Balanced Annihilation V7.11
Moderator: Content Developer
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
Triton, that can be an engine bug, because fighters should have a net sight distance increase in air, as the changelog suggests.
- TheFatController
- Balanced Annihilation Developer
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
The sight distance was only decreased vs non air units, if this doesn't work vs atlas then this is a bug and will be fixed.triton wrote:hm, i played few games and I think that ba version is fucking crap ^^. I wont play it anymore.
2 things : fighters can't see atlas even if atlas is VERY fucking close.
Decrease panthers energy cost by 40% is dumb, if you dont touch others things.
Selfd commanders for metal is a bigger problem, than fixing panthers cost, you should try to think about ba real problems and most common moves, and fix them.
I really dont see how making fighters blind would make combomb less easy??
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
It costs almost the same as buying a T2 lab. He didn't change the price. BA will survive with buffed guardians.Wombat wrote:as long as guardian outranges every t1 unit, buff seems to be unnecessary, but lets see :)
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
Yes i know tfc, its a bug. But this bug is annoying.
Anyway i dislike panthers cost, and i still think you should think about common very good and easy moves. And try to find solutions.
I like mex option, maybe it's unbalanced but i think it's a good try.
Most played autohost host 8vs8 cause it's easy to unlock them to have a fast game, and deltasiege cause it's best map to have T2 and T3, and nubs like that, they often can play bad and not die for long time enough to have some fun.
With team comend option, or kill all units option, people used to selfd commanders when they start at back, and obviously if you do it right it's a good move on that kind of games.
Do you really enjoy that gameplay? Why can't we try something against this?
What can we do?
Anyway i dislike panthers cost, and i still think you should think about common very good and easy moves. And try to find solutions.
I like mex option, maybe it's unbalanced but i think it's a good try.
Most played autohost host 8vs8 cause it's easy to unlock them to have a fast game, and deltasiege cause it's best map to have T2 and T3, and nubs like that, they often can play bad and not die for long time enough to have some fun.
With team comend option, or kill all units option, people used to selfd commanders when they start at back, and obviously if you do it right it's a good move on that kind of games.
Do you really enjoy that gameplay? Why can't we try something against this?
What can we do?
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
niiiice! :D
much shorter infologs!
good work!
much shorter infologs!

good work!
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
Play your 1v1s, people have fun with 8v8 porcing and comm self-d'ing, it's a fundamental part of BA that was around since times of AA and before afaik.triton wrote:Most played autohost host 8vs8 cause it's easy to unlock them to have a fast game, and deltasiege cause it's best map to have T2 and T3, and nubs like that, they often can play bad and not die for long time enough to have some fun.
With team comend option, or kill all units option, people used to selfd commanders when they start at back, and obviously if you do it right it's a good move on that kind of games.
Do you really enjoy that gameplay? Why can't we try something against this?
What can we do?
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
Comm self d only works with good reliability when playing against noobs, theres better places to blow your comm at.
I'd like some clear reasoning from TFC though why the t2 tanks are changed in this way? What is the issue its fixing exactly, those units have always been useful.
I'd like some clear reasoning from TFC though why the t2 tanks are changed in this way? What is the issue its fixing exactly, those units have always been useful.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
+1JohannesH wrote:Comm self d only works with good reliability when playing against noobs, theres better places to blow your comm at.
I'd like some clear reasoning from TFC though why the t2 tanks are changed in this way? What is the issue its fixing exactly, those units have always been useful.
I also would like to know why ?
And I also would like to know why the raider
- costs +27 % more energy than stumpy
- costs +14 % more bt than stumpy
- costs +5 % more metal than stumpy
- has lower turn rate than stumpy
- is slower than stumpy
- because of all that loose 1vs1 agaisnt stumpy even with his better hp
And still, why it is better to make -40 % energy of panther rather than decrease unbalance between stumpy and raider. A guess:
raider : -7 % energy
raider : -7 % bt
or use the pa changes
To know if a unit is balance or not : imagine you can build all the units of the BA arm+core teck tree and answer this question: Is there a unit I will never build cause there is another unit which does everything better and for a cheaper cost ?
The most obvious is : I never build raider cause stumpy always is better and cost less.
I am certain the question have other answer but stmpy/raider is the most important one.
In the same time, I also suggest to bluff dps of banshee (+40%) againt stumpy and raider ONLY
Last edited by albator on 04 Feb 2010, 21:52, edited 1 time in total.
- TheFatController
- Balanced Annihilation Developer
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
For one, there seems to be some confusion on the difference between "reduced energycost by 40%" and "made the unit 40% better", not the same thing by far - the reason behind panther change is they cost too much energy not that they cost enough and needed a boost.JohannesH wrote:I'd like some clear reasoning from TFC though why the t2 tanks are changed in this way? What is the issue its fixing exactly, those units have always been useful.
Regarding the assault tank speed increase, people are playing regularly on maps with 10% move speed typemap (DSD) and even 60% move speed type maps (FFA maps) and these maps remain popular despite this so 15-20% boost won't throw things out of balance. T2 assault tanks were considerably slower than raider/stumpies and are still slower, the problem they have is they get stuck on their friends wrecks and are too slow to be effective so it's difficult to use them for actual assault in big games and much wiser to make t2 bombers or LRPCs instead.
I agree t2 vehicles are pretty much fine but it the logic is that it would be nice to make them at least a bit more viable compared to t2 bombers etc.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
I would think that better accell and turn-rate would be more important than raw speed for assault-vehicles that are so often lumbering through wreckage fields.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
yay t2 tank spam
theres nothing wrong with urging players to build more units
theres nothing wrong with urging players to build more units
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
Faster typemaps play in the faster (t1) tanks favour, when they catch faster to the slower, longer ranged bulldog/reaper/croc. I wouldnt compare typemaps and speed boosts so readily. Speed buff does the opposite, t1 tanks (or zeuses, cans, etc etc) have no real chance to catch up on a kiting tank.
I dont think anyone considers panthers 40% better now. But -40% e cost isnt a small thing of just you ending up with a bit more e, it allows you to cut building a fuckton of energy buildings. Of course it comes down to preference if someone wants it this or that way, but a smaller change would be much easier for everyone to agree with. It was already a great unit on maps with more maneuvering space. Even without lab reclaim.
If you want to buff things in comparison to t2 bombers wouldnt a small hurricane nerf (and maybe a t2 fighter dmg nerf vs t2 bomber to compensate) get that effect more elegantly? While tanks would now be more in line with t2 air, other stuff like t2 assault bots are majorly disadvantaged in comparison.
Of course its not THAT major change, but still leaves a bit of bad taste.
.
.
And another thing, give fido a mygravity tag or something to that effect, it cant shoot to full range on alot of maps in the ballistic fire mode and just dumbs out.
I dont think anyone considers panthers 40% better now. But -40% e cost isnt a small thing of just you ending up with a bit more e, it allows you to cut building a fuckton of energy buildings. Of course it comes down to preference if someone wants it this or that way, but a smaller change would be much easier for everyone to agree with. It was already a great unit on maps with more maneuvering space. Even without lab reclaim.
If you want to buff things in comparison to t2 bombers wouldnt a small hurricane nerf (and maybe a t2 fighter dmg nerf vs t2 bomber to compensate) get that effect more elegantly? While tanks would now be more in line with t2 air, other stuff like t2 assault bots are majorly disadvantaged in comparison.
Of course its not THAT major change, but still leaves a bit of bad taste.
.
.
And another thing, give fido a mygravity tag or something to that effect, it cant shoot to full range on alot of maps in the ballistic fire mode and just dumbs out.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
I cannot seem to disable LUPS with this new BA version. Even when I do /luaui disable I still get these special effects that kill the frame rate.
- TheFatController
- Balanced Annihilation Developer
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
Which ones in particular? I'll look into whether I can modify lups manager to remove all lups effects if closed for next version I thinkzerver wrote:I cannot seem to disable LUPS with this new BA version. Even when I do /luaui disable I still get these special effects that kill the frame rate.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
Well, this explosion effect that looks like a magnifying glass. I don't remember what it is called...TheFatController wrote:Which ones in particular? I'll look into whether I can modify lups manager to remove all lups effects if closed for next version I think
This also gives problems with MT spring version because it works bad with LUPS stuff.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
lups.cfg in your spring directory.
Also, bug jK if you have any problems with lups, telling TFC wont help. Though jK will probably just tell you to update your drivers or stop using ATI cards or something.
Also, bug jK if you have any problems with lups, telling TFC wont help. Though jK will probably just tell you to update your drivers or stop using ATI cards or something.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
Try harder.Saktoth wrote:telling TFC wont help.

- 1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
why?Wombat wrote:vote 1 to reverse golly changes
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 27 Oct 2008, 11:01
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
Loving the new changes
+ for guardian this unit used to be so useless, it was easier to tech and build.
but i think BA is missing a big upgrade that needs to happen...
WATER UNITS!
there so crap compared to land
wheres my water nuke
cant we get a torpedo shield or deflector of some sort?
wheres the cloak fusion?
wheres my jammer?
wheres my adv solar? or adv tidal?
wheres my nanos?
and to top it all off most attack units are either cheap and die easy or way too expensive and take forever to make
i think we need a water upgrade
+ for guardian this unit used to be so useless, it was easier to tech and build.
but i think BA is missing a big upgrade that needs to happen...
WATER UNITS!
there so crap compared to land
wheres my water nuke
cant we get a torpedo shield or deflector of some sort?
wheres the cloak fusion?
wheres my jammer?
wheres my adv solar? or adv tidal?
wheres my nanos?
and to top it all off most attack units are either cheap and die easy or way too expensive and take forever to make
i think we need a water upgrade
Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1
TFC doesnt maintain lups, stop trollin'.Regret wrote:Try harder.Saktoth wrote:telling TFC wont help.