Ah ok. Sorry if I was rude or something as well.PauloMorfeo wrote: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)
xta vs aa(ba)
Moderator: Moderators
Running this thread is useless, as the differences are so much between one and the other.
For me, its about balancing OTA, and porting it over spring.
In that field, xta, even the early versions were a very succesfull work.
I could spend lots of time discussing why many of the arguments posted regarding xta are mistaken, or are false.
Instead i rather say i like better its "slow" gameplay, the different roles each unit has.
Specially dislike when stuff happens that fast that is uncontrollable, and as we are humans, not machines, the speed at which things happen, shall be better suited for us.
If we ignore this, and make a balance, where microing units generates and inmense gain compared to the macro of it, we risk to be overwhelmed by ais, which means a computer will always play the game better than us.
The beauty of the naval units.
Compared to ota, the ranges, costs and roles make for a well rounded/rich naval battle gameplay.
The way the power of units is rated in the costs of metal and energy AND buildtime.
(the energy balance is very nice compared to OTA).
Also, you can find some way of "caricaturization" in it. What i mean is, some units are specially powerfull, like if the characteristics have been "exxagerated", this is like making a caricature of it, like having several units in one, and accounts for slower gameplay with more emphasis in the tactical.
Some units that have this caricaturization, are the golliath, leveler(used untill got overnerf), the sumo, the brawler used to be like this, now it has been overnerfed aswell, the zeus to some extent. also the zipper/weasel used to work like this.
In a way, this sort of caricaturization, took units one level further, i mean, made this units level 3. (hence, xta has/had "big" level 3 units, just no extra labs/models).
It kinda amazes me to realize how the guys that made the origianl balance, managed to accomplish that, in a way we didnt notticed (or maybe even them?) what happened with this units.
Against it, its possible (as ive said before) that the energy balance needs a small tweaking in the costs, to avoid overporcing. maybe incresing the costs of energy producing buildings?
(and wouldnt agree to what IK has been proposing).
The balance is/was very good, and can be perfected of course.
Also, it must be kept in mind the gameplay of xta is better suited for mid sized maps, and having a good game depends alot on selecting the map wisely.
And demo, i had 2 games against you in xta, both ended before lvl 2, as many of what i call good games.
Those who say "xta balance sux" have not taken a deeper look into it, or cant.
That is some of what i can say about, as a TA player.
We can discuss more about xta vs aa but its useless.
For me, its about balancing OTA, and porting it over spring.
In that field, xta, even the early versions were a very succesfull work.
I could spend lots of time discussing why many of the arguments posted regarding xta are mistaken, or are false.
Instead i rather say i like better its "slow" gameplay, the different roles each unit has.
Specially dislike when stuff happens that fast that is uncontrollable, and as we are humans, not machines, the speed at which things happen, shall be better suited for us.
If we ignore this, and make a balance, where microing units generates and inmense gain compared to the macro of it, we risk to be overwhelmed by ais, which means a computer will always play the game better than us.
The beauty of the naval units.
Compared to ota, the ranges, costs and roles make for a well rounded/rich naval battle gameplay.
The way the power of units is rated in the costs of metal and energy AND buildtime.
(the energy balance is very nice compared to OTA).
Also, you can find some way of "caricaturization" in it. What i mean is, some units are specially powerfull, like if the characteristics have been "exxagerated", this is like making a caricature of it, like having several units in one, and accounts for slower gameplay with more emphasis in the tactical.
Some units that have this caricaturization, are the golliath, leveler(used untill got overnerf), the sumo, the brawler used to be like this, now it has been overnerfed aswell, the zeus to some extent. also the zipper/weasel used to work like this.
In a way, this sort of caricaturization, took units one level further, i mean, made this units level 3. (hence, xta has/had "big" level 3 units, just no extra labs/models).
It kinda amazes me to realize how the guys that made the origianl balance, managed to accomplish that, in a way we didnt notticed (or maybe even them?) what happened with this units.
Against it, its possible (as ive said before) that the energy balance needs a small tweaking in the costs, to avoid overporcing. maybe incresing the costs of energy producing buildings?
(and wouldnt agree to what IK has been proposing).
The balance is/was very good, and can be perfected of course.
Also, it must be kept in mind the gameplay of xta is better suited for mid sized maps, and having a good game depends alot on selecting the map wisely.
And demo, i had 2 games against you in xta, both ended before lvl 2, as many of what i call good games.
Those who say "xta balance sux" have not taken a deeper look into it, or cant.
That is some of what i can say about, as a TA player.
We can discuss more about xta vs aa but its useless.
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
knorke wrote: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)
how would defences costig E make people wait longer before attacking?
The trend is the better the XTA player this less defences he makes. the best players dont tend to make popups, just a HLT, few LLTS and missle towers. the best defence is units. for people who play the game properly, all the energy cost will do is further reduce reliance on defence. good players use energy storage and metal maker farms to ensure energy is never at any point leaked. this means a player making defences is effectively losing potential metal to kep his defences online. the game will play exactly the same as before, except spaming defences will mean a weak economy. the E cost is fine because XTA defences completely own units on somthng like a 4:1 cost ratio. this will make defence placement more careful, and make even nubs rely more on units. hopefully hanging porcing from the tree of energy stall. im 100% certain it'll work a charm. if it dosnt work, then I hand it to you, but ni siled xta player has units sat in his base, everything is always at the frontlines raiding and skirmishing. this wont stop players attacking. it'll stop players putting off their defeat forever by spamming defence and porcing to the max on chokepoints.
if it dosnt work then fine, but I think its a god idea to try.
As to BA, its very possible to porc. porcing can only be beaten if the oponnent has infinite patience and time to micro artillery. imo, removal of the l1 jamer turet wold help stop early porc.
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Well for future reference air dominance is a pretty effective way to break porc in AA/BA. Course people will porc excessive ammounts of anti air BUT bombers do have pushing power if you make them in mass..
In which case, its a simple job of scouting with radar planes for anti nukes, then sending fleets of bombers in to take out anti nukes, then nuke front line defences or economy, and push through with ground units / more bombers.
In which case, its a simple job of scouting with radar planes for anti nukes, then sending fleets of bombers in to take out anti nukes, then nuke front line defences or economy, and push through with ground units / more bombers.
I personally prefer XTA. There are several reasons for this, but the most obvious one is that every single unit in XTA is viable. In the few BA/AA games i have played, i have read a unit description, used it as suggested by the name, and watched it be annihilated (often by d-fenz). I don't wish to make a sweeping XTA>BA statement; i feel both mods posses a finesse the other lacks, and both benefit from the divergence.
I would like to point out that the "uberness" of defences, particularly the HLT has been greatly exaggerated in this thread. T1 bombers, a cloaked com, or just plain going around the defences have always worked well enough for me.
As to t2 being overpowered: i have, on numerous occaisions (sp?) teched up only to be overwhelmed by mass t1 (i.e. barto's storms, lion's flash spam). In most medium (map size and time) XTA games i play or spec, tech 2 is used, with a wide diversity of units, whereas in BA if t2 does come into play, it is for a very few specialist units. I accept people may prefer the way BA t2 is balanced, and the added diversity of units, but i enjoy the fact that in many XTA games almost every unit gets used at some point.
I appreciate that i am far from experienced in the ways of BA, but would suggest that a fair few of the criticisms of XTA are misguided, particularly the criticism of the economic model.
I would like to point out that the "uberness" of defences, particularly the HLT has been greatly exaggerated in this thread. T1 bombers, a cloaked com, or just plain going around the defences have always worked well enough for me.
As to t2 being overpowered: i have, on numerous occaisions (sp?) teched up only to be overwhelmed by mass t1 (i.e. barto's storms, lion's flash spam). In most medium (map size and time) XTA games i play or spec, tech 2 is used, with a wide diversity of units, whereas in BA if t2 does come into play, it is for a very few specialist units. I accept people may prefer the way BA t2 is balanced, and the added diversity of units, but i enjoy the fact that in many XTA games almost every unit gets used at some point.
I appreciate that i am far from experienced in the ways of BA, but would suggest that a fair few of the criticisms of XTA are misguided, particularly the criticism of the economic model.