Balanced Annihilation V6.92

[JohannesH]

... about those replays?

Replays don't work in the newest version currently, at least not for a big portion of people including me. Come to spec some 1v1 games with decent players if you want.

[Pxtl]

Like what you say?
Like the core t2 radar kbot having a vec moveclass and vec slopetolerance. kthxbai

Or the fact that all the transports that aren't aircraft are too buggy to use.

[imbaczek]

btw ground transports should behave much better in 0.79 when unloading and/or unload on destroy.

(much better = no teleports)

[HectorMeyer]

Can we see some real problems fixed instead?

What about the antinuke not intercepting EMP missiles? Whats the reason for this, does it make any sense at all? The only reason it was like that on OTA was because the EMP launcher was added later in Core Contingency, so the old antinuke couldn't react to the new missile type (pure speculation on my part).

What about making antinukes also intercept tactical nukes? Yay, nay? (awesome idea, yay of course)

And while we're at it, why not make antinukes invulnerable to EMP, or at least give them higher EMP resistance (well, that might be a bit too much, ability to intercept EMP missiles is enough)?

I think nerfing nukes a bit like that can't hurt. Or is there anyone complaining about nukes being UP?

[el_matarife]

What about the antinuke not intercepting EMP missiles? Whats the reason for this, does it make any sense at all?

What about making antinukes also intercept tactical nukes? Yay, nay? (awesome idea, yay of course)

Tactical nukes and EMP missiles both stockpile faster than anti-nukes and are also way cheaper than nuke launchers, so you could use tacs and EMP to overwhelm anti-nukes very cheaply. If you're dead certain that there should be an option to counter tacs and EMP, I think Supreme Commander style point defenses may make more sense They would probably only be really useful if they could intercept every type of non-nuke vertical launch missile like the EMP, tac nuke, junos, cruise missile ships, dominator kbots, or the T2 vehicle missile launchers.

[Niobium]

Remove both nukes and antinukes from the game.

Imo they are completely separate from the 'real' game, in that they only interact with eachother, so could be removed with barely any effect on the mod, apart from removing the ridiculousness of suddenly having your entire base destroyed in an instant by a point-and-click.

You would say, well why didn't you just build an anti. But that is hard to do against a nuke rush (The worst thing in BA), or when you have a front to fight, or when you want to hold off on T2 to continue T1 spam.

Sure, you could scout/bomb the nuke, but that can't be relied on at all in pub games, which are basically the main place nukes occur. And even after realizing the enemy has a nuke, it is extremely difficult (i.e. impossible) to get an anti up in time due to the extreme energy cost. 60k energy for an anti? Which you need to get up in 30 seconds (Add 90 seconds to build anti = time for enemy to build next nuke) unless you have 2 fusions lying around for every anti you need to build to cover team you are screwed, another teammate gets nuked, and then the game is 90% of the time over at that point.

I don't think anybody would miss nukes.

[Pxtl]

Nuke rush only happens in BIIIG teamgames, and in that case you have to worry about any similarly unorthodox rush - I've seen the same tactic of one-guy-hide-in-the-bac-and-porc work for Krows, for example.

[Niobium]

Krow rush is fantastic, mightve been me you saw

But at least that can be countered by picking up a com in a trans, fly it into the krow and self D. Easy. Had it done to my krow rush once.

You have plenty of time to work out the counter, even when its attacking. Unlike your your entire base becoming a crater in an instant.

[Hacked]

the krow is a unit, meaning that it affects units in the game, and other units affect it. it is very possible to integrate some sort of defense against krows while fighting on the front line. although krows are very powerful and a dedicated fighter screen (unit wise) is required to counter it, other methods exists in terms of defense and therefore, krows are a part of the game
edit:even fight screens are useful, they also protect against other aircraft, so the krow's counter is not otherwise useless.

nukes, as nobium explained, are very sudden, very powerful, and alot less integrated. why? because missiles are not units and no units attack it. it has infinite range and can destroy any front line player without specific defense against it. the counter is the antinuke (were talking about the missiles), which is the only counter and a dedicated one at that. the anti serves no other purpose and therefore, the nuke and antinuke are very seperate on their own. combined with the logic that the nuke missile ignores a majority of units ingame, nukes and antinukes are not part of the game

the problem with nukes, is that you have to know about the nukes to play effectively. do i use many resources to protect against this threat, even if the anti is useless otherwise?

some people slightly dislike porcing, or walling in. i dont have a great arguement for this, but taking away ability to destroy long range might encourage them to send units. the presence of nukes forces a non-porc-minded player to build expensive (ok, with t2 econ this may or may not be true) and otherwise useless defense.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

the counter to nukes is not playing stupid porcy noob maps with 16 players squashed in

ie, DSD

[Regret]

Hahaha complaints about nuke not being part of the game, that's a new one :D

[JohannesH]

some people slightly dislike porcing, or walling in. i dont have a great arguement for this, but taking away ability to destroy long range might encourage them to send units. the presence of nukes forces a non-porc-minded player to build expensive (ok, with t2 econ this may or may not be true) and otherwise useless defense.

That's ridiculous. Altering game balance because it might make noobs play better? If people play shit, they lose, and thats their fault not the games'.

[HectorMeyer]

All the above posters have valid points, but the main problem is the EMP launcher. It's completely ridiculous. Strangely, I don't see EMP missiles used very often, maybe it's some sort of gentlemens agreement. But when used, they completely break the game.

So please, make antinukes intercept EMP missiles, there really is no reason not to.

And yeah, porc is teh sucks, so also implement an "i win" button which becomes active after like 20 minutes.

[Pxtl]

Yes there is. Antinukes are expensive - prohibitively so, for intercepting EMP. The antinuke launcher itself is more expensive (same metal, double energy) as an EMP, and the missiles themselves are cheaper too. It would be trivial to use EMPs to just drain an antinuke until it's gone, and then use a full-nuke.

[imbaczek]

the whole point is rather moot if you can emp a antinuke, which i'm not sure is possible.

[HectorMeyer]

Hmm maybe I really am wrong on this one, but I thought I've seen this sometimes. EMPing antinukes sure is possible (by EMP planes for example), but from EMP missiles, i am not sure.

It would be trivial to use EMPs to just drain an antinuke until it's gone, and then use a full-nuke.

Only slightly less trivial than EMPing then nuking.

[imbaczek]

my point is it's a lose-lose situation - you'll either get emp-spammed then nuked or emp-spammed and then nuked, no matter what's the antinuke behavior regarding emps.

[TheFatController]

EMP nukes and tac nukes have a shorter range so you can't build one at the back of your base with your nanos, they're immune to antinukes otherwise they'd be useless.

[HectorMeyer]

EMP nukes ... have a shorter range.

Tbh I never really noticed that. In that case it's ok the way it is I guess. Sorry for all that uninformed posting :)

[Regret]

Tbh I never really noticed that. In that case it's ok the way it is I guess. Sorry for all that uninformed posting :)

Don't worry, people are used to dumbasses whining about BA balance.