RE: xta

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 21 Jun 2005, 19:53

Why? I want to hear your honest opinions why you play it instead of OTA. I want honest answers, also 'coz most ppl play it' doesn't count. Personally i cannot abide it but must admit i'm interested in who is and WHY!!!????!!!???

Maz · Post by **Maz** » 21 Jun 2005, 20:08

Well, I play XTA because for one, it's easier to find XTA servers. It also makes some nice balance changes, but it also destroys the balance completely in other areas. Will probably switch to playing OTA some more, but it would be really nice to see some new version that balances the gameplay and makes the games shorter.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 21 Jun 2005, 20:13

Well, I play XTA because for one, it's easier to find XTA servers.

As i said i want comments on the QUALITY of xta NOT the popularity

but it also destroys the balance completely in other areas.

True. Imho it makes very few 'good' balance changes

but it would be really nice to see some new version that balances the gameplay and makes the games shorter

This isn't going to happen

mongus · Post by **mongus** » 21 Jun 2005, 20:19

oh god not another xta vs ota players post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

min3mat the best way to tell is playing the mod.

So if you really want to know, go do so,learn about it, and come back to us with a nice review from an ota player's perspective.

that is waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy better than asking players of one or the other mod and have them arguing against each other. (instead of playing!!!).

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 21 Jun 2005, 21:47

lets just play along for now.

I like xta mostly becasue i can build any lvl 2 building whit any bulder... In ota you would only build a kbot lab and then build kbots and andvanced k bots... Aircratfs? then i have to build a lvl 1 airfield and then a builder and then lvl 2...

I dont relly know about balance in it, but this sole reson is why i dont play ota.

Metaltrash · Post by **Metaltrash** » 21 Jun 2005, 23:28

Well becouse the OTA games ageinst my brother (frog/s heron) went in the direktion of mass samsons ...

and xta gives core also a chance in smal maps and makes AA not soo strong against ground, i don't play that much, so i don't know other balance issous, but XTA looks like an overall better balance then OTA where only 5-7 Units were usefull.

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 21 Jun 2005, 23:50

I prefer OTA. Because OTA has been around for many years, and so the relative cost, strenght, buildtime, power, etc... of units are deeply imprint on the mind of the gamer that played it during all that time. It doesn't feel right to have units that look the same but have their balance changed. I believe that if you change the stats of a unit, you must change its look too. I mean, you have to replace it by a unit using another model. Changing the stats but keeping the look is wrong imo. I like mods that comes up with brand new units, but I dislike "rebalancing" mods.

Redfish · Post by **Redfish** » 22 Jun 2005, 00:09

I play OTA only lately. Still I think XTA had its things that were worth it. But it is too flawed in spring.

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 22 Jun 2005, 04:45

What a sad excuse zwzsg.

I play AA because of its ota style but hugely improved balance.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 22 Jun 2005, 11:26

He is entitled to his opinion Cobra. And I just so happen to agree with him.

You keep your animosity at bay; the only argument it hurts is your own.

RightField · Post by **RightField** » 22 Jun 2005, 14:32

I don't care much for the so called "balance" in all these mods. TA was balanced enough in the way that if you could win for being creative when combining units for tactics, and sometimes some things worked better than others but hey, that's how most things in life is. I prefer UTASP over AA any day seeing as it looks much better art wise and has a much more interesting array of units without adding this lame "balance". If someone would port it to Spring it would be nice. I could always do it myself but then again I'm so lazy and right now I'm sick so I'd rather not do anything at all.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 22 Jun 2005, 15:49

Thanks:

god not another xta vs ota players post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

min3mat the best way to tell is playing the mod.

So if you really want to know, go do so,learn about it, and come back to us with a nice review from an ota player's perspective.

that is waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy better than asking players of one or the other mod and have them arguing against each other. (instead of playing!!!).
B

that was really helpful. i want opinions NOT bullshit[/quote]

Dakar · Post by **Dakar** » 22 Jun 2005, 16:50

There are several reasons why I prefer XTA:

First of all, I have not been playing OTA very long, so the tactics have not been imprinted into my mind. However, I am somewhat opposed to the strategy focusing more around missile units and flashes. In addition, XTA has a slightly bigger focus on level two, which is where the two sides really diverge.

If you look through the TADRS, you will probably find that in almost every game every single person plays arm. They are far more powerful in OTA, due to an infinitely better raider and some bugs. XTA seems to solve this problem somewhat, by shifting the game away from early-game and more into middle-late game.

For some reason, I prefer larger maps to smaller ones. XTA is more suited for these games than OTA.

The build tree is somewhat less realistic, but allows for more diversity. It's kind of fun to build an advance vehicle lab using planes right outside your opponent's base (you can do this with a transport, though) It's also somewhat useful to be able to branch into advanced kbots without needing to have the lab.

I prefer using of the wall strategies, which XTA encourages. I once crippled an enemy base with a suprise triton attack. In OTA, the opponent would just laugh and easily take them out.

Similar to the thing I said above, XTA encourages using more kinds of units.

Just my two cents,

~Dakar

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 22 Jun 2005, 17:14

thanks Dakar thats EXACTLY the type of response i wanted! kudos!

HellToupee · Post by **HellToupee** » 22 Jun 2005, 23:55

i just dont like the build tree hows its all muddled up

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 23 Jun 2005, 02:52

Interesting points Dakar.

However, I am somewhat opposed to the strategy focusing more around missile units and flashes. In addition, XTA has a slightly bigger focus on level two, which is where the two sides really diverge.

I rather prefer this. To me it is more logical. In modern warfare, you don't see hundreds of tanks and a few infantrymen walking around. Infantry are easier to train and get battle-ready then a tank and often do the job better. You see many infantry and a few heavy tanks, which fill out a more support role.
In my mind, this is how OTA plays. You have your level 1 "soldiers" who are the meat of your army. They do all the dirty work, and more often then not get the job done. Then you have level 2 specialisation units. A specialisation unit can be anything from a trundling hunk of armour with a big cannon (gollies, sumos) for soaking up fire, and busting heavy entrenchments, to more specialised units such as artillery (morties) or support units such as mobile radars or jammers.

If you look through the TADRS, you will probably find that in almost every game every single person plays arm. They are far more powerful in OTA, due to an infinitely better raider and some bugs. XTA seems to solve this problem somewhat, by shifting the game away from early-game and more into middle-late game.

I am a Core loyalist from well back, and always play Core online in OTA. Admittedly, Core does suffer from the powerful flash. However, a good player is able to counter this threat, both with good commander use, as well as raiding of your own (The instigator is a rather underestimated unit). The thing with Core is; it does have many advantages. The slasher is better than the samson, the storm is better, etc. Also, if you manage to survive to the late-game, you are immediately rewarded with a number of very powerful late game units. The morty is a fantastically strategic unit, and the threat of pelicans is easily discounted with the juggernaut Warlord (GAAT guns eat them for breakfast).

For some reason, I prefer larger maps to smaller ones. XTA is more suited for these games than OTA.

I prefer the intensity of smaller games; I find large games bore me.

I prefer using of the wall strategies, which XTA encourages. I once crippled an enemy base with a suprise triton attack. In OTA, the opponent would just laugh and easily take them out.

All of these work in OTA. The difficulty is the surprise factor. Because they are risky strategies, they are easy to counter. But if you can hit your enemy with a bunch of tritons from the other side of his island, it can chew up the innards of his base before he can do anything about it.

An ambuscade, if discovered and promptly surrounded, will repay the intended mischief with interest
- Vegetius

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 23 Jun 2005, 04:13

Eh. I cant really see a difference between the two game's, but i have played more XTA then OTA (cause Spring actualy has PLAYERS, unlike my very few freinds that i can gode into playing OTA). I also just realized that i havent had a really huge navel battle yet!

OFF TO THE LOBBY!!! (any one comming?)

WeaZ · Post by **WeaZ** » 23 Jun 2005, 06:33

yeah ok Core... Play a water map and core owns... theres no doubt there Pelicans are ok but get ownt if ur a good player....
Arm does have the raid factor... and mavericks own if u get them up quick enough but get ownt when core gets mortys and.. who has the radar targetting? lol both well anyways when u mix mortys and radar targetting then mavericks arent nearly as useful and Sumos are really good to... so it just so happens people like ARM more I can beat someone just as easily with core as arm the arm units just look cooler....

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 23 Jun 2005, 14:07

IMO core units are cooler. The ak look more like a battle mech then a small infrantry. Cores mexxes and solars are cooler then arms.
Pyros way cooler then Zues. Core defence are also cooler then the arm version. Planes=cool. (now im rambling:/)

In gameplay resons, i like goliaths. I think spider tanks would be usefull, if we could fix the paralyser wepon. then the major andvantge is the mini fusion plant. So i dont have to build a veichle plant evry time i want good energy.

And cores supiror navy to offcourse.

But i think they are pretty balanced at the moment, i just like core better.

shnorb · Post by **shnorb** » 23 Jun 2005, 14:29

i liked ota (wouldnt be here if i didnt), but xta is good as well. although ive played alot of ota, i dont think i have yet gotten used to xta enough to make a judgement on which is better. one thing i can say is that xta does balance things alot, but i think a few units are a bit too strong/weak in some.

this is moving away from the topic a little bit, but does anyone else think it makes sense to have ota and xta in the standard spring installer. i mean xta is only a varitation of ota, so im guessing it wouldnt be too much hassle to create a simply xta/ota switcher for those who want to play. if it was anything else (mods) it would be out of the question including it with spring... but i really think we should maintain an option for the original cavedog unit specifications. what are your thoughts on this.

Spring RTS Engine

RE: xta

xta/ota

RE: xta