Spring RTS Engine

Well I agree with Nio, if you respect me

Its not a matter of opinion, give yourself some blades, then give a nullai half the number of pulverizers, try to stun that. That's a lot more cost in the blades, but np, they still lose.

And in the end they didnt even kill anything in that scenario.

balance vs pulverisers wasn't even changed, was it? >.<

some sort of unit ai to prevent overkill would be cool.. once the furore calmed down ofc.

It was not changed but anyway blades have no chance attacking equal cost aa, any aa,which was implied.

And removing overkill is a bad idea, it's an important and interesting part of micro. Would have huge balance implications.

Niobium wrote:

Johannes wrote:GL trying to stop equal cost of aa with blades. 2 blades have 0 chance of stunning a crasher, pulverizer or samson

Scale those numbers up, and suddenly it's a piece of cake.

You put one sacrificial blade infront of your blade line before sending it in, it absorbs the entire first volley. If you only have 2-3 blades, this sacrificial one is a big deal. When you have 15 blades, it's nothing.

You are perfectly true .... in theory. Point is, in a REAL game, you dont know where are the samson BEFORE you send the blades (you may have a view on some of them, you never know what kind of unit are where you dont see them). If there is only lets say two samson you did not saw, you loose 2 blades each time they fire. And if they start to fire and kill you blades, if will unstunded samson that will fire on blades... and so on. Plus if you have a wide spread of unit, you need to micro induvualy each blades to only specificly attack samson and pulverizer ... good luck with that: I have no idea what are you micro skills, but I am not about to specificaly target 10 samson with 30 blades in a bunch of 40 unit (If I assume I have 30 raider too). If the front is a ligne and the stumpy stand with samson in a ligne, you loose 10 blades in a first shoot. Then you need to micro your 20 blades (2 per samson) and click individually 1 time to selct blades and 1 times to select target: you need to click 20 time in 1 sec (1200 click / minutes). this is beyond men's ability...


Number about the simunlation:

unit M E BT
samson 140 2027 2945
stumpy 201 1746 2904
blades 54 1200 2073
raider 211 2216 3312

10 samson 1400 20270 29450
30 stumpy 6030 52380 87120
7430 72650 116570

30 blades 1620 24000 41760
30 raider 6330 66480 99360
7950 904980 141120

Victory : depend on microskills ofc. You can notice in this exmple, core is far more expensive espcially in term of BT and E (and E and BT cost metal M E and BT) : that the reason on vehicule map, win ratio between core and arm is 33%/66%. But ofc every single player here knwo that, casue you all play 1vs1 since ages... why nerf blades then ? To make everyone play arm, well it is almost already the case in 1vs1, maybe this is the point of poeple with "ability to balance" that are here





Of course this exemple stands if I assum that the arm player is so lazy (he does notwants to use air unit ever and wants to play with vehicule cause he wants a starcraft-like game with only 3 units to spam), he will never think about building fight to counter easily blades since they have high speed and kill blades in one shoot too.

But shuuut, dont tell anyone !! Some poeple could actually thing it is a good idea to counter blades (yes you can kill tenth of blades while a fighter is cheasing the blades flying away) and stop this discussion. What a shame it would be to stop this discussion !! The plan to make the game a vehicul spam game only would be ruined, what a shame !!





With this post, I show to all the player that never acually though about how to deal blades, how to do it. Now, you can do what ever you want, but if blades are nerf, their efficiency will be so low that poeple will just go vehicule only and spend time microing vehicul rather that spend some time (and a lot of energy) in building air unit that requie tremenous micro without even beeing effective enough (you cannot surpise more than once, and if you dont surprise you dead casue - guess what- with the time you prepare your blades, the enemy IS NOT PAUSING, he can make airstrike bomber, fighter or spam MORE AND MORE AND MORE STUMPY (with a lit bit mix of samson ofc) like 90% of the dumb player (in this thread ?) would like to ).
It looks like it is not a discussion about blade here, but a discussion about if you want to make BA like all the other comercial game, or if you actually want to continue to be able to apply different strategies.

ok, here's another conclusion drawn from your anecdote: 'blades are OP' (how else could albator beat the mighty 8D?)

And btw, there are not mighty 8D. The poeple calling other mighty shows they have no idea about 1vs1 since the player you refer to can be beaten for player who actually have a clue about spring. Even bybyK beats 8D. So you just showed me about good you knew the game. Thanks for making my point yourself !




Tip for core : you can build AA with cons, so dont foget click on them too. you jsut need to increase you human ability beyond 1200mds/min. So easy !


Tip : In a REAL game, player is not stupid, and spread the AA (samson here) to avoid his unit to be stuned

Nixa wrote:Well I agree with Nio, if you respect me

Well, you dont play so much BA anymore, I suggest you play more to see what changes into balance since it has been a long time you did not play. It is easier to play that to listen to poeple if you want to make your mind about balance.

Also do belive what everyone say here :D

Johannes wrote:And removing overkill is a bad idea, it's an important and interesting part of micro. Would have huge balance implications.

Surely it would improve gameplay. Not to remove it entirely, but to have units work together with a modicum of intelligence to reduce those 'headslap' moments. Obviously it would have balance implications which would then need to be ironed out, but if the gameplay is improved thats good isn't it?

Note: this is not BA! BA is stable.

albator wrote:

ok, here's another conclusion drawn from your anecdote: 'blades are OP' (how else could albator beat the mighty 8D?)

And btw, there are not mighty 8D. The poeple calling other mighty shows they have no idea about 1vs1 since the player you refer to can be beaten for player who actually have a clue about spring. Even bybyK beats 8D. So you just showed me about good you knew the game. Thanks for making my point yourself !

You missed out the second part of my post. Go back and read if you like. I was demonstrating how easy it is to come to a conclusion if you make an assumption (that 8D is better than you was the assumption). This is why I tried to explain with logic fundamentals rather than example.. cause the example is easily misunderstood by someone who refuses to consider opposing views (treating discussion as a battle rather than a search for the truth).

momfreeek wrote:

Johannes wrote:And removing overkill is a bad idea, it's an important and interesting part of micro. Would have huge balance implications.

Surely it would improve gameplay. Not to remove it entirely, but to have units work together with a modicum of intelligence to reduce those 'headslap' moments. Obviously it would have balance implications which would then need to be ironed out, but if the gameplay is improved thats good isn't it?

Note: this is not BA! BA is stable.

How would it improve gameplay? Making enemys units overshoot is not a "Headslap moment", it's a cool play and even greater play is to maneuver your units not to overshoot. It's pretty intuitive to learn how it works too.

Note: 'overshoot' is ambiguous (to overshoot a target is to go beyond it)

Increased control and units not acting like idiots improves gameplay IMO. Line formation and units automatically targetting things they can actually hit are just 2 things that make spring better to play than ForgedAlliance (I don't take credit for these insights).

Units not wasting all their precious shots on one small target would be a good step IMO (reduces the stupidity of flea spam for one).

momfreeek wrote:Note: 'overshoot' is ambiguous (to overshoot a target is to go beyond it)

Increased control and units not acting like idiots improves gameplay IMO. Line formation and units automatically targetting things they can actually hit are just 2 things that make spring better to play than ForgedAlliance (I don't take credit for these insights).

Units not wasting all their precious shots on one small target would be a good step IMO (reduces the stupidity of flea spam for one).

Would radically change balance of janus, banisher, storm, rocko, a few others. It would penalise players who have the skill (and forethought) to use variable fire states, and manually target.

line formation penalises players who can manually arrange individual units into formations. queuing penalises players who can set each build order when they need it.

It doesn't change the potential of any unit at all.. just the amount of fiddly micro needed for them to perform well. Affected balance doesn't seems a good reason to reject improvement (whether its an improvement is another matter ofc) as units can be rebalanced as needed.

Meh, it might not even be possible but it seems to me if you can stop units acting stupidly that can't be a bad thing for the game as a whole.

momfreeek wrote:line formation penalises players who can manually arrange their units into formations. queuing penalises players who can set each build order when they need it. units aiming at targets they can hit penalises players who can manually and optimally target everything.

Units can be rebalanced to account for these things and it doesn't change the potential of any unit at all.. just the amount of fiddly micro needed for them to perform well.

Meh, it might not even be possible but it seems to me if you can stop units acting stupidly that can't be a bad thing for the game as a whole.

I don't see it as acting stupidly, we could take this debate to the nth degree, considering things like CA autoskirm, and you arrive at the personal preference landmark, very boring discussion. I don't see what would be added by making such a fundamental change, and I see a lot of tricks and "plays" being lost.

Fair enough. Personally I'd like to see units act at some desirable level of intelligence (even going so far as to make core more automaton, and arm more freethinking). Currently they do some things well and some things very badly which breaks immersion. Its a moot point without much serious implementation anyway.

Customformations allows for a wide range of new possibilities in how you maneuver units. But removing overshoot just removes an aspect of the game, no new and cool micro really emerges from that.

I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing..
to 'overshoot' is to go past the target or aim too far (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/overshoot)
to 'overkill' is to do more damage to a target than necessary to kill it

I agree, customformations is not a good example. How about units preferring to target things they can actually hit? This is in spring but not OTA. Removing annoying behaviour is as good for gameplay as adding new opportunities IMO. I can understand how it'd change the game considerably.. I just think I'd prefer to play that different game.

Yep, overshoot was a typo, I think everyone was talking of overkill only here.


Btw Alba, Starcraft is not about mindlessly spamming same units, BA has much more of that actually - those units are more different from each other and counter each other harder than here.

Johannes wrote:Yep, overshoot was a typo, I think everyone was talking of overkill only here.


Btw Alba, Starcraft is not about mindlessly spamming same units, BA has much more of that actually - those units are more different from each other and counter each other harder than here.

I think that's kinda what he was saying. SC is much more a game of hard-counters rather than a range of options that can be chosen from for the best depending on the situation.

BA offers many ways to approach a situation and this is one of its stronger points, IMO. SC on the other hand is more formulaic and in most situations it's the just a mathematical response where if enemy builds X unit, you build Y, etc.

Hobo Joe wrote:

Johannes wrote:Yep, overshoot was a typo, I think everyone was talking of overkill only here.


Btw Alba, Starcraft is not about mindlessly spamming same units, BA has much more of that actually - those units are more different from each other and counter each other harder than here.

I think that's kinda what he was saying. SC is much more a game of hard-counters rather than a range of options that can be chosen from for the best depending on the situation.

BA offers many ways to approach a situation and this is one of its stronger points, IMO. SC on the other hand is more formulaic and in most situations it's the just a mathematical response where if enemy builds X unit, you build Y, etc.

Exactly the same in BA just that the very low number of players in this community and the map creation which is very general and not game specific does not allow players to get to the point where they know the right amounts and numbers and right plays per map per side...

Updated version and original post with another list of exciting changes

TheFatController wrote:Updated version and original post with another list of exciting changes

you can remove CORE, noone will play it anymore now