Spring RTS Engine

If you guys played more BOTA you'd see that MT forests, while they do reduce the use of air, do actually lead to smarter use of air. And while MT forests are something many people either love or hate. They are something that can be worked around. Just today my friends and I discovered a very effective and very fresh way at destroying a row of MTs. And once that row is gone, the AIR units come screaming over to finish the match.

For sure Quanto. My point was that Anti-Air in BA is very effective, IF you choose to build it. While obviously it would need re-balancing if MT became anti-everything, it becomes a massive gameplay change.

Ofc everyone is entitled to their own opinion on how things are balanced, if you dont like the way BA is balanced Gota, stop trying to change it and work on your own project.

neddiedrow wrote:All means of balance are artificial, implemented through the design. I briefly considered releasing a mutator for BA where T1 air transports were normally much more durable, promoting their general use, and when they picked up Commanders they were heavily penalized, due to the need to link-up with and in a stable manner transport the technologically complex and volatile Commander. This would be no more artificial than tweaking turn rate, merely considerably more inventive.

Yes it would be. Attaching a labored explanation doesn't make it less artificial.

So simply make the commander untransportable? Duh, a solution!

easily done...

lurker wrote:

neddiedrow wrote:All means of balance are artificial, implemented through the design. I briefly considered releasing a mutator for BA where T1 air transports were normally much more durable, promoting their general use, and when they picked up Commanders they were heavily penalized, due to the need to link-up with and in a stable manner transport the technologically complex and volatile Commander. This would be no more artificial than tweaking turn rate, merely considerably more inventive.

Yes it would be. Attaching a labored explanation doesn't make it less artificial.

I didn't say it wasn't artificial, I said it was no more artificial. There is nothing in the system which is natural, you can use special damages, you can manipulate basic values, you can implement things in lua. None of these things are more or less artificial, they are merely more or less complicated.

Anyone wrote:So simply make the commander untransportable? Duh, a solution!

Than you can't combomb with transport and u cant comnap and you cant move your com out of harms way or use a transport to move with ur com from place to place to cap mexes faster... etc..

It's better ot have effective MTs vs air and land.
Not as much as only land or only air defences but still effective.
This way when someone starts air you can build mt and not get overwhelmed if he suddenly switched to land.
And u can use mt's with llts to not get overwhelmed by air.
The most important thing is to avoid parts where you must resort to pure guessing about what the other player is doing.
And parts where if u guessed wrong You will lsoe almost for sure.
As I see it if you need to make individual exceptions Such as special damages or making the transport fly slower with the commander in it It means Something is wrong at the core.

I Personally like consistency in the design.
If i need to make special damages or individual exceptions because I didn't fit all my units in a single consistent design I become annoyed.
There are of course map and engine limitations that cant be avoided but aside from those..

Lowering the turnrate of the atlas is just an excercise in changing stats, artificial but normal. Slowing down when picking up a 3000hp brick of a commander because it's 'fragile' is an elaborate mockery of the game's consistency, and where the dishonest definition of the word artificial comes in. I don't think it deserves to be called 'inventive', a word with positive connotations.

Is it more artificial? If we use a clinical definition then both are 100% artificial, but if we use a derogatory definition then 'worse is more'. In my opinion it's certainly a worse artificial.

Pressure Line wrote:Gota, stop trying to change it and work on your own project.

About to be released.
IMO its not about balance it's about allowing the more skilled player to win instead of leaving a lot to luck.
Let me explain further what i mean.
Imagine the following situation, a 1v1 where 1 starts air and the other vehicles.
The one that started air builds a transport and flies to the other guy's base,D-guns his lab and flies away.
If the mod does not allow the vehicle player to know about whats coming even if he plays great than this is a weak point in the design IMO.
In BA's case you sometimes can't scout fast enough And you don't want to waste precious resources on an MT,when you don't know if he went air or not,because those 3 more scouts you could have built with that res might lose you the game.
So what do you do to avoid these situations?
Well BA 1v1's are forced to be played with an unwritten rule that states you can't fly your com into the enemy base in the first 10 minuts...How do you define where the base begins and where it ends?
Impossible.Ultimately such a dsign can not be competitive because there can be disputes among players that are unsolvable.

Where's the argument? Gota is saying that unscoutable hard-counter strategies are bad because they make the start of the game random. The argument seems to be about what 'artificial' means.

Gota wrote:IMO its not about balance it's about allowing the more skilled player to win instead of leaving a lot to luck.

You mistake skill for luck. It takes skill to successfully commdrop and/or commnap/commbomb without putting you or your team in a bad position.

Gota wrote:If the mod does not allow the vehicle player to know about whats coming even if he plays great than this is a weak point in the design IMO.

You are not given a maphack to know what your enemy is doing just because you play great.

Gota wrote:Well BA 1v1's are forced to be played with an unwritten rule that states you can't fly your com into the enemy base in the first 10 minuts

They are not forced, some newbies make up all sorts of silly rules like "no rush in x min" because they suck. This is the same. It is not a the problem of a mod what stupid people decide to agree upon.

Gota wrote:Ultimately such a dsign can not be competitive because there can be disputes among players that are unsolvable.

https://blendax.informatik.uni-bremen.d ... ng/ladder/

http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=16554
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=16452
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15027
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15023
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12967
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12505
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12502
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12414
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11772
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11726
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11683
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11651
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11633
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11608
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11131

Regret it doesn't take much skill to throw your commander with a tran into the enemy lines when he has a commander there...
Even if he has a Missile turret it usually wont fire cause it will be blocked by other turrets.
Combombs and naps are a fun part of the game but They should be harder to do and be much rarer.
I know that all you do is comnap combomb and drop.
Most of the community sees the fact it's so common to be a bad thing.
I think it should be more about prolonged combat most of the time and not endless combombs and comnaps..
The best way to play DSD in BA is to combomb a few times while you hold on to your troops.

There is not skill in throwing your com with an atlas at an enemy line...You will succeeed in 90% of times..

Gota wrote:There is not skill in throwing your com with an atlas at an enemy line...You will succeeed in 90% of times..

This is where you're wrong.

Honestly I don't like the air-comm-tactics... I think they're a not-fun element of the game that cuts the game down before it's gotten to be any fun. Too much of it is straight guesswork - do I move my comm out of home base in case he commdrops into my base? Do I waste resources on unnecessary MTs?

However, they're not unbalanced, and they do require skill. If they're going to be a part of BA, that's fine. Regret has shown that there is real art to doing it right, and at the same time they're generally counter-able actions.

Why should I apply negative terminology over positive terminology? It would make general transporting more viable while maintaining the limitations on Comm Bombing. I don't particularly advocate the method, otherwise I would have suggested it in a comparatively reputable discussion, but it may improve the dynamics in question and can quite easily be explained in game via fluff.

What consistency? Some anti-air units fire at land, others do not. Lasers become less effective at the limit of their range due to min-intensity. In gunship weapons you have lasers, rockets, ballistics and paralysis, the last of which is arguably most effective. Some units produce enough energy to sustain themselves, others do not. What in this design is consistent?

If it addresses the situation with minimal negative/performance consequences and does not disrupt the immersion - such as it is - then it isn't a bad solution. A blind argument against complexity is not viable.

The fact you have different weapon types does not hurt consistency nor does it feel strange.
What would hurt consistency was if the same type of weapon would work differently for certain units.
That would feel bizarre.
Having a consistent design does not mean playing with one unit that has 1 weapon.
As i mentioned before I'm talking about consistency in the frame work of OTA.

Anyone wrote:So simply make the commander untransportable? Duh, a solution!

Or simply play with commander ends. The biggest difference in strategy between ota and ota based mods is not the mod, it's the people. In ota it was common to play commander ends, which makes it quite stupid to combomb.

Jools wrote:

Anyone wrote:So simply make the commander untransportable? Duh, a solution!

Or simply play with commander ends. The biggest difference in strategy between ota and ota based mods is not the mod, it's the people. In ota it was common to play commander ends, which makes it quite stupid to combomb.

And what if your com gets comnapped at com ends? Non transportable com and no com explosion modoptions would be better.

If you get commnapped and lose, your opponent is better than you.
If you get commbombed and lose, your opponent is better than you.

Comnapping is a good and fun strategy.
transporting commanders is a source to many different tactics...