Metal Makers

[Regret]

Cabbage: Metal makers are not going to change because you don't like big team games with newbies.

Several newbies: Comm corpse is not going to change.

Gota: There won't be a team-size limit for BA games.

You guys are whining about game rules rather than trying your best to play by them.

Just go and do the popular thing of making a txt mod if you have brilliant ideas that you want to see. Or go deface some map and include your txt mod inside it.

[Tribulex]

just make com reclaimable, but then explode like a nuke when he get finished reclaim (make force of 5 nukes, aeo of 10 arranged in star formation)

would teach a lesson

[1v0ry_k1ng]

^

[Gota]

When you combomb or dgun a com,Spring will delete DSD or a DSD variant from your computer.

[JohannesH]

just make com reclaimable, but then explode like a nuke when he get finished reclaim (make force of 5 nukes, aeo of 10 arranged in star formation)

would teach a lesson

offensive reclaim ftw

[Tribulex]

i miss the days when i could give a reclaim order on a transport that was napping me. I made a widget that would autoreclaim, capture, or repair (for my transports). i miss those days....

[babbles]

i miss the days when i could give a reclaim order on a transport that was napping me. I made a widget that would autoreclaim, capture, or repair (for my transports). i miss those days....

capturing someone's transport that they used to nap you with, unloading yourself and napping them with the same transport

me too :/

[Tribulex]

we should make a cox mutator of ba

[Spawn_Retard]

Ha, I've been wanting to scrap Com metal to like 500 since I played BA for that one very reason alone. People just kill their own Com and use the 2500 Metal to make T2. Easy. Any noob can do it.

Don't expect any change though. Fatty is pretty solid and won't change the things that make BA hated by the people who don't play it =D

When comm metal is too low, commbombs are inevitable.

I just want the CA comm as a modoption, and for the DSD8v8 guys to use that as default.

I'd say this is bullshit.

XTA has no com wreck, and combombing is rare.

[triton]

T1 metal makers are ok, even on dsd 8vs8 i barely made them, since its far better to send units on front and constructors to reclaim wrecks, also share energy to ally is often far better than transforming energy into metal.

With T1 metal makers ecoing you'd need 7500 energy to make a fucking flash,whereas flash cost is : Metal 109 / Energy 914.

And i dont speak about the fact that to transform energy into 109 fucking metal takes many time, metal makers cost lot of energy too (approx 1100 energy)

Usually people who spam T1 metal makers make advanced solars, i'd like to know how much metal they waste for e stalling (when you e-stall you're metal extractors stop workings..)

T1 metal makers are not vop, imo they are fine, cause they can be usefull if you dont spam them too much, on many maps (even more on map with lot of winds)

Big problem is about T2 metal makers with advanced fusions spam.
For many reasons :
Too much eco ruin games on guys with a normal computer, cause of cpu usage.
Many T2 units are useless, cause the moment where you would use them, you'd better make advanced fusions.
You easily can find many more reasons but i wont focus on this..

NOW problem is to try find solutions which suit to majority, but IMO ba wont change anyway, since thefatcontroller only maintain balanced annihilation (and he does that well) , i think he's afraid by doing changes since he tryed to change thud.

Maybe I said some crap but contrary to most players I can change my opinion if you can argue without trolling.

[Gota]

hmm? T2 metal makers are way more expensive than the same amout of t1 metal makers...
The problem is in the nano turrets not the metal makers.
Nano turrets are much cheaper assistors than regular cons and require much much less micro than just making cons..
Much less micro cause of high build range,no opening sequence and automated ai control of nanos makes spaming eco much easier compared to making cons do it.
If it was more time consuming to spam eco it would be relatively less time consuming to actually micro units and unit micro would effect the result of a game stronger as oppose to eco growth.
The use of nanos to assist economy has been perfected and these are the results but it's BA.

[triton]

hm, you're probably right, but how to find a good solution without making sa solution, removing nano is not a solution since 75% ba players LOVE nanos.

Increase nanos cost and make it T2?

Or only increase cost?

I dont know, but solution is close :D

[Blue_Falcon]

hm, you're probably right, but how to find a good solution without making sa solution, removing nano is not a solution since 75% ba players LOVE nanos.

Increase nanos cost and make it T2?

Or only increase cost?

I dont know, but solution is close :D

I +1 for the cost increase... Unless it also includes increasing the E cost. Nanos (when building) have the same effect on my eco as metal makers (again when building). I think the E cost is perfectly fine, but the M should be increased a bit... That's just my opinion though.

[Pxtl]

@Spawn_Retard

iirc, the XTA commboom is rather small, isn't it? Hardly the same.

[JohannesH]

Meh adv fusions spam is weak on most games not dsd vs noobs.
Theres also many many maps where just spamming wind makes for much stronger mm econ (t1 or t2 mms doesnt make much difference at all).

[Cabbage]

hmm? T2 metal makers are way more expensive than the same amout of t1 metal makers...
The problem is in the nano turrets not the metal makers.
Nano turrets are much cheaper assistors than regular cons and require much much less micro than just making cons..
Much less micro cause of high build range,no opening sequence and automated ai control of nanos makes spaming eco much easier compared to making cons do it.
If it was more time consuming to spam eco it would be relatively less time consuming to actually micro units and unit micro would effect the result of a game stronger as oppose to eco growth.
The use of nanos to assist economy has been perfected and these are the results but it's BA.

T2 metal makers are much more efficient and pay for themselves quickly. THey cost alot of E but if you are in the position where are ready to build them chances are you probably have a pretty hefty E income already..

I agrre with you on the nano turrets. They should remain T1 and with hte same build power but cost more. All things being equal, if you want a quick boost to your factory output it should be a better option to build extra cons and have them assist.

Basicly have cons as a better investment for extra buildpower in the short term, early game, with nano turrets being better long term with their much higher buildpower once your eco can support them - the extra cost means you are at a disadvantage if your rival builds cons, but isn't really an issue once your eco is stronger.

[KaiserJ]

how about when the commander explodes, his head gets launched randomly and also explodes, maybe with the force of a tac-nuke?

that way it becomes more dangerous to tech in the back (commander head lands in the nanofarm and explodes) while the rest of the elements regarding commander behavior remain unbroken

[Pxtl]

how about when the commander explodes, his head gets launched randomly and also explodes, maybe with the force of a tac-nuke?

that way it becomes more dangerous to tech in the back (commander head lands in the nanofarm and explodes) while the rest of the elements regarding commander behavior remain unbroken

Actually, a tactic I've heard (but never seen) is that the Juno does a teeny little bit of damage (like 1hp)... and is an ublockable long-ranged cruise missile. Build a bunch of them and hit something that chains.

[Gota]

hmm? T2 metal makers are way more expensive than the same amout of t1 metal makers...
The problem is in the nano turrets not the metal makers.
Nano turrets are much cheaper assistors than regular cons and require much much less micro than just making cons..
Much less micro cause of high build range,no opening sequence and automated ai control of nanos makes spaming eco much easier compared to making cons do it.
If it was more time consuming to spam eco it would be relatively less time consuming to actually micro units and unit micro would effect the result of a game stronger as oppose to eco growth.
The use of nanos to assist economy has been perfected and these are the results but it's BA.

T2 metal makers are much more efficient and pay for themselves quickly. THey cost alot of E but if you are in the position where are ready to build them chances are you probably have a pretty hefty E income already..

I agrre with you on the nano turrets. They should remain T1 and with hte same build power but cost more. All things being equal, if you want a quick boost to your factory output it should be a better option to build extra cons and have them assist.

Basicly have cons as a better investment for extra buildpower in the short term, early game, with nano turrets being better long term with their much higher buildpower once your eco can support them - the extra cost means you are at a disadvantage if your rival builds cons, but isn't really an issue once your eco is stronger.

They are not much more efficient and they don't pay for themselves fast.
Another point to think about is the fact t2 MMs aew made middle-end game.
look in modit.

[Pxtl]

While cons don't have the same BT-to-cost ratio as nanotowers and have far worse nanolathes in terms of range and open/close times, they do have some peripheral benefits - the survivability of convehs mean your buildpower can't be quickly destroyed by a handful of raiders. On the other hand, nanotowers are better at emergency-defense when they reclaim the enemy or repair defenses on-the-spot (while you're waiting for your goddamned convehs to open).