Spring is ugly?

[Pxtl]

While most of the individual units are more similar to their OTA counterparts in BA, XTA's overall feel seems more OTA-like. The multifunction SAM weaponry, the de-emphasis on the importance of an L2 econ, and the slower gameplay of XTA make a huge difference. I mean, how can you say BA is more TA-like when it doesn't have MT forests? That completely changes the air game and the skirmishing game.

[babbles]

I remember having this discussion about XTA vs BA in relation to OTA, in #main. I guess that was my first mistake. But the guy I was "debating" with told me XTA was nothing like OTA as it had Mobile Fusion, which BA does not have thus showing that BA is more like OTA than XTA.

Obviously.

[Jools]

Huh, a thread with many lies, and it's not April 1 yet...

spring isn't ba, and ba isn't ota. Nobody has defined what they mean by ota, and people that play total annihilation themselves don't use that term, they use TA:CC for the latest official version of the game.

It's a great departure from ota philosophy that anti air kbots can't target ground units, as is the blurring of differences between arm and core by introducing arm tech 3. No offense of course to ba, which has the biggest playerbase and does a good job in the macro aspect of the game.

Ota was as most know not balanced between the factions, arm was much better, so if you balance it, you don't get ota. That's why the best ota players chose to play as core.

[Jools]

still many parts of spring/its game appear very "techdemo like" or seem to be done "for the lolz"

I would certainly agree to this. Too much emphasis on the under water part of the iceberg, too little on the visible.

[Jools]

Please don't intentionally give Spring a bad rep.

If we discuss the problem we get a better reputation than if we don't.