Balanced Annihilation V7.11 - Page 2

Balanced Annihilation V7.11

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
Beherith
Posts: 5145
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Beherith »

Triton, that can be an engine bug, because fighters should have a net sight distance increase in air, as the changelog suggests.
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by TheFatController »

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??
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.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Pxtl »

Wombat wrote:as long as guardian outranges every t1 unit, buff seems to be unnecessary, but lets see :)
It costs almost the same as buying a T2 lab. He didn't change the price. BA will survive with buffed guardians.
User avatar
triton
Lobby Moderator
Posts: 330
Joined: 18 Nov 2009, 14:27

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by triton »

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?
User avatar
hoijui
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 4344
Joined: 22 Sep 2007, 09:51

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by hoijui »

niiiice! :D
much shorter infologs! :-)
good work!
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Regret »

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?
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.
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by JohannesH »

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.
User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by albator »

JohannesH 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.
+1

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.
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by TheFatController »

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.
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.

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.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Pxtl »

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.
Hacked
Posts: 116
Joined: 15 Aug 2008, 18:06

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Hacked »

yay t2 tank spam
theres nothing wrong with urging players to build more units
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by JohannesH »

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.
zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by zerver »

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.
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by TheFatController »

zerver 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.
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
zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by zerver »

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
Well, this explosion effect that looks like a magnifying glass. I don't remember what it is called...
This also gives problems with MT spring version because it works bad with LUPS stuff.
Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Saktoth »

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.
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Regret »

Saktoth wrote:telling TFC wont help.
Try harder. :regret:
User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng »

Wombat wrote:vote 1 to reverse golly changes
why?
DarkDreams
Posts: 3
Joined: 27 Oct 2008, 11:01

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by DarkDreams »

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
Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V7.1

Post by Saktoth »

Regret wrote:
Saktoth wrote:telling TFC wont help.
Try harder. :regret:
TFC doesnt maintain lups, stop trollin'.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”