Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Moderator: Content Developer
- TheFatController
- Balanced Annihilation Developer
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.17
Updated to fix a crash bug and 2 other little things.
Apologies for all the updates but I could not leave a game crashing feature live in BA
Apologies for all the updates but I could not leave a game crashing feature live in BA
-
- Posts: 181
- Joined: 13 Jan 2009, 11:20
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
nvm i just tested it, nanos chaining works again.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.17
im newb, but, what if u could update mutators, not whole game all the time ?TheFatController wrote: Apologies for all the updates
anyway, gj
- TheFatController
- Balanced Annihilation Developer
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Yeah that would save bandwidth but on the other hand would add an extra file requirement for new players
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
as far as i know, mutator is tiny file, anyway, just a suggestion, i think it would be good idea 'in the times of spring engine update'
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
I was wondering why the air trans can carry such a big weight like a commander? The all the com drops would stop.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Fark really needs to be able to build nanos. Even if it could, it would still be a lot crappier than Freaker, but at least I wouldn't need to tech down back to L1 conbot whenever I need more nanos and I only have L2 kbots.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Stop DSD teching?Tronic wrote:Fark really needs to be able to build nanos. Even if it could, it would still be a lot crappier than Freaker, but at least I wouldn't need to tech down back to L1 conbot whenever I need more nanos and I only have L2 kbots.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
using the rapid system would solve the problem of bandwidth without creating a new one or any inconveniences. this only makes sense if you put it there when you release the version, and not 1 month later though. as much as i know, you have to log in to a page, upload your mod file, give it a tag and description, and thats it for you, as a maintainer.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Btw TFC why is it when I compress 7.18 it's 700 odd kb smaller Any reason you use less compression?
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Different compression ratio or different software version.Nixa wrote:Btw TFC why is it when I compress 7.18 it's 700 odd kb smaller Any reason you use less compression?
- TheFatController
- Balanced Annihilation Developer
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
I put 7zip on Fast cause I like to think it helps load times (but it probably doesn't)
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
It should, Fast packs/unpacks faster than "maximum" or whatever the highest compression is.
Spring uses the same algo for unpacking, so it would take longer to unpack a full compression vs fast compression.
Spring uses the same algo for unpacking, so it would take longer to unpack a full compression vs fast compression.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Small visual bug: the bubble trails emitted by ships when moving and by hovers when static or moving is way to fast. It looks very odd.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Build Consuls, which are the Arm combat eng. Yes, they're in the Veh lab. Guess what Core doesn't have in their vehicle lab?Tronic wrote:Fark really needs to be able to build nanos. Even if it could, it would still be a lot crappier than Freaker, but at least I wouldn't need to tech down back to L1 conbot whenever I need more nanos and I only have L2 kbots.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Why not remove Farks altogether then? Not a very useful unit as it is now. Costs twice as much as L1 conbot and the only remotely useful thing it builds is L1 mex. Fark's worker time is barely better than L1 con's.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
cheap mobile builder good for assisting and building t1 eco, especially for expansionTronic wrote:Why not remove Farks altogether then? Not a very useful unit as it is now. Costs twice as much as L1 conbot and the only remotely useful thing it builds is L1 mex. Fark's worker time is barely better than L1 con's.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Farks need to have some more build power. In this way it will be more balanced if compared with the freaker. Freaker is slower, tougher and have a better build list, Fark is faster, weaker, but would have better build power to balance its awful build list.
And let me say it again: Core really needs T2 veh engineer imo.
Pxtl agrees with me, lets make a lobby :D and put some pressure in order to have core t2 veh engineer :d
And commandos are op as they are now.
And let me say it again: Core really needs T2 veh engineer imo.
Pxtl agrees with me, lets make a lobby :D and put some pressure in order to have core t2 veh engineer :d
And commandos are op as they are now.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Why? T2 Core Veh Cons have got uber build power, buildlists, toughness and stuffs compared to a Consul. They just cost a lil more that's allH2O wrote: And let me say it again: Core really needs T2 veh engineer imo.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.18
Fark is not supposed to be parallel to the freaker, fark is just a little assist kbot. Consul is freaker parallel and it has similar build power and build options. Core has t2 combat kbot con, and arm has t2 combot vehicle con.H2O wrote:Farks need to have some more build power. In this way it will be more balanced if compared with the freaker. Freaker is slower, tougher and have a better build list, Fark is faster, weaker, but would have better build power to balance its awful build list.
And let me say it again: Core really needs T2 veh engineer imo.
Pxtl agrees with me, lets make a lobby :D and put some pressure in order to have core t2 veh engineer :d
And commandos are op as they are now.
It would be ridiculous to give core one for veh as well as kbot.