its effective combat unit count of 37, combined with similar combat strength / cost for statics and mobile units (disregarding a mobile unit's ability to... move), allows for a rock, paper, scissors environment that discourages defense. 1v1s aren't so much about strategy in BA as reflexes. People who enjoy fps games prefer BA. Most people fall into this category (although I would've expected a smaller portion than we have in such a tiny community).
Which's annoying, as I'm a strategy gamer, and as such prefer the S over the RT. Some people get bored with protracted games that have a lot of downtime - I suggest that these people aren't running numbers in their heads the whole while to keep them occupied.
Banshees are stronger than in BA. They, like almost everything, build faster, they cost 10 less metal, and they do 50% more damage to Commanders (Commanders still get huge damage resistance either way). Getting rid of damage resistance, though desirable from a purely arbitrary point of view, can have a very negative impact where Commanders are concerned. Besides, we're all pretty used to BA legacy damage now anyway (artillery doing 1.5x damage to ships, etc.).
Amphibious Infiltrators make amphibious labs cool. Cool things are cool.
For the tier 1 scouts, the problem arises from the way I combined dps and health to make a single value - "Combat Strength" - instead of keeping them seperate. As such, I could lower the maxdamage to "0" and dps cost would remain high. This, and the high cost of speed, makes the equations less than ideal when units fall out of a certain range (super fast units have trouble).
The simplest solution is to disregard the equations in this specific circumstance and set the dps to whatever you think is fair. I refuse to do this because the whole point of equations is consistent balance that follows the same rules, as opposed to changing units one at a time (works great with specific unit limits, strict unit classes, and a very low overall variety of unit types, but not well at all in a game where roles are flexible and unit counts per faction approach 200. By the same token, the equations support anti-air weapons firing at ground targets, but only if all anti-air weapons do so - Slashers only, for example, wouldn't work at all). This doesn't mean that someone else can't take what exists and do whatever they want with their own mod.
The harder solution is new equations. I resist the idea of calculus's sloping curves as those both place strict limits on attributes that otherwise don't have caps, and haven't proven necessary. I have a thought for a new relative equation that should support scout dps, but it would require subtly changing every other unit cost and several attributes as well, and that's a lot to do by hand. Playtesting would take even longer. If you want, I can post a starter equation that you can fine tune on your own.
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
Do it.
And wy didnt you answer my pm?
I wanted to fix SA's scouts but further more i want to expand upon the equations and i have some stuff i need to know from you about the way you priritized things and other stuff as well.
For example why do you make speed be such a costly attribute. and why did u do and avarage with the combat strangth.
If a unit is faster its other attributes will be lower thus making it weaker when confronting other units that are slower.
Sure the faster a unit is the more flexible it is on the battlefield but your equations only stop the potential of faster units to a degree and only on certain maps.
The fact you emphesized speed,making it a costly attribute,you held down the diversity of unit speeds.
Faster units will always be more usefull at certain map sizes but they will still be unable to replace the use of other units.
Sure youll get more raiders spam on huge maps up to a point but the units will still be balanced unlike the BA flash for example which not only was faster but could actually overcome slower more costly units head to head.
Speed differances and the prevailence of faster units can be overcome in a a direct and wholesome way by other means.
Im saying all this so you can enlighten me on what logical path i am missing here.
Why is speed so excentuated.
Another thing.
If i make an equation that will divide effectivness/cost to create a ratio to which all other unit will comply what do you think of this.
Please give me your equation and explain your thought behind it.
I want to add more stats like accuracy for example also i think a future equation must also consider the fact that units that cost more must recieve a bonus and a lower cost than the one it is suppose to get.
Ill giv an example.If you start building a krogoth whilt the enemy is building lighter unit by the time your krogoth is builtthose units would have started to do dmg and serve their urpose so i think an equation should also rebalance costs by lowering costs of units depending on their costs by a certian percentage depending ontheunits original cost,the higher the original costs is the more cost reduction it gets,obvioulsy the reduction should be small but i think it is essential.quantifying it is hard and this is of course the final part of the equation after all other stats have been integrated in it to the extant possible.
And wy didnt you answer my pm?
I wanted to fix SA's scouts but further more i want to expand upon the equations and i have some stuff i need to know from you about the way you priritized things and other stuff as well.
For example why do you make speed be such a costly attribute. and why did u do and avarage with the combat strangth.
If a unit is faster its other attributes will be lower thus making it weaker when confronting other units that are slower.
Sure the faster a unit is the more flexible it is on the battlefield but your equations only stop the potential of faster units to a degree and only on certain maps.
The fact you emphesized speed,making it a costly attribute,you held down the diversity of unit speeds.
Faster units will always be more usefull at certain map sizes but they will still be unable to replace the use of other units.
Sure youll get more raiders spam on huge maps up to a point but the units will still be balanced unlike the BA flash for example which not only was faster but could actually overcome slower more costly units head to head.
Speed differances and the prevailence of faster units can be overcome in a a direct and wholesome way by other means.
Im saying all this so you can enlighten me on what logical path i am missing here.
Why is speed so excentuated.
Another thing.
If i make an equation that will divide effectivness/cost to create a ratio to which all other unit will comply what do you think of this.
Please give me your equation and explain your thought behind it.
I want to add more stats like accuracy for example also i think a future equation must also consider the fact that units that cost more must recieve a bonus and a lower cost than the one it is suppose to get.
Ill giv an example.If you start building a krogoth whilt the enemy is building lighter unit by the time your krogoth is builtthose units would have started to do dmg and serve their urpose so i think an equation should also rebalance costs by lowering costs of units depending on their costs by a certian percentage depending ontheunits original cost,the higher the original costs is the more cost reduction it gets,obvioulsy the reduction should be small but i think it is essential.quantifying it is hard and this is of course the final part of the equation after all other stats have been integrated in it to the extant possible.
-
[Krogoth86]
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
I find this somehow strange. Isn't that part of the strategies you have to apply i.e. to exaggerate it you don't start building a Krog while generally being on T1 and having your enemy doing the Flash spam. I think choices like this are quite strategic and it for example shows nicely in MA where (units') buildtimes are directly related to metal costs and so you have to decide if you go for a cheaper unit you'll have fast or a heavy unit you have to wait a bit longer for. It depends of your analysis of the situation and what fits best...Gota wrote:Another thing.
If i make an equation that will divide effectivness/cost to create a ratio to which all other unit will comply what do you think of this.
Besides that it would be stupid when for example two players do the same - let's say both go for a Krog again. I don't think it would be kinda lame to have penalties on that unit for a strategy the enemy didn't apply at all...
-
[Krogoth86]
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
Well to somehow make it a short version:Gota wrote:I dont understand.
Don't let the stats be too much influenced by buildtime and let this part be sort of a strategic decision instead because if you don't it in the end will have little difference if you build a unit that takes long to build or build a couple of "weaker" units. That would make it rather dull...
The player should be sort of rewarded by handling a situation where his enemy probably has stronger forces (at least in terms of invested ressources) while he for himself still is building stuff and not having this somehow balanced away...
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
But that is the purpose of my suggestion.
To reward people who are building heavy units.
Cause the time you are investing in say a hydra can be invested into building smaller lighter ships but if say heavy ship x is as cost effective as 7 y ships when the x ship is built it is as cost effective as those 7 y ships but when 1 y ship is built it wont wait for another 6 of the same kind to be built it is sent straigfht to battle dealing dmg so what you get is that the 7y ships are actually more effective than the 1 x ship.
You are basiclly punished for building a heavier ship even though it is as cost effective as a few smaller ships.
When it will be built those 7 ships can fend it off but they alread ywere influancing the game before the big ship was built so the guy building the big ship actually has no motivation mathematicly to build a heavier ship.
The purpose it not even to reward them but just making building heavy ships worthwhile and when ufinally build one it will give you a mathematical advantage over people who built smaller ships for the same price and were already in an advantage over you cause you were taking a lot of time to build one heavy unit.
Anyway it is a very small factor and for me is irelevant ATM.
What i would like to understand from Tired Is how he gave appropriate value for every stat.
For example when you have an equation different parts of it can influance it on a diffrent degree and since different stats values can verray alote, like turn rate and health(turn rate is single numbers and hp can be thousands) of a unit how do i know to what extant should each of those influance the cost of a unit.
why was speed halved ?why is hp divided by 1k?that is just a guess?
To reward people who are building heavy units.
Cause the time you are investing in say a hydra can be invested into building smaller lighter ships but if say heavy ship x is as cost effective as 7 y ships when the x ship is built it is as cost effective as those 7 y ships but when 1 y ship is built it wont wait for another 6 of the same kind to be built it is sent straigfht to battle dealing dmg so what you get is that the 7y ships are actually more effective than the 1 x ship.
You are basiclly punished for building a heavier ship even though it is as cost effective as a few smaller ships.
When it will be built those 7 ships can fend it off but they alread ywere influancing the game before the big ship was built so the guy building the big ship actually has no motivation mathematicly to build a heavier ship.
The purpose it not even to reward them but just making building heavy ships worthwhile and when ufinally build one it will give you a mathematical advantage over people who built smaller ships for the same price and were already in an advantage over you cause you were taking a lot of time to build one heavy unit.
Anyway it is a very small factor and for me is irelevant ATM.
What i would like to understand from Tired Is how he gave appropriate value for every stat.
For example when you have an equation different parts of it can influance it on a diffrent degree and since different stats values can verray alote, like turn rate and health(turn rate is single numbers and hp can be thousands) of a unit how do i know to what extant should each of those influance the cost of a unit.
why was speed halved ?why is hp divided by 1k?that is just a guess?
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
Just want to say that this community has failed me.
You all suck.
After many attempts at balance this mod has come the closest.
Not only does it allow the use of much more of the units than the rest of the mods and does it in a natural way but it contains so much more subtalties than ba or ca.
After people have been screaming for ages that x is unbalanced or y is over powered a mod comes that improves the situation by ten folds.
This mod has been created by Tired that has a habit of trolling and antegonizing people but i thought that by pressing hard enough convincing people to actually play the mod and understand it,some people can go past all that horse crap and actually understand how good it is,whether by accident or intentionaly.
I am sorry to say that that is not true.
Your lose.
You all suck.
After many attempts at balance this mod has come the closest.
Not only does it allow the use of much more of the units than the rest of the mods and does it in a natural way but it contains so much more subtalties than ba or ca.
After people have been screaming for ages that x is unbalanced or y is over powered a mod comes that improves the situation by ten folds.
This mod has been created by Tired that has a habit of trolling and antegonizing people but i thought that by pressing hard enough convincing people to actually play the mod and understand it,some people can go past all that horse crap and actually understand how good it is,whether by accident or intentionaly.
I am sorry to say that that is not true.
Your lose.
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
its more of the same. if you made somthing intuitive instead of just trying to wrestle the crown off BA devs by creating yet another farking AA fork then it would get attention, as it is this does not, just like every other *A fork. I realise that uber efforts went in getting it balanced but if you cant make the BA devs swallow it its not going to happen because a huge part of a gaming community is made up of lazy bigoted idiots, and they would rather die than change mod- to the point where they will refuse to try another mod at any cost.
-
[Krogoth86]
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
Well I think this is wrong. I mean there are enough non-TA mods out there that are worth playing but pretty much nobody does. Even the TA-themed mods like CA, MA, SA and NOTA don't get that much attention although as Gota said there always are people begging for finally doing some balancing on certain aspects of BA and might like another mod giving this some attention...1v0ry_k1ng wrote:its more of the same. if you made somthing intuitive instead of just trying to wrestle the crown off BA devs by creating yet another farking AA fork then it would get attention, as it is this does not, just like every other *A fork.
CA might be sort of a small exception as it gets bigger games going sometimes. I think that's probably because there's an entire team behind it hosting and playing it while mods like MA, SA and NOTA more or less are one man shows - so joining a game that already has 3 players is much more likely than to join one with just a single player in it. Ok and in contrast to MA and SA it also has had a way longer time to create a playerbase...
Maybe you can't ask this of a community with only about 150 accounts online at a time and with many idlers / bots shrinking the number of players looking for a game down. Subtracting 5 to 7 big BA games that are rolling there's not much space left for other mods...
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
You mean innovative, intuitive means easy to learn1v0ry_k1ng wrote:if you made somthing intuitive instead of just trying to wrestle the crown off BA devs by creating yet another farking AA fork then it would get attention, [..]
. For a practical example, Fibre is the former but not the latter.Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
Krogoth - SA also uses Build Times that directly relate to metal cost. MA, while fun to try, places far too much emphasis on factory spam.
KDR - Thanks for the grammar lesson. Please remember to place commas before conjunctions in the future.
1v0ry - BA's developers actually did sign off on SA. It did very well on opening day, with two more or less dedicated hosts staying full round the clock. No autohosts, or additional hosts of any other variety, combined with a two week trip I left on to cause instantaneous decline. For now, I don't feel like bothering with the mod. Always easier to pick on other mods and the fools who play them without understanding their mechanics than to do anything productive yourself.
Gota - Longer build times in general are countered by increased attrition resistance; no incremental gain, no incremental loss. I'd throw out some formulas for you to work with, but I don't feel like it right now. Sounds pretty terrible, right? Why should any of us do something we don't feel like doing, though? =) I'll probably get around to it at some point. In the meantime, bug someone into making an Excel >> fbi batch converter to make implementation easy.
On a final note, I troll because most people are willfully stupid, ignorance not being so relevent as the opinions that derive from said. That, and it's fun.
KDR - Thanks for the grammar lesson. Please remember to place commas before conjunctions in the future.
1v0ry - BA's developers actually did sign off on SA. It did very well on opening day, with two more or less dedicated hosts staying full round the clock. No autohosts, or additional hosts of any other variety, combined with a two week trip I left on to cause instantaneous decline. For now, I don't feel like bothering with the mod. Always easier to pick on other mods and the fools who play them without understanding their mechanics than to do anything productive yourself.
Gota - Longer build times in general are countered by increased attrition resistance; no incremental gain, no incremental loss. I'd throw out some formulas for you to work with, but I don't feel like it right now. Sounds pretty terrible, right? Why should any of us do something we don't feel like doing, though? =) I'll probably get around to it at some point. In the meantime, bug someone into making an Excel >> fbi batch converter to make implementation easy.
On a final note, I troll because most people are willfully stupid, ignorance not being so relevent as the opinions that derive from said. That, and it's fun.
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
HOORAY!!!!!
-
[Krogoth86]
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
Well I wouldn't rate the lab system you decide to use as plain good / bad. Both ways (i.e. either assistance or multi-labs) have their pros and cons...Tired wrote:Krogoth - SA also uses Build Times that directly relate to metal cost. MA, while fun to try, places far too much emphasis on factory spam.
MA's system provides you a non-centralized, highly flexible and very "fluid" system which even is a bit more performant because of way less nano-particles. Non-centralized means you aren't tied to build your labs inside your main base where the labs are "safe" from enemies killing the most likely used nanos and rendering your total build capacity to 0 in a matter of seconds. It's highly flexible as you can have multiple tress at once and don't have to focus on just Vehicles for example until later in the game - you can form some new "hybrid-tactics". Being more "fluid" means that you don't just turn a switch and have changed production to level 2 (i.e. your nanos turn around to help that T2 lab you've built next to them). You get T2 "additionally" with the multi-lab system and so have to mix T1 and T2 units for good until having enough labs to spend all the ressources you want on the higher tech-level. This might force you to learn about good T1/T2 combos...
That probably are the main pros that made me do it the way it is in MA. So most of your "too much emphasis on factory spam" is about something where the main issue is either making labs assistable or not - there's no room for an emphasis because it's about yes or no...
You may happen to like the (nano) assistance system more though and so you can make a perfectly valid point for yourself on this topic...
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
ACTUALLY you are supposed to put a comma before a conjunction that combines two sentences into one. "Not the latter" can not stand on its own as a sentence.KDR - Thanks for the grammar lesson. Please remember to place commas before conjunctions in the future.
Re: Supreme Annihilation V1.0
Maelstrom already made that, i guess i could look it up for you sometime, its somewhere on my comp. maybe i can try to find ity this weekend if i remember.Tired wrote: In the meantime, bug someone into making an Excel >> fbi batch converter to make implementation easy.