Balanced Annihilation V6.6
Moderator: Moderators
- Pressure Line
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
dont start that shit again. everyones sick of hearing you rant about it. fix it yourself or stfu.
*edit* had a quick look, all it requires is a quick blending of the existing gunship and fighter airmovetypes, and it would need an fbi tag (or something) to control it. and NO, im not going to do it for you. If you've got enough time to worry about the E use of vulcan/buzzsaw, you've surely got enough time to look into learning HOW TO DO SHIT YOURSELF.
*edit* had a quick look, all it requires is a quick blending of the existing gunship and fighter airmovetypes, and it would need an fbi tag (or something) to control it. and NO, im not going to do it for you. If you've got enough time to worry about the E use of vulcan/buzzsaw, you've surely got enough time to look into learning HOW TO DO SHIT YOURSELF.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
Please don't add that to the engine, inconsistent behaviour is not good and if a mod wants that it should be lua'd. If standing still is better behaviour than an attack run and the unit is capable of standing still why doesn't it do that by default?
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
yan, they already told you NO outright. No they are not making the aircraft like they were in ota. If they further BROKE the aircraft to give you what you want, then I and several others would bitch until they changed it back.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
And all the players would use an automicro widget anyway and avoid the hassle with manually microing the fighters into a standstill 

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
The thing about fighters is that their damage is like 1/10 or something of their base value vs ground, and 40/10 of their vase value or something vs bombers.
Why is there such a huge disparity? I mean, a swarm of 20 hawks can easily take down 20 bombers, yet can barely kill a single instigator light tank.
Why is there such a huge disparity? I mean, a swarm of 20 hawks can easily take down 20 bombers, yet can barely kill a single instigator light tank.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
I still think that being able to have fighter dancing and line bombing is Awesome and would be much more interesting than how it is now.
I can say that as much as I want.
A mod can make a White list not allowing anyone to use a "cheating" widget to replace micro.
How is such a behavior broken?
The fact it was an unexpected behavior in OTA doesn't mean it cant be done normally in Spring.
Who says that this behavior is normal and that one is not?
I'm not saying That that behavior should be the only one but that it should be an option for whoever wants to use it and would probably force just a much more extended support for how air units behave in general thus maybe allowing for even more flexible and different air behaviors.
I don't see why its a bad thing to allow such flexibility.
you 2 don't give a shit about OTA based mods and you hardly play them so that's your thing but what do you care if such a behavior is implemented while still allowing the current one to function as it is now.
I don't really care what you 2 think about it.
you are not interested in such a feature than that's your problem of being shortsighted.
If i wanna mention it in any context when it is appropriate than I WILL.
I can say that as much as I want.
A mod can make a White list not allowing anyone to use a "cheating" widget to replace micro.
How is such a behavior broken?
The fact it was an unexpected behavior in OTA doesn't mean it cant be done normally in Spring.
Who says that this behavior is normal and that one is not?
I'm not saying That that behavior should be the only one but that it should be an option for whoever wants to use it and would probably force just a much more extended support for how air units behave in general thus maybe allowing for even more flexible and different air behaviors.
I don't see why its a bad thing to allow such flexibility.
you 2 don't give a shit about OTA based mods and you hardly play them so that's your thing but what do you care if such a behavior is implemented while still allowing the current one to function as it is now.
I don't really care what you 2 think about it.
you are not interested in such a feature than that's your problem of being shortsighted.
If i wanna mention it in any context when it is appropriate than I WILL.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
Please leave your cries about hawkdancing somewhere else than this thread, they will not be added to BA no matter how much you cry.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
Pro Tip: if a mod gives fighters special damage reductions vs land targets, they are very unlikely to be interested in implementing hawk dancing.
- Pressure Line
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
Seriously dude, i told you the outline of what you need to do in the lobby. I am willing to help point you in the right direction, but you're gonna need to ask SPECIFIC questions (and learn a little c++ so you know what you're reading) because I ain't doing it for you (and i dont know, off the top of my head the names of the functions involved)
But otherwise, good luck on it :) and you will learn a LOT in either doing it (or even attempting it) and it will hopefully give you a greater appreciation for what the engine devs do (and for what they can or can't do)
But otherwise, good luck on it :) and you will learn a LOT in either doing it (or even attempting it) and it will hopefully give you a greater appreciation for what the engine devs do (and for what they can or can't do)
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
I have an appreciation for what they do.
My initial post that included a point about OTA air behavior was to address the fact of how AA and BA work.
I do not want BA to have this option at all and i never stated that.
I want it for my own use as i have said many times.
You started all this drama about me takings about ota air.
Initially i was just saying that air units played a much bigger part in gameplay than they do now and the fact fighters are considered more fun that say static AA is cause of the OTA legacy.
ATM fighters are every chaotic and uncontrollable and make sudden unexpected movements and expose themsleves to AA fire all the time without the player being bale to do much about it.
ATM fighters are not fun at all and are every limited from any point of view.
My initial post that included a point about OTA air behavior was to address the fact of how AA and BA work.
I do not want BA to have this option at all and i never stated that.
I want it for my own use as i have said many times.
You started all this drama about me takings about ota air.
Initially i was just saying that air units played a much bigger part in gameplay than they do now and the fact fighters are considered more fun that say static AA is cause of the OTA legacy.
ATM fighters are every chaotic and uncontrollable and make sudden unexpected movements and expose themsleves to AA fire all the time without the player being bale to do much about it.
ATM fighters are not fun at all and are every limited from any point of view.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
Let's sum it up:
- Nobody exept you wants this
- That basicly means nobody will make it, and if you want it you'll have to make it yourself
- you keep annoying people and whining, the only result of that is that everyone hates you
- grow up
- it's not possible to make a 100 % ota mod in spring, go play ta3d/ota or something.
- make your posts less annoying to read, there is a reason for the existance of spelling checkers, grammar checkers and the "," also stop hitting that enter button every time.
- think before you write something. (if you can do that at all)
- this is not a trollpost but the truth, I promise you that if you follow this advice and accept "no" people will be much nicer to you.
- Nobody exept you wants this
- That basicly means nobody will make it, and if you want it you'll have to make it yourself
- you keep annoying people and whining, the only result of that is that everyone hates you
- grow up
- it's not possible to make a 100 % ota mod in spring, go play ta3d/ota or something.
- make your posts less annoying to read, there is a reason for the existance of spelling checkers, grammar checkers and the "," also stop hitting that enter button every time.
- think before you write something. (if you can do that at all)
- this is not a trollpost but the truth, I promise you that if you follow this advice and accept "no" people will be much nicer to you.
- TheFatController
- Balanced Annihilation Developer
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
Hacked wrote:he speaks the truth
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
So do you guys think this is a problem?
Why are fighters that much superior to Anti-Air buildings? And why do fighters do like 50 times more damage to air than against land?
Why are fighters that much superior to Anti-Air buildings? And why do fighters do like 50 times more damage to air than against land?
- BrainDamage
- Lobby Developer
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 13:56
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
Dragoon wrote:Why are fighters that much superior to Anti-Air buildings?
Absolute Annihilation was designed with bombers being sorta defence-busting weapon, the range of bombers exceeds most static defences intentionally, BA's goal is to make to make AA suitable for 1v1 competitive play, thus retained it's design ideas where possible.
their role is being mobile anti air, thus they have this damage boost to define well the aforementioned role. ( BA inherits from AA the balancing pattern ie using armour classes and special damages )Dragoon wrote:And why do fighters do like 50 times more damage to air than against land?
none claims it's intuitive, you have to learn many things the hard way by trial and error, but if you'll play for a bit you'll see it works
-
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
It wasn't always like that - well fighters of course didn't deal gunship niveau damage to ground stuff but in the "earlier" verions of BA especially the T2 fighters dealt a decent amount of damage against ground. It lead to the very popular Com-Hunt with your fighters and even using your shield of patrolling fighters as an offensive weapon made sense in a couple of situations. Ground damage then was nerfed because especially the Com-Hunt was annoying and in pretty much every game you saw a Com dying to Hawks/Vampires...Dragoon wrote:And why do fighters do like 50 times more damage to air than against land?
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
rather than hack it with armor classes, why not have the com evolve? You could give him a shield that has a slow recharge so about 15-20 minutes into the game his anti-air shield would be strong enough to protect him. I know, I know, fuck off but still just thought I would throw it out there.
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
A SupCom style upgrade system would be better, so the extra commander power is there if you want it or are rich enough to afford it.
- TheFatController
- Balanced Annihilation Developer
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
It would make more sense to just have fighters unable to attack ground units rather than shoot at them and do tiny damage - then you wouldn't have the trouble of fighters chasing after some mobile AA etc.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.6
why? ta runs on nano machines, it would be easier to explain that the commander's shield was zapped from the teleport in.el_matarife wrote:A SupCom style upgrade system would be better, so the extra commander power is there if you want it or are rich enough to afford it.