Balanced Annihilation V6.95 - Page 10

Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
CCBlackmilk
Posts: 62
Joined: 03 Jul 2009, 03:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by CCBlackmilk »

Gota wrote:Id agree with you that it might need a bigger reduction in price,however,both our assessments might be wrong so making it cost only 10% less is safer and takes into account our error in the assessment of the balance.
If this change will prove to be not enough it can always be changed even more at a later release.
This way we knowledge the chance we might not see all the consequences to such a change and also give ourselves more time to keep testing it.
If we decide on a big change we are at risk of disbalancing the unit/building as much as it was before or even more just to the other side(from oped to uped or other way around.
P.S
the T2 plasma turret is only available once you get a T2 lab,so if it will be build,it will happen at a much later stage of the game than the stage at which it is appropriate to build a t1 plasma turret.
IMO the t1 and t2 plasma turrets are overpriced. Reduce the price of both, but, atleast 20% of the t1 one. The t2 doesnt have to reduced, just seems like it should.
User avatar
Beherith
Posts: 5145
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Beherith »

Sure, lets all make medium range porc cheaper! And lets nerf bombers! And disallow transports and commbombing! And lets add an APM based eco penalty to players that are too fast cause I suck so much!

Go play candy land porcneebs.
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by el_matarife »

T1 plasma turrets are much more useful for busting up enemy pork since they're by far the best artillery available in T1. They're really only good defenses against enemy artillery or ships.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Gota »

Plasma turrets do not make heavier porc they are offensive turrets usually built to bust a defensive line.
ATM they aren't good at anything. they cost tons and even when built take a huge amount of time to kill anything in their range.

They need a slight nerf in cost thus they wont always be present in games but every once in a while in a very porcy battle theyll show up to smash shit up.

Bombers are very good because they are much more cost effective than AA turrets like long range missile turrets or flak turrets.
for 1 long range missile turret you can build 6 advanced bombers... 1 of them can than go on and bomb it completely annihilating it.
Flaks don't have much range,cost a lot and their range spheres are a misrepresentation of their actual shooting range vs planes(the range of a flak is a 3d sphere with the flak in the middle).
Buff T2 AA a bit or make it cheaper and the use of bombers will be more challanging.
User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng »

if t2 bomber dominance dies delta dry porcfests will last for all eternity
User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Caydr »

Build fighters, amirite? You all saw how well an all-ground anti-air force worked in Iraq. Ground-based anti-air is not an all-in-one solution. Wasn't supposed to be anyway.
User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2382
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by REVENGE »

I agree with BasiC's proposed changes. Torpedo bombers have dumb special damage values. I propose that we nerf them, and get depthcharge hovercraft back on scene.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Pxtl »

Hovercraft are messy enough to balance without depth-charges. And as for the never-ending DSD games, don't berthas still win those in the end? Either way - it's BA. The whole point is that it's broken, but not as broken as it would be if you started making changes willy-nilly.
BaNa
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 21:05

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by BaNa »

ffs people we dont want players building MORE guardians. why would you want that to happen? what the fuck is wrong with you?
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Pxtl »

BaNa wrote:ffs people we dont want players building MORE guardians. why would you want that to happen? what the fuck is wrong with you?
Some people like playing SimBase at L1 instead of having to wait for L2. I have to admit, it IS fun to set up a firebase just outside of an enemy fortification and set up camp there with artillery, and the Guardian is the ultimate L1 artillery.

The thing is that the Guardian sucks. It's not just "kind of nerfed" to keep BA gameplay from being a race where two players plop down impregnable forts in guardian range of each other and then build a guardian to shell the other fort into oblivion.

It's unusable. The only place I've seen it used are maps that emphasize agonizingly porcy terrain (kbots only, and even massing kbots is nigh-impossible) and those maps are few and far between.

If the guardian ever takes a place in normal BA gameplay, though, it would seriously break things. So any buffing of it would have to be something small.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Gota »

Lets not rush into things...
The proposed changes take into account the chances that our intuition is flawed.

5% speed nerf to jeffy.
5% hp nerf to stumpy.
10% nerf of the total guardian cost and build time.
10% nerf to the total cost and build time of all t2 labs.
10% cost increase to T2 cons.

It is important to make sure each release improves balance and does not worsen it or leave it at the same level of balance so it's probably best to slowly change something as opposed to making huge changes and waste a release because some changes did not actually contribute to balance and were too much.
Last edited by Gota on 22 Jul 2009, 15:04, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Wombat »

well, notice that u want to do these changes just for 1v1. 90% of ba players are playing team games. reducing costs of guardian and t2 labs will make ppl make more guardians (more porc at front) and rush more adv fus and t2 bombers (this gonna be possible to do even faster than it was before). plz make 2 releases : one for 1v1 with all 4 changes and another release for team games just with changing raiders and jeffies... now team games gonna look like, i spam guardians at front, u fast tech in 4 min, give me freaker so i can spam vipers and u rush adv fus in 10 min so u can spam t2 bombers in 12 min... c'mon...........
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by JohannesH »

Air t2 fac cost shouldnt be lowered I think, just the ground ones. Also someone said that con price could be increased in turn, I like that idea.

And guardian kills porc, rather than make it. Its still fucking expensive, after a small price drop. Though I dont really care if it is changed or not, wont use it anyway most probably...

Jeffy is the most crucial change anyway.
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Wombat »

3 stripe noob - oh oh ive heard guardian is cheaper, ill rush it for ube pwnz !

usually when someone makes guardian, enemy makes another :/

also, dont u think that making cheaper mohos would be better idea ? cost of t2 lab remains same but mohos are cheaper so cost of t2 lab returns faster.

problem with t2 lab is that u make it, and then do nothing for like 2 min (upgrading mohos, e stall)
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by JohannesH »

Wombat wrote:also, dont u think that making cheaper mohos would be better idea ? cost of t2 lab remains same but mohos are cheaper so cost of t2 lab returns faster.
dont agree at all. would make tech+eco rushing more efficient, cost of lab doesnt even matter much if you reclaim it after con.
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Wombat »

thats what i said - after t2 lab u are idling for like 2 mins coz upgreading mex is too expensive and takes too long...

cheaper t2 lab doesnt mean 't2 eco rushing more efficient'? Oo

btw. i mean mohos cost, no m income. this gonna affect only build time, less idling after t2 lab and cost of t2 will be returned faster. much more subtle change than reducing t2 lab cost
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Gota »

Yes I forgot to write the increase in t2 con costs.
T2 labs 10% cost nerf and T2 cons 10% cost buff.
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by JohannesH »

You did write about it, or at least someone did (...or I just heard it in lobby).

And wombat, if you idle and stall for long after making t2, maybe you shouldnt have gone t2? By then you should have enough mexes or reclaim to pay for moho mexes with no problem. If mex cost was lowered as you say, it would be too easy to just make t2 hand cons (trade for m maybe) for everyone and make all mohos in back very early, in a normal huge teams noob game. Making t2 more about just econ than the actual t2 units than it currently is...
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Jazcash »

  • T2 Bombers damage should be nerfed.
  • GIMP, Brawler and all the other units that can't hit water labs properly needs to be fixed.
  • Jeffy and Weasel should move at same speed.
  • Def units should be able to shoot over Arm Solar.
  • Levelers shouldn't do so much impact. They can practically destroy and large group of light units in one shot...
  • Torp Bombers need a nerfing.
  • Com should be more aware. It used to instantly shoot at units within it's radius when possible. Even when building, reclaiming or w/e. Now, it's just a refusing, hesitant, stupid pile of 2500 Metal. When I walk it at a scout, it should shoot the scout and walk instead of just walking -_-
  • I think pyros should move fatser. zippers are Arm's equivalent but zippers pwn pyros cause of their speed.
  • Liche should leave wrecks after it's killed units like labs. One Liche rush can just end it for one player cause it leaves them no metal to build back from.
  • Bladewings shouldn't move so goddamn fast.
  • Combombing should be harder.
  • GIMP's damage needs a major buff, also it's accuracy and speed.
  • Com should have some way of dealing with underwater units other than reclaiming/capturing.
  • Sub killers shouldn't have 100% accuracy.
  • Water sucks, make it better.
  • Reapers damage should be buffed and health decreased.
  • Anti-flak gunships should be cheaper or build faster.
  • T2 Land Transports should be renamed to useless piles of shite.
  • Gremlin Stealth Tanks should be renamed to useless piles of shite MkII.
  • All non-air transports should be renamed to uselesspilesofshites and should be deleted with passion.
  • Arm needs some decent T3. All Core's T3 pwns all Arm's T3.
  • Sea needs nano.
  • Sea needs shields.
  • Sea needs BB.
  • Sea needs nuke.
  • Sea sucks, get rid of it.
  • Get rid of all annoying, useless, broken, cheating widgets.
  • Rename BA.
User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by NOiZE »

-1
Locked

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”