Balanced Annihilation V6.31 - Page 16

Balanced Annihilation V6.31

All game release threads should be posted here

Moderator: Moderators

Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Saktoth »

Corpse metal is vital to make offensive use of the commander (that INCLUDES combombing) risky.

I dont think thats the sort of thing noize would ever change.

Is noize still around and updating BA...?
User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by ginekolog »

[quote="Saktoth"]Corpse metal is vital to make offensive use of the commander (that INCLUDES combombing) risky.
[quote]

+1

2500 corpse is actually good balance tool. If i push too far with my com i riske being combombed. If enemy pushes too far, i will 100% combom em and try to claim 5k. Its all about strategy and good thinking when to bomb. Ofc it all fails when enemy has some AA in front.
User avatar
caldera
Posts: 388
Joined: 18 Oct 2005, 20:56

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by caldera »

it should be reduced to somewhat around 1.5k, because i think its not the intention of a commander to be self-destructed after 3 minutes to get the nuke ready in under 10 minutes...
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by TheFatController »

caldera wrote:it should be reduced to somewhat around 1.5k, because i think its not the intention of a commander to be self-destructed after 3 minutes to get the nuke ready in under 10 minutes...
If someone's doing that they're leaving their base with no commander and i'm guessing very little defense - it's then the other teams fault if they manage to get a 10 minute nuke for not rushing them.
Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Saktoth »

The game is designed for com ends. This is what noize would say.

Players could just blow their com and give all their stuff to an ally so -they- can rush nukes (or flash tanks or whatever), of course...
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Gota »

2500 isnt some logical choice nor is it nessesarily the best.
I know many who read this thread think BA is sacred and has underwent regoreous testing and was thought completly through but i am sorry to inform you that is not so.
Why 2500? why not 3000? why not 2000?
A player who recieves 5k metal after a combomb will,if he is at about the same level of play as his enemy,most definatly win.
A strategy game like BA should avoid such extreme situations IMO.
Even the best of players can fuck up but should a mistimed combomb end a game cause of the commander's wreckage?
Id say a figure between 2000 and 1500 would make for a nice test.
If one team gets 4k its is still a huge bonus.
Its around 20 stumpies 40 flash or a t2 lab of choice.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Jazcash »

Or decapitating wrecks which slowly disappear into the ground losing metal worth as they go :D Then everyone would rush the com wrecks <3
User avatar
MR.D
Posts: 1527
Joined: 06 Aug 2005, 13:15

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by MR.D »

Saktoth wrote:The game is designed for com ends. This is what noize would say.
The majority of the BA pub player base don't play COM-ENDS.
Nor do they want to, nor should they be forced to unless they want it.

If noize and all the PROs' that play 1V1 COM ends want to play it that way, fine, because reducing the commander's metal doesn't affect their game, the gameplay, or the balance at all what so ever for 1v1's.

Its bad enough to lose your commander, but when its done as a desperate tactic, as happens far too much in BA games, its even worse to give a reward to such tactics.

When you're commander dies, you lose 1000 Metal storage forcing you to build your own metal storage, you lose 1000 E storage which shuts down any MM you have running, and unless your team helps out, your enemy just runs away with 2500 metal advantage on top of your loss to pretty much cakewalk over you, almost ensuring that your team is going to be permanently behind or lose shortly after.

Either way, for team games that play COM-Continues its too much at stake and really "unbalanced" early gameplay.

I know that the metal wreck needs to be sufficient enough to allow it to remain intact for resurrection, maybe there is some other way around that so a com corpse isn't so powerful.

Can the com corpse be set to be destroyable=0 reclaim=0 and able to be resurrected?

Maybe it can be worked into a Com Continues sub mod?
[Krogoth86]
Posts: 1176
Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by [Krogoth86] »

Mr.D wrote:Can the com corpse be set to be destroyable=0 reclaim=0 and able to be resurrected?
Reclaimable=0 in the corpse definition makes it non-reclaimable while you still can order resurrectors on it...
User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2382
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by REVENGE »

HA! How about adding com corpse properties as modoptions? :lol:
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Gota »

From BA's past dev decisions i think the only thing u can expect is a slight reduce or increase in the com's wreck.
User avatar
Acidd_UK
Posts: 963
Joined: 23 Apr 2006, 02:15

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Acidd_UK »

Maybe the com explosion should be increased a lot to kill any nearby constuctors that might try to reclaim the wreck.
User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2382
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by REVENGE »

Acidd_UK wrote:Maybe the com explosion should be increased a lot to kill any nearby constuctors that might try to reclaim the wreck.
lol wut, think before you post? :lol:

J/K, but building on your suggestion, maybe you could have temporary fallout in the vicinity of the explosion that damages all units. Or, the wreck could start degrading at a linear rate (in fact, that would be useful for all wrecks). Etc, etc.
User avatar
Acidd_UK
Posts: 963
Joined: 23 Apr 2006, 02:15

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Acidd_UK »

It was a joke, aimed at ridiculing the com explosion size...

Seriously, the way CA has reduced the explosion and also stopped coms dgunning each other leads to way less 'lame' com-bombs...
pintle
Posts: 1763
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 16:01

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by pintle »

XTA has no com corpse, and we play com continues. People combomb a lot, its a valid strat and its fun.

Stop porcing so much.

Com corpse creates slippery slope and makes team games very predictable, detracting significantly from the fun.

Imho at least.
Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Saktoth »

Im not stating an opinion here. Im only telling you whats likely to be changed and whats not. Noize made that team-com-ends mod option the default and stated quite bluntly that thats how the game is meant to be played. If you're playing it any other way you are playing it wrong and as far as he is concerned, its not his job to fix it for you. Im sure he considers himself gracious to even allow you to play com continues at all. This whole game is designed, balanced, and built around 1v1 at the highest level.

If you want to know my solution, you can see CA's Tourney Rules commander, which is effectively codifying the rules by which all 1v1 games are played anyway, and fixing the problems in team games at the same time. This prevents combombing because commanders only do 3k explosion damage at point-blank-range (much less at range). Preserves comm wreck, though CA has much slower reclaim so you cant ninja the corpse- you really have to fight for it.

FYI, corpse metal has nothing to do with durability you can set that independently.

Anyway, Noize isnt around it seems. Sounds like a good time for a fork to me.

Ill probably make one with some bug fixes and a few mutators if Noize doesnt come back (probably include a tourney rules com mod option, constart from CA, and maybe some other stuff- all optional and non-default naturally).
imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by imbaczek »

while you're at it, fix widgets for 0.77.
Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Saktoth »

They'll have to be fixed in CA first... :P
User avatar
Day
Posts: 797
Joined: 28 Mar 2006, 17:16

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Day »

NOiZE never left FYI.
Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Saktoth »

Well, if he is around, the sea fixes would be nice. I care mostly because mappers who make maps for BA dont make maps with metal spots in shallows and that hurts CA and other mods.

Also worth mentioning is that the core min water depth is 10, the arm is 19, so core mexes can be placed in shallower water than arm ones... :S

Oh, and the core tidal is larger than the Arm one, if thats seen as a problem- it has too many w's in the yardmap.
Locked

Return to “Game Releases”