Another BA balance suggestion topic - Page 2

Another BA balance suggestion topic

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by Gota »

yeah these threads are useless.
BA does not improve BA does not use new models and basically keeps community stagnant.
The shitty t1-t2 shift in BA is a major issue if you don't like it don't play BA.
User avatar
triton
Lobby Moderator
Posts: 330
Joined: 18 Nov 2009, 14:27

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by triton »

Pxtl wrote:Either way, the problems you describe are the kind of deep-seated things that small tweaks won't fix. Fixing the jump to T2 in BA is a "start a new mod" kind of change, because you'd have to completely smash the BA T2 eco to fix it.
I disagree, some small changes may be enough.
Using T2 ground lab for its units more than for its eco needs only small changes, as now its close to be a good idea sometimes.
Atm you can use panthers and croc, but as they dont have hp they cant be main T2 army.
If we had cheaper Reapers and Bulldog they could be the main units that others T2 units support needs to be more usefull.
It doesnt mean I want Bulldog and reapers spam. But some buff would be nice.
Defences have many way to counter them anyway but T2 army needs some better main units.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by Gota »

and remove the freaking maw and claw they are retarded and useless to the balance..llt hlt hllt beamer armed mex guardian...not neough for t1 defences?
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by Johannes »

triton wrote:
Pxtl wrote:Either way, the problems you describe are the kind of deep-seated things that small tweaks won't fix. Fixing the jump to T2 in BA is a "start a new mod" kind of change, because you'd have to completely smash the BA T2 eco to fix it.
I disagree, some small changes may be enough.
Using T2 ground lab for its units more than for its eco needs only small changes, as now its close to be a good idea sometimes.
Atm you can use panthers and croc, but as they dont have hp they cant be main T2 army.
If we had cheaper Reapers and Bulldog they could be the main units that others T2 units support needs to be more usefull.
It doesnt mean I want Bulldog and reapers spam. But some buff would be nice.
Defences have many way to counter them anyway but T2 army needs some better main units.
vs t1 units, croc and panther can be good as main army. So can bulldog and reaper. Have you tried playing with bulldogs heavy army in how many games, and on what maps? Bulldog is much stronger than panther in many cases. Yes reaper is a bit lame early since it hasnt got the kiting ability of bulldog, croc, or goli.

T2 units are v good, problem is if you have any resources to put into units after you tek.


Sure the game could be better if t2 lab was less gamble to get, but buffing t2 units wont help this.

I think it's already bs that t2 units can almost completely replace t1 units, you wont need those necessarily, the transition to t2 should be smoother but t1 shouldnt be replaced fully as can happen now that panther and croc do t1 role but better. T2 already has been made less interesting, when favoring these units, I don't wish it to be more that way.

And reclaiming t2 lab is often a bad choice, ofc it works on 8v8 but what doesn't, sure it works sometimes but really I dont see it that often. When you can get a goli for about the price of con and 1 mohomex, most of the time goli is way better.
If you're not teching really late you cant easily use the metal gotten from the reclaim anyway, together with m from mohos.
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by Wombat »

TFC needs to make more threads so more ppl understand ba balance wont change :regret:
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by Johannes »

What TFC should do, is make a clear what logic he follows when doing balance changes. Cause obviously he changes shit, every version. But those changes seem very random when he doesnt cares to explain what he wants BA to be and how the changes he does bring BA closer to that.

If there was a more clear principles to strive to, against which to judge different suggestions, maybe we would have more intelligent balance discussion than everyone listing what they want or what's fun for them personally.
pintle
Posts: 1763
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 16:01

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by pintle »

BA IS FINISHED! ohwait somebody buffed panther and croc to the point other t2 is redundant, and we will ignore sea balance for now... ITS FINSIHED NOW.

Pxtl seriously, stop posting the same tired (false) lines in BA balance threads, it stopped being funny like 2 years ago. Every changelog undermines what you say. There have been fundamental gameplay changes, if you don't want to acknowledge them fine, do not expect to be acknowledged in serious balance discussion. I just checked the 7.19 thread- you post about giving the Maverick "powers"? Wtf are you smoking man? Thats a pretty significant change yeah? Either it is badly balanced (ie not finished) in its current role, or you want to change it for the sake of changing it. Either way you contradict yourself.

Very few people set their fighters to land@x%hp (I don't even mass t1 fighters at all in BA because they are so terrible that there is no point massing them over vamp/hawk), but having a fighter swarm on land at 50, and an air repair pad can make a phenomenal difference in *A air battles. Then again most people dont even micro fighters so this whole arena of the game is massively underdeveloped I guess.

Air vs static aa is a hilarious joke in BA, it is one of the very worst parts of the game for noob traps, and I have never seen a player other than Pxtl suggest this is a positive thing.

Also mines are very easily countered with flea/wezel flooding, to the point they are pretty useless outside of specific ambush scenarios such as gesyer 1v1.

This thread is completely pointless. "Veterans" will keep defending current balance while TFC makes random changes, and the major issues will not be addressed. We will be told BA balance is stable and complete, and I will keep laughing in the face of whoever says that.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by Jazcash »

pintle wrote:somebody buffed panther and croc to the point other t2 is redundant
No.
pintle wrote:but having a fighter swarm on land at 50, and an air repair pad can make a phenomenal difference in *A air battles.
No.
pintle wrote:Also mines are very easily countered with flea/wezel flooding, to the point they are pretty useless outside of specific ambush scenarios such as gesyer 1v1.
No.
pintle
Posts: 1763
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 16:01

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by pintle »

Jazcash wrote:
pintle wrote:somebody buffed panther and croc to the point other t2 is redundant
No.
pintle wrote:but having a fighter swarm on land at 50, and an air repair pad can make a phenomenal difference in *A air battles.
No.
pintle wrote:Also mines are very easily countered with flea/wezel flooding, to the point they are pretty useless outside of specific ambush scenarios such as gesyer 1v1.
No.
Jaz you don't play *A mods regularly other than BA, try telling me you do not need air repair pads in NOTA? Play some Charlie/Painted/Conquest etc etc etc in XTA and tell me repair pads do not help. Mines *are* easily countered by flooding. I was reiterating the sentiments of other BA players who are definitely significantly better than you at the game; personally I don't tech in BA, just get a shared con and keep spamming t1. I can just keep reiterating my points, you can keep saying "no". I will keep writing your opinion off as a poorly informed BA fanboi/habitual troll, and continue not really caring about the current state of BA balance. We all have fun right?
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by Jazcash »

pintle wrote: Jaz you don't play *A mods regularly other than BA, try telling me you do not need air repair pads in NOTA? Play some Charlie/Painted/Conquest etc etc etc in XTA and tell me repair pads do not help.

I'm sorry but when did this thread or your post ever have anything to do with XTA or NOTA? I'm talking about BA which I've played more than any other player in this whole community other than perhaps two or three people.
pintle
Posts: 1763
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 16:01

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by pintle »

Jazcash wrote:
pintle wrote: Jaz you don't play *A mods regularly other than BA, try telling me you do not need air repair pads in NOTA? Play some Charlie/Painted/Conquest etc etc etc in XTA and tell me repair pads do not help.

I'm sorry but when did this thread or your post ever have anything to do with XTA or NOTA? I'm talking about BA which I've played more than any other player in this whole community other than perhaps two or three people.
The specific statement that you so eloquently refuted had direct reference to *A. If you want to attack me with such a complex diatrabe of wit, please at least read what I write <3.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by Jazcash »

pintle wrote: The specific statement that you so eloquently refuted had direct reference to *A. If you want to attack me with such a complex diatrabe of wit, please at least read what I write <3.
All your other points were about BA, as is this thread. When you say *A you mean every TA mod, BA is one of these and in which, making an air repair pad doesn't make a "phenomenal difference" which means my reply, "No.", still stands correct as your statement only applies to a few specific *A mods instead of every *A mod.

Image
User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by albator »

triton wrote: - Normal Comblast should leave some wrecks for the units destroyed but far from middle of explosion.
Totally disagree.

Let me tell you why I think BA is so much balanced. When you kill a com, you usually need to spend a lot of metal (units) to do it. This kinda rebalance the teamgame going on: one side is loosing (only) a com, the other loose units. If the attaquant is able to reclaim what he used to kill the com plus the com wreak, that make the attaquant being much more powerfull and far too difficult to stop


triton wrote: - Comblast while flying shouldnt be able to kill 100% hp commander at ground and it should deal slighly less damages to ground units, units not in the middle of explosion could leave some wrecks.
I will not enter into discusion for method to avoid combom (= killing a com with another com explosion) but for the same reason that the one above, I think it should kill ground unit and also i like to use my com to kill a spam of T3 unit coming in, it is kind of one of the only use of the commander for late game). Plus i think it should still kill 100% air unit (to intercept other combomb, flying com into base). Finnally, nano effciency mixed with porc make of the combomb the only way to kill it (i did not say it was good of bad, but still it is the only way, cause nano are so good)


triton wrote: - Chainsaw/Eradicator and Cobra/Flakker needs more range (20%-30%)
as johan say, range will make placement usless, better decrease M cost or increase efficiency for t2 AA static defence
For T1 AA, they dont need change imo. T1 air cost really a lot or ressources already and Chainsaw/Eradicator can kill a 20 t1 bomber rush already

triton wrote: - Bulldog and Reaper needs a small Buff.
I would suggest decrease in E cost maybe, but i think they are fine. problem comes from elsewhere

triton wrote: - All T3 kbots should be able to crush dragon teeth.
Some T2 units too : Goliath, Fatboy, Cans, Triton, Poison arrow, Banisher, Bulldog and Reaper.
T3 balance totally suck anyway. Everything must be redone.





triton wrote: - Minelayer should be able to repair or should have emp mines.
Or just remove Heavy mines from arm and give them emp mines.


Emp mines would actually bring much more stategy cause you can reclaim.

Repair abily on mine layer is too cheap for their cost, It shouldnot be more than air cons bp

triton wrote: - Airpad are useless, do something.
.
I dotn mind "usless" unit, it does not unba game

triton wrote: - Spider needs to be faster or/and have more hp.
.
What about termite then ? spider are AA thermite are not. why bluff spider and not termit ?





Now, about t2 balance, the reason why poeple reclaim T2 lab is not becasue T2 unit cost is too expensive, it is because the ability to make eco is huge with t2 cons and a few Kilos metal. Spamming T1 unit (stumpy) with t2 ecp is really good


What I suggest here aims both to solve this problem, and to make all t2 unit usefull (rather than the usuall T1 spam, stop eco T2, T3 spam or T2 air). And by usefull, I mean you use them more than a few minutes and then go t3 / t2 air.

Progressively decreasing metal maker efficiency.



Lets say the current BA effciientcy of metal maker "e" is 1 (e=1)
Lets say the amount of Energy that is converted to metal (not the total amount of energy that you produce and that is always higher) is E
For exemple, we could say:
if (0<E<1000), e =1
if (1000<E<9000) e = a*x + b (linear decrease from 1 to 0.6 from E=1000 to E=9000)
if (9000<E<infinity), e =0.6

This way, game would be more interesting since making exponnentionnal eco would be slower. Plus spamming advanced fusion would be half efficent as it is now.

Ecoing would not be so much important than it is now.




And yeah ofc, revease goliat hp, panther and croc E cost


I wont talk about raider anymore, I made tons of posts expaling thge nummber and noone ever replyed about it.
pintle
Posts: 1763
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 16:01

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by pintle »

Jazcash wrote:
pintle wrote: The specific statement that you so eloquently refuted had direct reference to *A. If you want to attack me with such a complex diatrabe of wit, please at least read what I write <3.
All your other points were about BA, as is this thread. When you say *A you mean every TA mod, BA is one of these and in which, making an air repair pad doesn't make a "phenomenal difference" which means my reply, "No.", still stands correct as your statement only applies to a few specific *A mods instead of every *A mod.

Image
"no" to my statement= false. We can keep going in circles if you like. I said something, which was factually correct, you respond with "no", this does not undermine my logic, or provide any evidence to contradict my statement. "can make a phenomal difference in *A air battles". Learn to english, learn to logic, get back on topic?
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by Jazcash »

pintle wrote:Learn to english, learn to logic, get back on topic?
No.
User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by ginekolog »

I like playing BA. T1 balance is allmost perfect. T2 is mostly ok, but some units are quite useless (tremor, walking bombs, diplomat,... ). Esp tremor cost is insane for its output (make more hp or reduce cost).

About T3:
-kragneth is too good, reduce its AA capability, cost up a bit
-catapult needs like 15k life for its 5,5k cost
-vanguard is still op , reduce hp a bit
-reduce AA capabilty of razor
-jugg is most useless T3 unit. Give him speed of sumo, some crush attack and reduce hp as drawback. Even then will be too slow for real uses

T2 air with bombers and figters are still best(maybe too good) game finishers. Grund static AA is big fail, i would decrease cost of flaks or increase ROF and accurucy.
BaNa
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 21:05

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by BaNa »

i would remove the krog from t3, it looks the worst.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by Gota »

BaNa wrote:i would remove the krog from t3, it looks the worst.
HERECY!!! XD
The only unit that MUST be in T3.I admit it's design wasnt the best and its needs a new model but damn its still awesome and it even has an awesome name.
I prefer the jag myself but if your gonna have a unit called Krogoth it has to be a massive t3 kbot :)
Last edited by Gota on 23 Dec 2010, 15:30, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by Pxtl »

@Pintle

You minunderstand me.

I *like* changes that fundamentally change the roles of units. I think those are great. I just don't expect them to happen. What I'd *like* and what I'll see are different things. I just like to spitball ideas - it's fun. Remember fun?

The "whee, let's buff unit X so that it's a major part of the gameplay to the point that it messes up the rest of the game" changes are the ones that I'm not fond of, because they turn the game on its head without really making it more interesting.
User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: Another BA balance suggestion topic

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng »

smoth wrote:
triton wrote:
triton wrote: If you dont play BA plz dont post on that topic.
Pxtl who the fuck are you???
he has been here 5 more years than you.. of the two of you he should ask that.
in RL though, most people who post here dont qualify as playing BA in the sense of being able to play 1v1 @ decent level.

people (and by people I mean anyone posting balance suggestions here) dont seem to be grasping that BA is actively pursuing a state of stagnation.. if you like to suggest balance changes of any type or form, BA subforum is not the place to be hanging
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”