ANOTHER BALANCE SUGGESTION THREAD LOLZ

ANOTHER BALANCE SUGGESTION THREAD LOLZ

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

Post Reply
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

ANOTHER BALANCE SUGGESTION THREAD LOLZ

Post by Wombat »

ye i know i torpedo them myself, but only these that repeat.

nobody touched these units since... well since i remember, suggestions like 'remove them coz they are useless' dont count.

anyway.

t2 veh transport - its very useful. YES IT IS. of course its not one of these units that can be simply sent to the front. it got shittons of hp so u can use them for:

- using as 'shield' for own units (sent in front of them)
- hiding com inside, surviving medium porc, dgunning DDM and running away (and so on)
- hiding crawling bombs inside, getting safely to the porc and blowing it up nicely (com dgunning trans and getting pwnd is hilarious)
- hiding any units inside with small range and easly raping porc, like cans or golly (it can storage 3 gollys, which is lol but stupid at the same time)

main issue is huge cost, for a unarmed unit - 1264/15010 (golly is 1567/19892 >>)
another thing is that arm doesnt have one >_>

------
now hover trans - i agree these are pretty useless most of the time (i use them personally only on the tangerine, its uber win). again cost:

cost of Bear (arm) - 665/7938
cost of halberd (heavy core hover) - 600/12211

WTFFF

------

now something more controversial: adv crawling bomb should be in amph lab, since its AMPH. i dont think it will be any OP since cost is huge (2681/15232). could add some diversity to the t1 gameplay tho.

------

pincers and that second thing. extremely underused. could use small buff. i dunno, stealth to make the suprise factor more effective ?

------

blade - its not flak resistant at all (flak got bit ridiculous buff in my opinion, and after removing armor classes its COMPLETELY useless) total noobtrap. i have to agree with others to remove it for now (shit, fail, watch first line >> nvm)

------

EDIT - forgot about emp spiders. dunno what about them... little bit bigger rate of fire ? emp when selfd ?

to make it clear, these are not rly any balance suggestions, just to point out forgotten units and move them out of void since these are really nice concepts which could increase the level of 'funz'. sadly, completely ignored by devs/players

Image
User avatar
Nixa
Posts: 350
Joined: 05 Oct 2006, 04:32

Re: ANOTHER BALANCE SUGGESTION THREAD LOLZ

Post by Nixa »

All these balance changes threads from individuals yet so much bawww bawww when things do get changed - me confused :?

A simple removal of all units you have in this thread would suffice 8)
User avatar
MidKnight
Posts: 2652
Joined: 10 Sep 2008, 03:11

Re: ANOTHER BALANCE SUGGESTION THREAD LOLZ

Post by MidKnight »

Nixa wrote:A simple removal of all units in BA would suffice
FTFY. :regret:





...Sorry, couldn't resist.
User avatar
Nixa
Posts: 350
Joined: 05 Oct 2006, 04:32

Re: ANOTHER BALANCE SUGGESTION THREAD LOLZ

Post by Nixa »

:lol:
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: ANOTHER BALANCE SUGGESTION THREAD LOLZ

Post by Wombat »

All these balance changes threads from individuals
i kno right. but nobody said anything about these since i remember.
User avatar
Nixa
Posts: 350
Joined: 05 Oct 2006, 04:32

Re: ANOTHER BALANCE SUGGESTION THREAD LOLZ

Post by Nixa »

Yeah, well in all seriousness you made some fair points with those units. These 'balance' threads are pretty much proving just how 'unbalanced' 'balanced' annihilation is. Now define balance :-)
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: ANOTHER BALANCE SUGGESTION THREAD LOLZ

Post by Wombat »

no, thse balance threads prove that u cannot balance ba for 1v1,2v2 or 8v8 at the same time.
Pako
Posts: 174
Joined: 12 Jul 2009, 18:57

Re: ANOTHER BALANCE SUGGESTION THREAD LOLZ

Post by Pako »

Nixa wrote:All these balance changes threads from individuals yet so much bawww bawww when things do get changed - me confused :?
Better to make balance suggestions than implement bad gameplay changes without asking players.

Some types of people like changes more and others are conservative but everyone hates too big changes.
Nixa wrote:These 'balance' threads are pretty much proving just how 'unbalanced' 'balanced' annihilation is. Now define balance
Humans have this tendency to make rules what other people should follow and it keeps humanity evolving. There are many conventions to control what rules become used like democracy, monarchy, dictatorship.

Players balance the gameplay by knowing the rules. Description of BA balance could be that major portion of units can be used but still some units are generally better than others so noobs won't have too steep learning curve and rarely used units are the most fun when used right.
User avatar
Hobo Joe
Posts: 1001
Joined: 02 Jan 2008, 21:55

Re: ANOTHER BALANCE SUGGESTION THREAD LOLZ

Post by Hobo Joe »

Pako wrote: Players balance the gameplay by knowing the rules. Description of BA balance could be that major portion of units can be used but still some units are generally better than others so noobs won't have too steep learning curve and rarely used units are the most fun when used right.
Bigtime this. Units shouldn't be removed because they are often not useful, one of the appeals of BA is using the unit variety, and how fun it is to pull of a great move with a niche unit. Just like how people in the other thread were saying Maverick isn't very good - that's not true. It's very soft in a standard situation but used correctly it is very powerful and can do way more damage than most other units. Likewise stealth units or all-t units and so on. I thought it was really stupid to simply remove the emp bomber without bothering to even address what the issues were. I've never heard a complaint of the EMP bomber being OP or unbalanced, but apparently someone on the new dev team has been raped with it and decided to remove it without bothering to check with the community. That shouldn't happen.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”