Balanced Annihilation V6.31
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
please fix the mod for svn/0.77rc spring; it's got Lua issues.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
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...
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
well crap, I'm behind on BA. I still have the BA 5.3 build. A lot has probably changed since then.


BA: Zeus v. Gimp
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.
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.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
I dislike crashing all together, too random.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
I quite like it :)det wrote:I dislike crashing all together, too random.
Re: BA: Zeus v. Gimp
Yeah, we've been using it as can "light" for a while...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.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
Dunno, must be something wrong with the lobby.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...
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
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?
If under water subs are protected, at the very least so should be other underwater units, don't you agree?
- Evil4Zerggin
- Posts: 557
- Joined: 16 May 2007, 06:34
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
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.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
Of course scripting is pretty damn easy...
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
I assume that means in the Cob file? That is not a very desirable place to put this functionality.
- Evil4Zerggin
- Posts: 557
- Joined: 16 May 2007, 06:34
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
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.
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.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
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.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
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.
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.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
please fix widgets for 0.77!
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
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.
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.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
By any chance, could we see some more multi-role bots/vehicles in this game?
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
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.
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.
Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.31
I still haven't seen a combomb in CA that's done the bomber any favours... Reduced com explosion FTW I think...?