I'd like to see a demo or two of a "good game" in BA and XTA.
I get sick of hearing about how I have to track down the ninja masters of either mod to see a good game. Please, post a few demos tell me who to watch and what to watch for. I would like to see a "good game" all the games I have speced were crap.
I know you guys gotta have some demos. Steve, you gotta have one or two good BA demos?
xta vs aa(ba)
Moderator: Moderators
Wow, way to not even give 5 minutes to a person. So what, am I to sort through all the replays? Am I to go with popular opinion of replays? NO I will not! If that was the case I would also believe speedmetal is the best map.
Simply put. I want someone to POINT OUT a replay or two THEY KNOW is good. Seriously, what the hell dude? Next time someone asks for a mod, should I just go: spring.unknown-files.net?
Simply put. I want someone to POINT OUT a replay or two THEY KNOW is good. Seriously, what the hell dude? Next time someone asks for a mod, should I just go: spring.unknown-files.net?
-
Lindir The Green
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 04 May 2005, 15:09
I prefer XTA.
It has a smaller number of units, but a certain unit has more different roles than a certain AA unit. So it retains the strategic complexity, but is easier to understand. And I think that doing anything in XTA is riskier. It's really easy to exploit weaknesses.
And I wouldn't call it particularly porcy, especially the early game. Even though the defenses are powerful, early game is all about raiding with level 1 units, but you have to balance it with trying to tech up... Level 2 is really powerful, but hard to get, so the early game becomes really agressive as the players try to cripple each others economies so that they can't tech up. Though I suppose it's more porcy now with the nerfed freakers/zippers.
I wouldn't call XTA perfectly balanced though. Its balance just seems more... random than, say, EEs balance.
It has a smaller number of units, but a certain unit has more different roles than a certain AA unit. So it retains the strategic complexity, but is easier to understand. And I think that doing anything in XTA is riskier. It's really easy to exploit weaknesses.
And I wouldn't call it particularly porcy, especially the early game. Even though the defenses are powerful, early game is all about raiding with level 1 units, but you have to balance it with trying to tech up... Level 2 is really powerful, but hard to get, so the early game becomes really agressive as the players try to cripple each others economies so that they can't tech up. Though I suppose it's more porcy now with the nerfed freakers/zippers.
I wouldn't call XTA perfectly balanced though. Its balance just seems more... random than, say, EEs balance.
I find a lot of the anti XTA arguements show up the lack of knowledge on the accusers part
For example
"XTA is crap because you can start off lvl 2"
But todo that you need to spend 15 minutes building solars mexes and storage to afford a lvl 2 fac without stalling or having the luxury of lvl 1 con units speeding the process up.
For example
"XTA is crap because you can start off lvl 2"
But todo that you need to spend 15 minutes building solars mexes and storage to afford a lvl 2 fac without stalling or having the luxury of lvl 1 con units speeding the process up.
I prefer XTA because it seems "cleaner to me"
AA/BA has Missletower, Misslebattery, Antibomber-turret,Longrange-AA-missle, Flag-cannon
XTA: Missletower, Flag-cannon.
Only thing I'd like to see changed in XTA are faster buildtimes for level 1 units so the game gets more focused on unit vs unit combat and not so much pushing with LLT. (ie on small divide its often better just to use the com to build stuff on the hills and middle instead of using units there)
AA/BA has Missletower, Misslebattery, Antibomber-turret,Longrange-AA-missle, Flag-cannon
XTA: Missletower, Flag-cannon.
If they would need more energy to FIRE that might be a good idea, but a constant energy use just makes players build a bigger economy before attacking. (=>Like greenfields, that map without metal)all the defences will cost E to run (a constant cost).
like 20 for a LLT, 75 for a HLT
Only thing I'd like to see changed in XTA are faster buildtimes for level 1 units so the game gets more focused on unit vs unit combat and not so much pushing with LLT. (ie on small divide its often better just to use the com to build stuff on the hills and middle instead of using units there)
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
The one time Ive played against Lion he spent 3/4 of the game making a krog, which got owned and ressurected, then managed to get another one out which was owned by his previous krog, then died.
Im guessing you were watching "the wrong pros" matt.
oh, and I played a BA game, on comet, with two LCC members on my team against a load of random people, and the game lasted for 50 minutes and was a total stalemate, everyones defences were impenetrable and the game lasted forever.
Im guessing you were watching "the wrong pros" matt.
oh, and I played a BA game, on comet, with two LCC members on my team against a load of random people, and the game lasted for 50 minutes and was a total stalemate, everyones defences were impenetrable and the game lasted forever.
Ever considered the fact that he was screwing around?1v0ry_k1ng wrote:The one time Ive played against Lion he spent 3/4 of the game making a krog, which got owned and ressurected, then managed to get another one out which was owned by his previous krog, then died.
Im guessing you were watching "the wrong pros" matt.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
XTA is very well balanced, i think, probably the most well balanced. !Considering it's fundamentals! But i question the correcteness of it's fundamentals.
Basically, defenses are uber. HLTs, Immolators, Vipers, Annihilators are freaking insane. Once a few HLTs with terrain or DTs or units are set in place, nothing that isn't too extreme will break such defenses. Result, you end up having to recur to covert operations to break that (like jammers and snipers, rockets, etc, basically only L2 and Pops will break HLTs).
Even worst, you have Vipers and Immolators. Even worst, you have the uber uber Annihilator.
This is why XTA is, usually, artilery wars, and little more. Pop-up wars trying to break HLTs, Guardians trying to break Pops, Annis, etc. With, again, the exception of micromanagment-full covert operations with jammers and special units.
Also, i complain that the comm is too easily abused. And the mohos sucking up E, since it makes it hard to control the ration at which you build mohos acompany the ration at which you build E-Makers (without building 1 of each).
I also complaint severely about the necro/fark. The combination of all the things they do, makes it so that a well microed one can be too advantageous. Also, since it needs to work so fast to cover end-game needs, it also makes them ressurect so fast that it is pointless to go attack the enemy and leave them corpses (again, you are better left reccuring to artilery wars).
AA/BA has too much options. You have units for rainy days, units for sunny but rainy days, LLT, DoubleLLT, HLT, PopUpLT, Guardian, etc, etc, etc.
AA has way too easy and cheap jamming, which leads frequently to covert operations (if i wanted to play a game where i need to constantly scout the enemies (micro management) and have little use for my radars, i would go play the other RTSs that do not have radars).
I don't like much of the balances of AA/BA, especially the sea. Sea in AA/BA sucks greatly, compared to XTA. One of the examples of where i think XTA is more properly balanced than AA, was the discovery of weasel spams.
(if you care to compare that with the spams of Zippers/Freakers in XTA, you are wrong, they are diferent. The problem with the XTA zippers was a version where lasers were beeing fired 2 times, and the volatility of units, that is, mexxes and Winds die to easily. That makes it so that a mere few secs of a zippers past your defenses, can kill all of you resource production)
AA is Rock-Paper-Scissors. I can't stand that!!! Anti-bomber turrets that massacre bombers but deal specifically less dmg to gunships, etc, etc, etc.
On boths i really hate mines. It is not without reason that Supreme Commander considered having mines, deminers, etc, and decided that sucked (i will not bother explaining, again, why and how much that sucks).
Add something more at randon, to cover what i've forgot to complain about. They both sucks!!!
Unfortunately, i don't have time anymore to work on TLL-R. It would own both of them! Well, probably not, really, but...
Basically, defenses are uber. HLTs, Immolators, Vipers, Annihilators are freaking insane. Once a few HLTs with terrain or DTs or units are set in place, nothing that isn't too extreme will break such defenses. Result, you end up having to recur to covert operations to break that (like jammers and snipers, rockets, etc, basically only L2 and Pops will break HLTs).
Even worst, you have Vipers and Immolators. Even worst, you have the uber uber Annihilator.
This is why XTA is, usually, artilery wars, and little more. Pop-up wars trying to break HLTs, Guardians trying to break Pops, Annis, etc. With, again, the exception of micromanagment-full covert operations with jammers and special units.
Also, i complain that the comm is too easily abused. And the mohos sucking up E, since it makes it hard to control the ration at which you build mohos acompany the ration at which you build E-Makers (without building 1 of each).
I also complaint severely about the necro/fark. The combination of all the things they do, makes it so that a well microed one can be too advantageous. Also, since it needs to work so fast to cover end-game needs, it also makes them ressurect so fast that it is pointless to go attack the enemy and leave them corpses (again, you are better left reccuring to artilery wars).
AA/BA has too much options. You have units for rainy days, units for sunny but rainy days, LLT, DoubleLLT, HLT, PopUpLT, Guardian, etc, etc, etc.
AA has way too easy and cheap jamming, which leads frequently to covert operations (if i wanted to play a game where i need to constantly scout the enemies (micro management) and have little use for my radars, i would go play the other RTSs that do not have radars).
I don't like much of the balances of AA/BA, especially the sea. Sea in AA/BA sucks greatly, compared to XTA. One of the examples of where i think XTA is more properly balanced than AA, was the discovery of weasel spams.
(if you care to compare that with the spams of Zippers/Freakers in XTA, you are wrong, they are diferent. The problem with the XTA zippers was a version where lasers were beeing fired 2 times, and the volatility of units, that is, mexxes and Winds die to easily. That makes it so that a mere few secs of a zippers past your defenses, can kill all of you resource production)
AA is Rock-Paper-Scissors. I can't stand that!!! Anti-bomber turrets that massacre bombers but deal specifically less dmg to gunships, etc, etc, etc.
On boths i really hate mines. It is not without reason that Supreme Commander considered having mines, deminers, etc, and decided that sucked (i will not bother explaining, again, why and how much that sucks).
Add something more at randon, to cover what i've forgot to complain about. They both sucks!!!
Unfortunately, i don't have time anymore to work on TLL-R. It would own both of them! Well, probably not, really, but...
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Paulo this is discussion, get out if you are going to sit there and say everything anyone else has said is dumb and you know best. You are not the final verdict, get over your ego about that...
Your first post is fine so far as your viewpoint is made clear but small things like "they are both rubbish!!" would be better taken by other readers as "IN MY OPINION they are both rubbish!!"
Your second post is just annoying. Discussion, you gotta learn to consider peoples views not just state your own with overwhelming certainty and expect nobody to argue with them, whilst at the same time deciding that what everyone else things is stupid.
Your first post is fine so far as your viewpoint is made clear but small things like "they are both rubbish!!" would be better taken by other readers as "IN MY OPINION they are both rubbish!!"
Your second post is just annoying. Discussion, you gotta learn to consider peoples views not just state your own with overwhelming certainty and expect nobody to argue with them, whilst at the same time deciding that what everyone else things is stupid.
Ok thanks for stating an opinion post then making another post calling all other people idiots with no more explanation.PauloMorfeo wrote:Ho, god... Hahaha, why did i read this thread!? My plan was just post my thought and leave. The ammount of dumb things said about comparing XTA to AA/BA is so much laughable!
Your other post said "XTA is great" then said "It's basically artillery wars with uber defences and you're really lucky to break them" then said "Here are a lot of issues with it that don't make sense" then finally "There was a huge massive balance issue that was just as bad as an AA one but it wasn't because it was in XTA!!!". For AA you said "Too many choices/it has jammers/sea is horribly imbalanced (XTA is worse actually)/it's RPS! (the one example you cited is no longer there)
You then end by saying they both suck and SupCom is better, and rereading your post I have no idea what you think. It seems that you think XTA>AA but neither are good.
For the people saying too many choices, AA has a more gradual slope between the tiers. I think there has probably been about one sensible XTA defence post in this thread.
And AF:
I find a lot of the anti AA/BA arguements show up the lack of knowledge on the accusers part
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
It is especially funny to be hearing that from the both of you, since it were mostly the posts from you 2 that made me «laugh» the most.
Considering the wrongness of the interpretations that you made of what i wrote (like me suposedly saying that both mods are "rubish" or that SupCom is better), it's no wonder these discussions end to be mostly pointless.
Considering the wrongness of the interpretations that you made of what i wrote (like me suposedly saying that both mods are "rubish" or that SupCom is better), it's no wonder these discussions end to be mostly pointless.
I know I'm not too clever. I have no idea what it is exactly that meant that you laughed at Dem0 as well.PauloMorfeo wrote:It is especially funny to be hearing that from the both of you, since it were mostly the posts from you 2 that made me «laugh» the most.
Considering the wrongness of the interpretations that you made of what i wrote (like me suposedly saying that both mods are "rubish" or that SupCom is better), it's no wonder these discussions end to be mostly pointless.
Add something more at randon, to cover what i've forgot to complain about. They both sucks!!!
You might not have said SupCom is better but I don't really know what you're saying. Do you like the artillery wars in XTA that you describe? I'm not too sure if you're saying that they both could be better of that XTA is fine or whatever.!Considering it's fundamentals! But i question the correcteness of it's fundamentals.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Ok, i am sorry for my unusual rudeness. I no longer have the time to properly frequent these forums, meaning no time nor patience. Also, i am fed up with these discussions too, constantly hearing wrong arguements upon wrong arguements.
What i said was that i think that both XTA and AA are bad or could be much better. (i said XTA is better balanced, but that better balance is balanced upon principles i don't like)
What i said was that i think that both XTA and AA are bad or could be much better. (i said XTA is better balanced, but that better balance is balanced upon principles i don't like)