Balanced Annihilation 7.31
Moderator: Content Developer
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
Honestly in most games you have minutes and minutes of spamming one unit, how would an increasing buildtime not fuck that up?
Not megaspam, but think of a CC game.
Not megaspam, but think of a CC game.
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
Its just a problem of how you increase buildtime. In CCR 1vs1 you wouldnt have much difference when you spam flash with 2 nanos for first 30-40 flash but 2 T1 factory with 8 nanos spamming only flash would be a bit less efficient.
A good change must be small and balanced to not change the way you play too much.
Biggest question is : does that concept can be good?
A good change must be small and balanced to not change the way you play too much.
Biggest question is : does that concept can be good?
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
or start to apply this limit above a "soft cap"... over 100 units the factory start to experience a malus.
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
Would be useless.macbeth wrote:or start to apply this limit above a "soft cap"... over 100 units the factory start to experience a malus.
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
100 is only a place holder, the right number must be computated /experienced / tested on the field... it's your idea, but the malus start to be applied after the reach of the "wanted" quantity.triton wrote:Would be useless.macbeth wrote:or start to apply this limit above a "soft cap"... over 100 units the factory start to experience a malus.
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
I dont see the need for this, the stated original problem it would resolve (endgame lag) happens anyway at the end on big ffa games and such, usually not because someone wants to ruin the game on purpose.
The additional changes it would cause to games like Comet 1v1 during normal play would be significant. What reason do we have to change the basic gameplay, other than applying a non-fix to a problem that would happen anyway?
Furthermore, it would add another layer of invisible rules that a play would have to keep in mind, for no real reason at all. If anything, I would support a bit of a move toward simplicity, incorporating the hidden rules into the visible ones where we can (special damages / armorclasses into hp and damage for instance) and stating them in an obvious manner where we cannot.
I would argue that the core gameplay of BA is why we play it. Yes, there is inertia in the system, there are unresolved bugs, but BA gameplay is far from being broken. As such, fixing it should not be an issue.
The additional changes it would cause to games like Comet 1v1 during normal play would be significant. What reason do we have to change the basic gameplay, other than applying a non-fix to a problem that would happen anyway?
Furthermore, it would add another layer of invisible rules that a play would have to keep in mind, for no real reason at all. If anything, I would support a bit of a move toward simplicity, incorporating the hidden rules into the visible ones where we can (special damages / armorclasses into hp and damage for instance) and stating them in an obvious manner where we cannot.
I would argue that the core gameplay of BA is why we play it. Yes, there is inertia in the system, there are unresolved bugs, but BA gameplay is far from being broken. As such, fixing it should not be an issue.
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
Eh maybe it's just another stupid idea ^^
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
it will be even worse but w/e
- SirArtturi
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 18:29
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
That's the reason I don't see why such stupidity as enemy unit napping couldn't be ruled out.BaNa wrote: I would argue that the core gameplay of BA is why we play it. Yes, there is inertia in the system, there are unresolved bugs, but BA gameplay is far from being broken. As such, fixing it should not be an issue.
I've already given pretty good solution to put it through: Make enemy units possible to shoot even if napped by transport - What is the reason they can't shoot after loaded in the first place? (This ofc does does not apply units that are emped - making the dragonfly still viable unit)
That is even pretty conservative approach to solve the problem. It won't brake the core dynamics, not at all, but rather make the games more qualified altogether.
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
Unit/Comm napping has been and is a part of BA's gameplay since it got released. It won't go away and this was debated over and over for several years. It adds a lot of depth and fun into matches.SirArtturi wrote:That's the reason I don't see why such stupidity as enemy unit napping couldn't be ruled out.
I've already given pretty good solution to put it through: Make enemy units possible to shoot even if napped by transport - What is the reason they can't shoot after loaded in the first place? (This ofc does does not apply units that are emped - making the dragonfly still viable unit)
That is even pretty conservative approach to solve the problem. It won't brake the core dynamics, not at all, but rather make the games more qualified altogether.
Pretend they get paralyzed when picked up if you need a rational explanations for unit behavior in a game.
- SirArtturi
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 18:29
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
Pretty predictable response from a guy with such avatar.Regret wrote: Unit/Comm napping has been and is a part of BA's gameplay since it got released. It won't go away and this was debated over and over for several years. It adds a lot of depth and fun into matches.
Pretend they get paralyzed when picked up if you need a rational explanations for unit behavior in a game.
I don't need rational explanations for unit behaviour though logic can be always used to support arguments for better future.
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
he didnt ask to remove it.Unit/Comm napping has been and is a part of BA's gameplay since it got released. It won't go away
- SirArtturi
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 18:29
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
Yes, I was mainly speaking about solving the awkward problem of using newbies as free nukes. Com exploded in his own base is always better than being it exploded in my base.Wombat wrote:he didnt ask to remove it.Unit/Comm napping has been and is a part of BA's gameplay since it got released. It won't go away
Personally I would go with more radical solutions, but you fundamentalists would't swallow it.
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
first of all, fix trans being able to nap moving fatboy and com ( dunno rly if more units can be napped while moving)
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
If it were up to me, I'd certainly reduce the effectiveness of combombing. It's sad to see some players getting combombed within 4 minutes of the game starting because they're good players.
Two defenders should kill an incoming combomb before it splodes everything.
Two defenders should kill an incoming combomb before it splodes everything.
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
said long time ago its annoying how 3rd pulv shot is needed to kill trans with like... what, 10% hp ?
also reduce instakill range :c
also reduce instakill range :c
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
Atlas HP = 240Wombat wrote:said long time ago its annoying how 3rd pulv shot is needed to kill trans with like... what, 10% hp ?
also reduce instakill range :c
Valkyrie HP = 250
Defender/Pulverizer Damage = 113
Means two shots from a Defender/Pulverizer leaves Atlas with 14 HP remaining and Valkyrie with 24 HP remaining. Therefore, I propose Valkyrie HP is brought down to 240 and Defender/Pulverizer damage is pushed up to 120. Thoughts?
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and once again the hardcores will call me an idiot for believing this:
Unit-napping should be disabled. No-transport-comboom should be on by default, or comm-transporting should be disabled altogether.
Then you could give transports some real armor instead of making them hyper-fragile.
Unit-napping should be disabled. No-transport-comboom should be on by default, or comm-transporting should be disabled altogether.
Then you could give transports some real armor instead of making them hyper-fragile.
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
You asked for itPxtl wrote:me an idiot
Re: Balanced Annihilation 7.31
There are simple solutions to many of the lag issues.
1) models (more specifically - reducing model piece number)
2) widgets (ie/ MM widget creates a large draw on the network)
3) creating new units that are scaled versions of others (ie/ supernano that is 10x better than standard nano, will reduce cpu calculation time esp. on larger games were 20% of units are nanos (ie/500+ nanos on map). Also a superfighter could be included in this to reduce lag. This however will not fix mindless spam like AK's etc.
Generally speaking, with exception of nano and fighter spam, people that have the current 'spam AK' mentality picked it up from other more 'senior' ranked players simply because it worked on them once. What they fail to understand is that it is rediculously inefficient, esp. against someone that has even the slightest idea how to counter it.
1) models (more specifically - reducing model piece number)
2) widgets (ie/ MM widget creates a large draw on the network)
3) creating new units that are scaled versions of others (ie/ supernano that is 10x better than standard nano, will reduce cpu calculation time esp. on larger games were 20% of units are nanos (ie/500+ nanos on map). Also a superfighter could be included in this to reduce lag. This however will not fix mindless spam like AK's etc.
Generally speaking, with exception of nano and fighter spam, people that have the current 'spam AK' mentality picked it up from other more 'senior' ranked players simply because it worked on them once. What they fail to understand is that it is rediculously inefficient, esp. against someone that has even the slightest idea how to counter it.