[old] Balanced Annihilation V6.81

[Gota]

The "can't climb hills" distinction doesn't account for the massive difference between the two units, particularly considering that the bulk of the work of a con isn't done on a hill. Hill-building is the exception, not the rule... and for the exception, you can build the amphicon. Cons claim territory - that means they need to be able to move. The amphicon does a better job at this than the conbot, because it moves quickly, even though it is less cost-effective.

An approach I could see working:
1) give the Conbot a slight boost to workertime - say up to 120. This would make it _better_ than the conveh at something.
2) let rezbots build metal extractors... maybe DTs, too.
3) move radar kbots to L1.

The most essential thing on the front line is radar and metal extractors. L1 mobile radars get you the former, rezbots with metal extractors get you the latter while you wait for your conbots to catch up.

This is map dependent....Maps can be made to have hills and mexes on hills...see sierra by Sir artturi...
Its a big kbot map..
The more maps modders will make that are favorable to kbots the more balanced kbots will seem.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

they shouldnt need a special needs map to be balanced, they should be balanced on all the maps people normally play

[Gota]

Well,sierra is a map which is completely normal but is a kbot map..There just aren't many hilly maps with mexes on them..
It's like saying vehicles need to be able to play on hilly maps...
Mappers need to make more maps which favor kbotsstrongly..there are many small ones but less big ones..by the way u can go kbots on tabula,dsd,ssb,sierra,almost any 8v8 map,valles marineris,and im sure there are many others i can't recall right now..

[Lolsquad_Steven]

Have you guys tried 1v1 on Cooper hill? It's one of the few maps i know where kbots and cars are both perfectly (or close to it) equal. Played it heaps with players like flopflop and [SmuG]Jack, and no matter what the match up was, cars vs cars, cars vs kbots or kbots vs kbots it was equal. While i'm on the topic though, has anyone talked to [SmuG]Jack laterly, last i heard he was surfing in Santa Catarina Brazil.

[Wingflier]

If you go kbots on a big map it's only because your situation allows it. Usually that means your stuck in a small corner where constructor speed hardly matters.

Nobody would ever build kbots on the flatter area (that I know of) simply because you could never expand quickly enough to make up for how fast con vehicles are.

I honestly don't see the problem with making con kbots a little faster. They are painstakingly slow and I don't see it as "game-breaking" to speed them up.

Wing

[Llamadeus]

they shouldnt need a special needs map to be balanced, they should be balanced on all the maps people normally play

Isn't the point of the distinction between bots and vehicles that one outperforms the other on a certain subset of maps? I don't really see the point of "balancing" the two in this sense; it's a bit like complaining that ships are only viable on special maps that contain a lot of water.

[Gertkane]

anphibious veh cons can

Look at it's cost.

They cost just a bit more yet they negate the only real advantage kbot cons have while still keeping its own advantages.

[Wingflier]

they shouldnt need a special needs map to be balanced, they should be balanced on all the maps people normally play

Isn't the point of the distinction between bots and vehicles that one outperforms the other on a certain subset of maps? I don't really see the point of "balancing" the two in this sense; it's a bit like complaining that ships are only viable on special maps that contain a lot of water.

Yes, it all sounds very good on paper. However, 90% of the maps people actually play are more vehicle oriented, and therefore kbots get the shaft more often than not. Sure, you can go kbots, but it puts you at a significant disadvantage early on. I would even argue that it puts you at a significant disadvantage later into the game. The tech 2 con kbots are just as slow at the regular ones are, therefore upgrading your base can be an extremely slow and painstaking process. Not to mention the fact (at least with Arm), that with tech 2 Vehicles, you still get access to some very powerful units of the tech 2 Kbot tree. With the Consul you can still build the Zeus and the Fido. Yet, when you go Tech 2 Kbot, you can't build a Bulldog or Artillery now can you? Seems pretty unfair to me.

The mod should be balanced not based on how things SHOULD BE, but how things are.

If we based government policies on the way things should be, there would be no armies.

Wing

[Jazcash]

Somebody please fix the Select and Center widget. It's driving me insane. Rawr.

[Pxtl]

Hadn't thought of that. Freaker needs the ability to build Reapers and Banishers instead of Cans and Pyros.

[Llamadeus]

90% of the maps people actually play are more vehicle oriented, and therefore kbots get the shaft more often than not.

An even greater portion of maps are land oriented, but nobody argues that ships should be given legs and the ability to crawl out of the water to better fight their land counterparts. It's not a problem with the mod if kbot maps are simply underplayed.

[Gota]

they shouldnt need a special needs map to be balanced, they should be balanced on all the maps people normally play

Isn't the point of the distinction between bots and vehicles that one outperforms the other on a certain subset of maps? I don't really see the point of "balancing" the two in this sense; it's a bit like complaining that ships are only viable on special maps that contain a lot of water.

Yes, it all sounds very good on paper. However, 90% of the maps people actually play are more vehicle oriented, and therefore kbots get the shaft more often than not. Sure, you can go kbots, but it puts you at a significant disadvantage early on. I would even argue that it puts you at a significant disadvantage later into the game. The tech 2 con kbots are just as slow at the regular ones are, therefore upgrading your base can be an extremely slow and painstaking process. Not to mention the fact (at least with Arm), that with tech 2 Vehicles, you still get access to some very powerful units of the tech 2 Kbot tree. With the Consul you can still build the Zeus and the Fido. Yet, when you go Tech 2 Kbot, you can't build a Bulldog or Artillery now can you? Seems pretty unfair to me.

The mod should be balanced not based on how things SHOULD BE, but how things are.

If we based government policies on the way things should be, there would be no armies.

Wing

The mod should also be balanced on opinions of top players..Do you agree?

[Jazcash]

Oh and Fix the anti nukes + Mobile antis, my 2 antis with about 40 nukes loaded in total couldn't handle 3 nukes being launched at them.

It's not that they miss, they just don't fire, despite the nuke still has about 10 seconds till hit. It is an annoying bug.

[el_matarife]

Oh and Fix the anti nukes + Mobile antis, my 2 antis with about 40 nukes loaded in total couldn't handle 3 nukes being launched at them.

I'm thinking static antinukes should be able to take out two simultaneously launched nukes, and mobile antinukes should be able to take out one nuke at once. Alternately, three for the static, two for the mobile. Either way the static should be a little better since it isn't mobile and thus way more vulnerable to attack. I think it should be possible to overwhelm an antinuke, but it shouldn't be particularly easy.

[Gota]

So that fact the mobile cost more and shoots missiles differently is not important?
If you gonna make balance comments at least look the units up and take a look at their stats in modit..
http://modinfo.adune.nl/index.php?side=arm&MOD=ba681

[Jazcash]

So that fact the mobile cost more and shoots missiles differently is not important?
If you gonna make balance comments at least look the units up and take a look at their stats in modit..
http://modinfo.adune.nl/index.php?side=arm&MOD=ba681

Should it matter? If the mobile anti is crap, then the stationary should of used it's 25 nukes up instead. It's just the fact that nukes can out nuke antis when the antis have more stock is stupid.

So if someone nuke spams, ultimately, there is no proper counter.

[Gota]

So that fact the mobile cost more and shoots missiles differently is not important?
If you gonna make balance comments at least look the units up and take a look at their stats in modit..
http://modinfo.adune.nl/index.php?side=arm&MOD=ba681

Should it matter? If the mobile anti is crap, then the stationary should of used it's 25 nukes up instead. It's just the fact that nukes can out nuke antis when the antis have more stock is stupid.

So if someone nuke spams, ultimately, there is no proper counter.

Moving antis are meant to escort units which are not likely to get nuked by all the nukes in the enemy's arsenal..ffs...nuke missiles cost a huge amount of resources...

[el_matarife]

So that fact the mobile cost more and shoots missiles differently is not important?

I know it costs more energy, but mobility is a HUGE advantage for antinukes since it makes them practically immune to bomber raids, EMP missiles, tac nukes, and all the other usual tactics. Anyway, by the time you're getting antinukes the ~29,000 extra energy isn't really that big of a deal. (If you assume you've got a moho metal maker economy, that energy amounts to ~580 metal. Oh no I can't afford one more T2 unit whatever will I do?)

[Regret]

The International Scientific Method suggests that you are simply an arrogant, honorless noob who I could easily destroy in a 1v1.

Since I'm so awesome, I already played out several hundred variations of the 1v1 against you in my mind in a few seconds and the results are conclusive: you lost.

[Sleksa]

they shouldnt need a special needs map to be balanced, they should be balanced on all the maps people normally play

Here's a fucking crazy idea. Build con vehs on flat maps and kbots on hilly maps

sounds crazy doesnt it?