Balanced Annihilation 5.3 is OUT

MR.D · Post by **MR.D** » 20 May 2007, 23:44

hrmm..
Took the easy road... for shame ^^

LOrDo · Post by **LOrDo** » 20 May 2007, 23:49

4 changes? You guys just aren't trying anymore, are you?

Day · Post by **Day** » 20 May 2007, 23:55

lordo, what is that supposed to mean, these were mainly the things that had to be changed, we are nearing a point where we feel nothing has to be changed anymore, and i also felt it would be good to release fast while we still have the time before we go back to our lazy state and wait a couple of weeks for a new release

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 21 May 2007, 00:06

if you guys are out of stuff to do maybe you should think about trying your hand at graphics, stuff like the zeus lightning is lookin shockingly poor iirc

erasmus · Post by **erasmus** » 21 May 2007, 00:11

much love for kbot cost reduction :D

and i agree with ivory, polish is quite lacking in the model/effects department

Peace · Post by **Peace** » 21 May 2007, 00:20

Horray for (j)anus nerf!

manored · Post by **manored** » 21 May 2007, 02:43

Im having a problem with this version: I donwload it from unknow files, put in the mods folder and then spring continues to insisnt I dont have it...

Edit: Forget it. It was the mirror. Wolfgames and Sefidels mirrors doesnt seen to be giving the correct file.

BoredJoe · Post by **BoredJoe** » 21 May 2007, 03:00

NOiZE wrote:
submarine wrote:i hoped that metal makers efficiency would be decreased as well (right now ba games are often decided by mm eco not by terrain control)
thats just not true. mexes are normally about 700 - 1000 % more effective depeding on the extraction rate

Once most of the easy mexes have been claimed, it is a LOT more efficient to go for a metalmaker econ rather than attack/slowly take mex spots.

The cost of defending front line positions factors into the cost of a mex. It doesnt matter if its 200 times more to build a MM than a mex if it will cost 2000 times more to get that mex in the first place.

A metalmaker econ shouldn't overshadow strategic map play.

hrmph · Post by **hrmph** » 21 May 2007, 05:07

LOrDo wrote:4 changes? You guys just aren't trying anymore, are you?

troll much?

LOrDo · Post by **LOrDo** » 21 May 2007, 07:49

manored wrote:Im having a problem with this version: I donwload it from unknow files, put in the mods folder and then spring continues to insisnt I dont have it...

Edit: Forget it. It was the mirror. Wolfgames and Sefidels mirrors doesnt seen to be giving the correct file.

People should note that Wolfgames and Sefidels mirrors do that to pretty much all the files

KingRaptor · Post by **KingRaptor** » 21 May 2007, 10:10

BoredJoe wrote:
NOiZE wrote:
submarine wrote:i hoped that metal makers efficiency would be decreased as well (right now ba games are often decided by mm eco not by terrain control)
thats just not true. mexes are normally about 700 - 1000 % more effective depeding on the extraction rate
Once most of the easy mexes have been claimed, it is a LOT more efficient to go for a metalmaker econ rather than attack/slowly take mex spots.

The cost of defending front line positions factors into the cost of a mex. It doesnt matter if its 200 times more to build a MM than a mex if it will cost 2000 times more to get that mex in the first place.

True; however, building MM econ doesn't affect your opponent in any way, attacking and taking his ground is going to cost him a lot.

A metalmaker econ shouldn't overshadow strategic map play.

I wholeheartedly agree.

CautionToTheWind · Post by **CautionToTheWind** » 21 May 2007, 13:10

KingRaptor wrote:True; however, building MM econ doesn't affect your opponent in any way, attacking and taking his ground is going to cost him a lot.

That is if your attack works. It might work if you used all your resources for your attack group while your enemy built economy, defenses and a too small army. Then you may advance and capture 2 mex spots. For that, you only had to bet your whole game against time, against experience and against the very nature of the game you are playing.

No wonder nobody makes that bet. Because when you fail (when, not if), your enemy has the bigger economy, wrecks to reclaim and the edge.

Lolsquad_Steven · Post by **Lolsquad_Steven** » 21 May 2007, 13:53

I'm sure though even in team games there are more options in attack then sending your army into their defence.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 21 May 2007, 14:19

yeah, you could wait and make a bigger army first

Goolash_ · Post by **Goolash_** » 21 May 2007, 16:31

NOiZE wrote:5.3 :]

Your fast correction of the broken version is greatly appreciated.

Boirunner · Post by **Boirunner** » 21 May 2007, 16:44

I was fully prepared to rename my account to jANUSSPAEM and spam Januses every game out of general principle until the imba got fixed, like i did with WEZELSPAEM. But with your insta-fix your took all the fun out of it

jackalope · Post by **jackalope** » 21 May 2007, 21:07

I understand storms/thuds were made cheaper because arm has the warrior, but I think it's a little bit silly. Rocko and Storm are almost exactly the same stats except Storm is 72 metal compared to 97, and it takes less E and builds faster. I haven't look at thud/hammer but this is already kinda "whoa"

flop · Post by **flop** » 21 May 2007, 22:42

jackalope wrote:I understand storms/thuds were made cheaper because arm has the warrior, but I think it's a little bit silly. Rocko and Storm are almost exactly the same stats except Storm is 72 metal compared to 97, and it takes less E and builds faster. I haven't look at thud/hammer but this is already kinda "whoa"

I agree, core kbots own arm kbots with these new changes. Also, not that its a bad thing, but now that flash are slower gators do a LOT better verse them, especially in small numbers.

el_matarife · Post by **el_matarife** » 21 May 2007, 23:08

NOiZE wrote:5.3 :]
changelog wrote:5.2 --> 5.3
Rez bots moved to T1 Kbots. costs adjusted.

Interesting change, did you just make them cheaper / less HP / faster building and leave the workertime the same? Would it be worth adding resurrection to the L2 combat engineers now? (I assume this would have to wait for .75 where you could give them a dedicated resurrection workertime of 200 or more.)

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 21 May 2007, 23:14

Isn't arms T1 supposed to be better than core's and core's T2 be superior?

Spring RTS Engine

Balanced Annihilation 5.3 is OUT