Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:13
Not really.Lord Juzza wrote:In the context he used it in it was offtopic and answering no ones questions.
Spring RTS Engine
Open Source Realtime Strategy Game Engine
https://springrts.com/phpbb/
One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Page 3 of 7
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:26
Meant by whom? Your solution would kill loads of tactics about transporting comm besides comdrop to base.HectorMeyer wrote:The commander is meant to be a static base builder, not a damage dealer which can be deployed everywhere on the map within seconds.
Also it would make commpush only good choice on most maps.
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:35
HEY GUISE X IS MEANT TO BE LIKE Y I SAID SO RESPECT MY AUTORITAH
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:36
Common sense :)JohannesH wrote: Meant by whom?
What tactics? Only quick expansion which you can do, not as quick though, by other means. Everything comes with a price.JohannesH wrote:Your solution would kill loads of tactics about transporting comm besides comdrop to base.
Commbombing and quick expansion are limited, so commpush and labguarding remains, yeah.JohannesH wrote:Also it would make commpush only good choice on most maps.
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:36
you trolling again regret 
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:38
Wrong. Commander is in BA right now as it is meant to be in BA. Anything else you say is only what you want it to be like in your newb bubble.HectorMeyer wrote:Common sense :)JohannesH wrote: Meant by whom?
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:41
Actually the commander should be as the community decides (within reason ofc). That's what makes this game so good, if the majority don't like something (ie/ scouts op, or flash spam) the game will change.Regret wrote:Wrong. Commander is in BA right now as it is meant to be in BA. Anything else you say is only what you want it to be like in your newb bubble.HectorMeyer wrote:Common sense :)JohannesH wrote: Meant by whom?
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:42
delete this
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:43
but he has a point.Nixa wrote:you trolling again regret
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:44
oh lawd i almost made a butthurt reply... not!
btw regret you are pushing your personal agenda just as much as others, you are no better. you also seem to be very sure about being percieved as leet and edgy just by transporting a comm and rightclicking near the enemy base, a perception which is probably not shared by everyone.
btw regret you are pushing your personal agenda just as much as others, you are no better. you also seem to be very sure about being percieved as leet and edgy just by transporting a comm and rightclicking near the enemy base, a perception which is probably not shared by everyone.
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:46
ok guys, time to take your arguments out of this thread and you can fight about 'who is right' elsewhere.HectorMeyer wrote:oh lawd i almost made a butthurt reply... not!
btw regret you are pushing your personal agenda just as much as others, you are no better. you also seem to be very sure about being percieved as leet and edgy just by transporting a comm and rightclicking near the enemy base, a perception which is probably not shared by everyone.
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:48
There is no community decision in the making of BA, this is not democracy, you newbies have no say in this at all no matter how much you would like to have one. You can debate all you want, TFC and other people that actually know how to play the game go through what is needed to change when it is needed to change. Commander is not one of those things.
I am not pushing my agenda here. I am saying you are wasting your time on this and trying to sound like "omagad this is the community" when in fact you have no playing skill to speak of and the people arguing here for a change are clueless newbies and/or forumers that don't even play BA.
As a sidenote: you are free to rename BA and release your own version with your brilliant ideas. Look at supreme annihilation for example.
I am not pushing my agenda here. I am saying you are wasting your time on this and trying to sound like "omagad this is the community" when in fact you have no playing skill to speak of and the people arguing here for a change are clueless newbies and/or forumers that don't even play BA.
As a sidenote: you are free to rename BA and release your own version with your brilliant ideas. Look at supreme annihilation for example.
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 15:53
Lol - coming from uRegret wrote: You can debate all you want, TFC and other people that actually know how to play the game go through what is needed to change when it is needed to change
Oh and I've already talked to controller about this, he said he'll be watching to see how this goes.
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 16:00
tbh i kinda agree that the current commbombing mechanic in BA is a valid one. It's just not OTA style, where comm ends was standard. I never thought that commbombing in BA is such a huge problem. it's a strong tactic, but has it's downsides, risks, and can be countered.Regret wrote: Commander is in BA right now as it is meant to be in BA.
i am only posting here because of my comwreck agenda
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 16:03
and yes we all love combombing here, not trying to stop that it's way too useful in todays games 
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 16:36
A few points:
AF's assessment of XTA is way off the mark imo, 2 t1 units dominate a commander, solo compush fails super hard. A tiny bit of porc, some mobile units, or rushing past the com are all super effective vs moron compush. The reasons people don't constantly combomb are; usefulness of com all game, cost of air transports, lack of wreck for follow-up reclaim whoring, presence of AA in the early game.
I would suggest a few things vis a vis BA com:
Make Atlas/Valkyrie slightly more expensive/slower to build, or maybe make them slightly less agile.
Nerf com corpse, it creates hilarious slippery slope, and with a tiny bit of co-ordination you can chain comdrop/bomb for at least 5k metal + flash spam in enemy's deployment zone.
Put Regret on your ignore list, it just gets boring reading "clueless newbie" over and over.
In BA team games, I have often found, when I'm not joint comdropping for the 10 minute win, if you start as a dedicated AA player, rush a fink/peeper and some avengers, you can have a decent enough chance at stopping com drop. The speed comparison of t1 fighter vs atlas is a bit whack imo, but I would sooner change the transport than the fighter.
AF's assessment of XTA is way off the mark imo, 2 t1 units dominate a commander, solo compush fails super hard. A tiny bit of porc, some mobile units, or rushing past the com are all super effective vs moron compush. The reasons people don't constantly combomb are; usefulness of com all game, cost of air transports, lack of wreck for follow-up reclaim whoring, presence of AA in the early game.
I would suggest a few things vis a vis BA com:
Make Atlas/Valkyrie slightly more expensive/slower to build, or maybe make them slightly less agile.
Nerf com corpse, it creates hilarious slippery slope, and with a tiny bit of co-ordination you can chain comdrop/bomb for at least 5k metal + flash spam in enemy's deployment zone.
Put Regret on your ignore list, it just gets boring reading "clueless newbie" over and over.
In BA team games, I have often found, when I'm not joint comdropping for the 10 minute win, if you start as a dedicated AA player, rush a fink/peeper and some avengers, you can have a decent enough chance at stopping com drop. The speed comparison of t1 fighter vs atlas is a bit whack imo, but I would sooner change the transport than the fighter.
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 16:56
pintle wrote:Make BA like XTA because I like XTA.
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 17:05
Tell me, why exactly would any other solution be superior to this, if commdrop is the only problem under discussion?JohannesH wrote:If early commdrop is the only problem you want fixed, I have an easy solution.
Rule: No commdrop in enemy base inside 10 min
:O
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 17:08
Because it is a silly rule that would cause much drama and kicks and bans and grief. Also word rules are for pussies, men play by game rules.JohannesH wrote:Tell me, why exactly would any other solution be superior to this, if commdrop is the only problem under discussion?
Re: One for all and... One for all again (BA)
Posted: 05 Sep 2009, 17:41
If I wanted BA to be like XTA, first thing I would suggest would be making missile units universally consistent; i.e. aa bots and mt hitting ground.Regret wrote:pintle wrote:Pathetic straw man
Making them more viable would obviously increase their incidence in the early game, and ergo decrease the viability of comdrop.
If you are going to flame me, put at least a tiny amount of thought behind it.