Balanced Annihilation V6.31 - Page 15

Balanced Annihilation V6.31

All game release threads should be posted here

Moderator: Moderators

imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by imbaczek »

please fix the mod for svn/0.77rc spring; it's got Lua issues.
ZellSF
Posts: 1187
Joined: 08 Jul 2006, 19:07

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by ZellSF »

Does anyone know why game end modes seems to be the most common desyncs in BA? Players usually disagree on what the game end mode is actually set to...
User avatar
Blah64
Posts: 31
Joined: 09 Jul 2006, 04:02

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Blah64 »

well crap, I'm behind on BA. I still have the BA 5.3 build. A lot has probably changed since then.
:?
User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2382
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

BA: Zeus v. Gimp

Post by REVENGE »

Merged - Peet

In a firefight, and in general use, which one has the advantage, or are they almost equally matched?

The Gimp has less health than the Zeus, but is also cheaper, moves faster, is built faster, has more range and equivalent DPS (this is disregarding the fact that it's amphibious, and has a torpedo).

In addition, the Gimp's corpse has a much smaller [corpse : live] metal ratio, giving your enemy a lot less metal after death.
User avatar
det
Moderator
Posts: 737
Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 11:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by det »

I dislike crashing all together, too random.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Jazcash »

det wrote:I dislike crashing all together, too random.
I quite like it :)
BaNa
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 21:05

Re: BA: Zeus v. Gimp

Post by BaNa »

REVENGE wrote:Merged - Peet

In a firefight, and in general use, which one has the advantage, or are they almost equally matched?

The Gimp has less health than the Zeus, but is also cheaper, moves faster, is built faster, has more range and equivalent DPS (this is disregarding the fact that it's amphibious, and has a torpedo).

In addition, the Gimp's corpse has a much smaller [corpse : live] metal ratio, giving your enemy a lot less metal after death.
Yeah, we've been using it as can "light" for a while...
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by KDR_11k »

ZellSF wrote:Does anyone know why game end modes seems to be the most common desyncs in BA? Players usually disagree on what the game end mode is actually set to...
Dunno, must be something wrong with the lobby.
UAF
Posts: 96
Joined: 02 Jan 2008, 19:25

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by UAF »

Something I noticed for atomic bombers, probably valid for others as well - They do 5 damage to subs, but full damage to under water Gimps. Probably full damage to underwater stractures and other amph units as well.

If under water subs are protected, at the very least so should be other underwater units, don't you agree?
User avatar
Evil4Zerggin
Posts: 557
Joined: 16 May 2007, 06:34

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Evil4Zerggin »

There's no way to make weapons do 5 damage to underwater amphs but full damage to amphs out of water short of scripting it.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by KDR_11k »

Of course scripting is pretty damn easy...
User avatar
det
Moderator
Posts: 737
Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 11:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by det »

I assume that means in the Cob file? That is not a very desirable place to put this functionality.
User avatar
Evil4Zerggin
Posts: 557
Joined: 16 May 2007, 06:34

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Evil4Zerggin »

I'm pretty sure it could be pure LuaRules'd too, similar to CA's noselfdamage gadget.

Note: KDR is right, of course--I didn't mean to imply it was particularly difficult, just that there is no purely tag-based method.
UAF
Posts: 96
Joined: 02 Jan 2008, 19:25

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by UAF »

BTW, if you'll decide to fix it some day, then notice that similar thing should happen with air units. I see no reason why bombers (while on ground) should be almost impervious to bombs.
Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Saktoth »

Subs are this way because they float just below the surface. Their hitsphere actually pokes out of the water AFAIK. This means its very easy to force-fire on them with almost any weapon, and hit them. They're also combat units so you'd want to do this, if it did damage. OFTEN.

For underwater structures and amphs though it depends on the depth of the water, they're usually well under the water. Any kind of AoE weapon will only do a fraction of its damage to the unit, and most units without aoe cant damage it at all.

There are exceptions though. Lasers actually go underwater perfectly well, they arent stopped by water at all. Corvettes are armed with lasers. Corvettes get the LLT damage bonus vs coms. Do the math. Force fire on an underwater com for gg (used to do this to det a lot in BA SoW, really annoyed him). You can kill underwater storages, underwater mexes, and yes, you can even finish off a very badly damaged sub using vette force fire. It aims for a point on the surface though, so it takes some micro to get the angle just right (watch for the laser hitting something, if you dont have sonar).

There are lots of little sea tricks like this, like FPS'ing/force firing depthcharge launchers to hit land units, FPS'ing subs/tl's to hit hovers etc.

CA uses beamweapons/emg on its vettes though, there are no beamlaser-armed ships, so you dont see the laser exploit. There might be a way to make beamlasers collide with water too, not sure.
imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by imbaczek »

please fix widgets for 0.77!
Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Saktoth »

Hate to necro, but the sea conship slowdown should be solved by setting conship acceleration to 4x or so (0.04 from 0.01). This will have some miniscule balance effects but seriously, the bug needs fixin, its a pain in the butt to give move orders before all your construction orders.

Floating mexes should have their minwaterdepth set to 10 or possibly even lower, so they can be built in shallows. There are maps like ee-crossingglade and scorpiobattleground where some mexes are covered by shallow water that is too shallow for uwmexes but too deep (IE, any water at all) for regulars. This is a problem because the depth required for both ships and land-units to pass is not enough to put mexes in, so mexes in shallows and crossings are impossible in BA.

Of course, you'd need amph/com/hovercon to mex these spots. So another possibility (if you dont want to put the uwmex on pure-land constructors) is making the maxwaterdepth of regular mexes larger, so that they can go in very shallow water (with the side-effect that they might end up underwater and hidden, like uwmexes are, if they are placed too deep).

Something worth noting is that the arm uwmex is taller/larger than the core one, and pops above the surface earlier (IE, can be hit by surface units), too.
User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2382
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by REVENGE »

By any chance, could we see some more multi-role bots/vehicles in this game?
User avatar
MR.D
Posts: 1527
Joined: 06 Aug 2005, 13:15

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by MR.D »

Isn't it time to get rid of the Commander's corpse metal?

I'm so sick of getting combombed by some desperate noob so he can grab 5000 metal and rape the entire map.

Stop rewarding cheap nub tactics.

This doesn't affect you guy's 1v1 Noize, in any way at all, but it is ruining teamgames.
User avatar
Acidd_UK
Posts: 963
Joined: 23 Apr 2006, 02:15

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31

Post by Acidd_UK »

I still haven't seen a combomb in CA that's done the bomber any favours... Reduced com explosion FTW I think...?
Locked

Return to “Game Releases”