Balanced Annihilation V6.95 - Page 5

Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by imbaczek »

philosophical, side, offtopic issue: I don't see how you can make a balanced game that works just as fine in 1v1/2v2 as in 6v6/8v8.
User avatar
hunterw
Posts: 1838
Joined: 14 May 2006, 12:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by hunterw »

imbaczek wrote:philosophical, side, offtopic issue: I don't see how you can make a balanced game that works just as fine in 1v1/2v2 as in 6v6/8v8.
I disagree - a single set of balances can work for all those player ranges. The game won't play the same with more players, but it can still be balanced although different. There's plenty of porc-break units you will never see used in 1v1/2v2 matches.
imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by imbaczek »

yeah, different is the word. i don't really see BA 1v1 as the same game as BA 8v8, i guess it'll be healthy for people like me to be consciously aware of that.
User avatar
flop
Posts: 335
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 05:44

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by flop »

Pxtl wrote: @flop - that's what I was expecting the hardcores to think about the banshee - the unit definitely has its applications, albeit as a rare gamble. They just suck at the "full frontal attack vs AA" that the T2 ground-attack aircraft can handle. I've seen them used too well too many times - they definitely have their uses.

The only T1 air unit that doesn't get much love is the bomber, imho... the fighters kinda suck, but there's not much you can do with them without risking their competing with the T2 fighters - T1 AA seems to shred Banshees and bombers well enough that T1 fighters are rarely used. Maybe if T1 bombers were more popular you'd see use of T1 fighters.

@TheFat

I'm actually quite happy with the T2 air balance of bombers vs. gunships. Bombers work nicely as a game-ender offense strat, while gunships work better as defense - attack forces don't tend to have heavy AA cover that bombers can shrug-off but will take down gunships before they hit the target, so gunships are excellent as an extra-mobile defense force.
i agree with all this, t1 bomber is the only air unit that might need a balance change. maybe nerf the e cost and buildtime? i think t1 fighters are fine though, especially in 1v1, when you never have time to make t2 just for fighters. gunships are definently good as they are more flexible as defence than bombers.
HectorMeyer
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Jan 2009, 11:20

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by HectorMeyer »

I think reducing the metal value of the commander wreck from 2500 to 1000 would be a reasonable change.

The poor combombing victim would regain the starting metal to rebuild his lost T1 base. He probably doesn't lose assets worth more than 1000 metal anyway. If his base is more advanced, he should be able to defend it against the invading comm.

Selfdestruction for teching would be strongly nerfed. Especially when factoring in the needed nanos, metal and energy storage, not to mention the abilities of the commander itself, there wouldn't be much metal left which would justify it.

Losing ones comm and access to it's wreck on the frontlines wouldn't be as decisive anymore.

BA reaches a new level of awesomeness - read: more streamlined, non-volatile, you might even say porcy, gameplay. Games would tend to be decided more by skillful unit and resource handling, instead of radical moves or random actions - which was the idea of the introduction of the comwreck in the first place.

A mod option to set the metal value of the comwreck would be another idea.
User avatar
hunterw
Posts: 1838
Joined: 14 May 2006, 12:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by hunterw »

I dislike that comm metal goes flying across the map now. For instance, if you go up and dgun a boy with your boy on the front line, your boy's metal goes flying back to your base worth 2500 and his is comm debris worth 1250 and stays put.

Don't make comm metal worth 1000. Purposefully self-d'ing is a legitimate strat that adds depth to the game. It's pretty risky early on, and always alerts the opposing team to your intentions if they are paying attention.
User avatar
Niobium
Posts: 456
Joined: 07 Dec 2008, 02:35

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Niobium »

HectorMeyer wrote:A mod option to set the metal value of the comwreck would be another idea.
+1, everyone wins
User avatar
flop
Posts: 335
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 05:44

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by flop »

how about a mod option where everyone wins
User avatar
hunterw
Posts: 1838
Joined: 14 May 2006, 12:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by hunterw »

great idea flop, wish someone would have thought of it earlier
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Jazcash »

I'll give Fatty my prized turnip if he implements a T1 only Mod Option.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Pxtl »

JAZCASH wrote:I'll give Fatty my prized turnip if he implements a T1 only Mod Option.
Disable all the T2 labs in the disable-units list.

Incidentally, this approach also gives you the coveted "no metal-makers" modoption, "no BBs/Nukes" modoption, "no defenses" modoption, "no air" modoption, "no L2 econ" modption, etc.

That's the problem. If there was a UI way to hide all the "remove this group of units" in the modoptions unless you desired them, then it would be fine... but there isn't.

The only approach I could see that woulnd't clutter the options list would be a "block unit-set" modoption which includes all the popular combinations of block-lists... it would be a long list, since it would involve some permutations... longer than a single option-per-block-list (where you could manually say "no LRPCS" and "no nukes" as two seperate options and combine them - instead the single modoptions-dropdown needs to have both "no Nukes" and "no LRPCS" and "no nukes + no lrpcs").
User avatar
Sgt Doom
Posts: 144
Joined: 19 Jun 2006, 10:52

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Sgt Doom »

Is it possible to have this uploaded somewhere else please? The jobjol site has refused to load for me for several hours now.
User avatar
Wisse
Posts: 263
Joined: 10 Jul 2006, 17:50

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Wisse »

User avatar
Sgt Doom
Posts: 144
Joined: 19 Jun 2006, 10:52

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Sgt Doom »

Thanks very much <3
zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by zerver »

TheFatController wrote:Known Issue: You cannot resurrect a corpse you've partially reclaimed.
Do you know how to fix this, or do we have an engine problem?
imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by imbaczek »

engine problem, fixed in master. workaround is probably possible but hopelessly complex.
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by TheFatController »

imbaczek wrote:engine problem, fixed in master. workaround is probably possible but hopelessly complex.
There will be no workaround, engine should have had a proper update and not left it broken /sigh.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Jazcash »

I know this may be nothing to do with BA, but could someone tell me how I can permanently get rid of the old default console? It enables itself every game no matter if it's disabled. I'm never going to use it so I don't care if it's permanently deleted, just please, someone tell how to get rid of it.
User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Wombat »

I saw 2 rather rare bugs in ba, probably only i saw them - it was on dsd map when i dropped tremor with t2 trans on north hill. I dropped him on the edge of one hill but he 'teleported' in another place, like 1,5 lenght of epoch.

Second was when i made 300 zippers on tabula-v2. I ordered them to move from south hill when there are most eco. They was stacked so badly that half of them simply blew up :D i think its the result of units hitting ground feature ( when lets say guardian hits thuds he flys away and get damage while hitting ground). Same situation was here, when zippers were stacked so badly they started to hurt each other, like when hitting ground. Finding these replays gonna be time-draining so im gonna put them here later, still its worth seeing
;d
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.95

Post by Jazcash »

An option to stop combombing another com in the first 2 minutes would be jizzed all over.
Locked

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”