Spring RTS Engine

Sea balance sux.
It sux not because I or someone else think so but because people simply do not want to play sea and they have had years of different tweaks and changes to balance to test and get used to.
People constantly make offers about adding or removing units, changing this or that unit or structure, all in an attempt to try and make sea better.

Here is the problem though: none of these suggestions alone have a good chance of working out. Why? Because every change of a unit or an addition changes the overall interaction between all units and structures. Changing how mexes work or removing or adding a unit changes the interactions and the game's pacing. A solution to a drastic state of none play in which sea has been in BA since its inception requires an overhaul, meaning thinking through the overall picture and how it should play out at the different stages of the game instead of simply throwing in some change and hoping for the best.

So how should we approach sea balance that has failed to truly draw players since BA's inception?
Well, its more an art than a science yet some things still need to be considered to have a chance of making a positive change.

1)identifying the problems.
Nobody knows for sure what exactly it is that is preventing sea from being interesting but we all have rough ideas about it so when you think about what to fix the first step is to explain to yourself what it is that you think is wrong with how sea works and then come up with a plan for changes that would fix these issues or bypass them.

2)Game pace.
Land units have their place and time to be built on each individual map. You do not play 1v1 on comet catcher and start building vehicle artillery as your first units. On the other hand in crowded team game or on small maps with a lot of chockpoints you dont endlessly spam scout units.
So what seems to work(on land) is making sure that units are different enough so that their usage can be divided into game stages. Spring and TA mods like BA seem to work well with having the player control a very limited amount of UNIT TYPES on each front. Many unit types can be used at once but usually not on the same front.
An example of a completely opposite system would be Warcraft 3's system that had tools to easily manage a group of very diverse units and their individual skills and abilities.
Usually one or 2 units at most are the main units at a certain game stage or conditions per front line and then there are a few supporting units used here and there.
So this is also something to think about. Overloading the player with many unit types all being used together on one front hasnt been BA's focus, unlike Starcraft or even BA's cousin, zero-k.

3)The different arenas
When thinking about changes to sea balance one must consider how the change will effect sea interaction within itself, meaning against other sea units but also against hovers on hover appropriate maps, amphibious units and sea's interaction with land and air.
When coming up with changes to sea we gotta consider their effect on all these otherwise one solution to a problem can inadvertently cause other balance issues in some other area.

So here is an analysis and a suggestion for an overhaul.
IMO the issues with sea gameplay are these:

*Rock paper scissors balance.
At the moment certain sea units cannot shoot at others. Im talking about submarines and certain ships that do not have any way of targeting subs. This is an annoyance that does not exist on land except when it comes to interacting with air units and sea also has to interact with air.
It causes frustration and the need to always try and guess how many units of a certain type to send to the front because if you for example dont send enough ships that can deal with subs you might end up in a situation where your ships are attacked but cannot return fire AT ALL.

*Speed.
There isnt enough variance in speed. It is somewhat contracted compared to land, toether with longer units and worse turn rates it makes the game feel sluggish and slow.

*There isnt enough simcity. Yes, there isnt enough complexity in how you construct your base. all you have are tidals.and only of one type.

*How sea deals with land and how land deals with sea is confused and unorganized.
For example, the fact the land vehicle lab contains an amphibious construction tank despite ther being an amphibious lab that can make it makes no sense. On top of that the fact it can climb hills and actually allowes vehicles to go to kbot-only areas with this amphibious constructor doubles the confusion.
This relates to all the different additions of amphibious units.

A solution:

A good rule would be to have amphibious units be the way land attacks sea prior to making its own sea labs because amphibious units can be made to shoot underwater structures and thus raid sea in a way that makes sense. Sea starts on the other hand should use hovers to attack land since hovers have all the tools to do so.

As far as sea goes I propose the following:

I propose an early sub based gameplay.
Start with a fast sub scout, It's counter are light torp launchers.
Continue with another fast but more sterdy medium sub (flash).
Next is a samson like missile ship that can shoot depthcharges that only hit underwater stuff.Its slow but its depthcharges are strong and do well against subs that approach it.
Another defence is a missile tower that shoots samson like missiles.
Another is an HLT as we know it and finally a heavy artillery destroyer with long range plasma that DOESNT outrange an HLT with a depthcharge that shoots underwater only.

The battle starts with light sub scouts raiding but becoming shit as the slower subs become common and as you get torp laucnhers(llt)(these torp launchers will have a slightly bigger model that takes more space above water) then you can slowly get the samson ships that have a strong depthcharge and introduce them into your sub groups and missile towers that slightly outrange them. from there you move to destroyers that are slow and have a depthcharge that shoots only underwater and a plasma gun that has nice aoe but bad dps.

This relies on metal extractors that are underwater.
What I think this setup can do:
solves hard counters as you will always have at least some way of hitting subs and in fact after a while subs become absolete until t2, much like flash and scout tanks become useless when front lines are formed with defences.
Now the introduction of a main light defence long range missile tower makes it easier to form front lines. The abundance of missiles units and turrets that are also ok versus air means that sea to air interaction is smoother.

Potential issues: How to make long range missile combat fun. This requires testing to see how to balance Vision ranges. Perhaps there is also room for another medium/ long range submarine that would fire one big torpedo that will do a lot of damage in a large aoe, thus being able to scatter enemy missile ships and break their lines or inflicting heavy damage if those ships are not microed.
Of course destroyers will be lighter in terms of hp and cost while providing good aoe plasma artillery.
Another idea that was already implemented at one point by doo is to allow missile ships to fire from above so they can shoot above each other making gameplay more than just line versus line battles. This way if you group your ships and attack in a focused way it will be more benefitial and created more focused fire then jsut standing in a line, thus making movements from different sides important much like with flash that run up to one side attack a bit and run away before the enemy has time to react.

So first we will have fast sub wars and harassment followed by samson ships that deal very good damage using depthcharge weapons(only shoot at underwater stuff) that together with cheap torp laucnhers push subs out of the game in favor of long range missile ships and missile turrets supported by janus like subs with big torpedoes and big aor but relatively fragile artillery ships.

Simcity:
We need to add one underwater energy structure. The tidal generator can be that. Make it bigger and on top of it add some sort of surface energy structure similar to land's Advanced solar. These are imo good suggestions others made.
We can also add a very tall building that on deep maps will block the access of subs while on shallow maps even surface fire. It can be an energy generation building instead of the tidal generator while the tidal can morph into a wind generator by flipping its rotae and playing with ratios and a floating advanced sea solar can be added as well.

gyanbasic wrote:IMO the issues with sea gameplay are these:
1. Rock paper scissors balance.
2. Speed.
3. There isnt enough simcity.
4. How sea deals with land and how land deals with sea is confused and unorganized.

1. Yes, this is an issue.
2. I don't think this is an issue, but can someone do a speed comparison between skeeter/jeffy/flea, flash/pw/whatshisname, stumpy/hammer/pship?
3. Not an issue. In terms of how things currently work this is good because it presents energy as the valuable resource that is constantly under threat. And plus, if you want sea/land integration, you have even more variety. When you look at t2 (with only fusion converter and mex), I really can't sea how this is an issue.
4. It's pretty straightforward until you get to the point where the only way to kill sea is to build krogs and selfd them. Amphib are supposed to attack land from water. Hovers are supposed to move quickly fluidly between the two and fight surface on both. There's no dedicated amph lab on land because it doesn't make sense – would you put the kbot aa in there? Crawling bombs? Decoy commanders? They've all got a better place. That's why there's one in sea and not on land.
My problem with this idea is that it (for the most part) removes air from the equation in terms of t1 battles, and that's not something I'd like to sea happen.

gyanbasic wrote:A solution:

A good rule would be to have amphibious units be the way land attacks sea prior to making its own sea labs because amphibious units can be made to shoot underwater structures and thus raid sea in a way that makes sense. Sea starts on the other hand should use hovers to attack land since hovers have all the tools to do so.

As far as sea goes I propose the following:

I propose an early sub based gameplay.
Start with a fast sub scout, It's counter are light torp launchers.
Continue with another fast but more sterdy medium sub (flash).
Next is a samson like missile ship that can shoot depthcharges that only hit underwater stuff.Its slow but its depthcharges are strong and do well against subs that approach it.
Another defence is a missile tower that shoots samson like missiles.
Another is an HLT as we know it and finally a heavy artillery destroyer with long range plasma that DOESNT outrange an HLT with a depthcharge that shoots underwater only.

What about land attacking land through water? Hovercraft can decimate sea too, except there's no decent t2 hovercraft. A sub-based sea makes it harder to secure sea because all the good land v.s. sea structures don't shoot underwater. Securing an area of water won't be any easier, and if you have amphib which shoot water why would you want to, anyway? Sea also already uses hovers to attack land.

Plus the samson like missile ship doesn't make sense. Extremely vulnerable to air when everything else is underwater. You'd have to dedicate antiair to defend it which would just be a pain, why don't you just build that underwater too? I don't see what the defence turrets are supposed to do either. Boats are like mobile defence turrets. You can just go around static ones. (has anyone noticed how useless porc is on maps like comet? Oh wait, you porc anyway.) -_-

My suggestions I belive fully answer your problems, though? They're over in Zecrus's thread (will link later), feel free to quote them and bring them into this thread for a more relevant-to-your-ideas discussion of them. Your comments have influenced them, I think this is a more conservative solution? Anyway, the link: viewtopic.php?f=44&t=36833#p585776

In terms of the problems I see:
1. Destroyers are overpowered
2. Depthcharge ship feels is filling a gap that doesn't need to be filled (and kind of creates the rock paper scissors balance)
3. Pship doesn't really have a reason for having no depthcharge. In fact no ship does. We know there are subs down there, and anyway torps can shoot other boats too!
4. Lack of land/water interaction i.e. all the water is over there, all the land is over there. (this is more of a mapping problem)
5. Subs (in the absence of a destroyer) are still overdecisive units. In the presence of a destoryer, however, wait, where did my subs go?

MasterBel wrote:

gyanbasic wrote:IMO the issues with sea gameplay are these:
1. Rock paper scissors balance.
2. Speed.
3. There isnt enough simcity.
4. How sea deals with land and how land deals with sea is confused and unorganized.

1. Yes, this is an issue.
2. I don't think this is an issue, but can someone do a speed comparison between skeeter/jeffy/flea, flash/pw/whatshisname, stumpy/hammer/pship?
3. Not an issue. In terms of how things currently work this is good because it presents energy as the valuable resource that is constantly under threat. And plus, if you want sea/land integration, you have even more variety. When you look at t2 (with only fusion converter and mex), I really can't sea how this is an issue.
4. It's pretty straightforward until you get to the point where the only way to kill sea is to build krogs and selfd them. Amphib are supposed to attack land from water. Hovers are supposed to move quickly fluidly between the two and fight surface on both. There's no dedicated amph lab on land because it doesn't make sense – would you put the kbot aa in there? Crawling bombs? Decoy commanders? They've all got a better place. That's why there's one in sea and not on land.
My problem with this idea is that it (for the most part) removes air from the equation in terms of t1 battles, and that's not something I'd like to sea happen.

gyanbasic wrote:A solution:

A good rule would be to have amphibious units be the way land attacks sea prior to making its own sea labs because amphibious units can be made to shoot underwater structures and thus raid sea in a way that makes sense. Sea starts on the other hand should use hovers to attack land since hovers have all the tools to do so.

As far as sea goes I propose the following:

I propose an early sub based gameplay.
Start with a fast sub scout, It's counter are light torp launchers.
Continue with another fast but more sterdy medium sub (flash).
Next is a samson like missile ship that can shoot depthcharges that only hit underwater stuff.Its slow but its depthcharges are strong and do well against subs that approach it.
Another defence is a missile tower that shoots samson like missiles.
Another is an HLT as we know it and finally a heavy artillery destroyer with long range plasma that DOESNT outrange an HLT with a depthcharge that shoots underwater only.

What about land attacking land through water? Hovercraft can decimate sea too, except there's no decent t2 hovercraft. A sub-based sea makes it harder to secure sea because all the good land v.s. sea structures don't shoot underwater. Securing an area of water won't be any easier, and if you have amphib which shoot water why would you want to, anyway? Sea also already uses hovers to attack land.

Plus the samson like missile ship doesn't make sense. Extremely vulnerable to air when everything else is underwater. You'd have to dedicate antiair to defend it which would just be a pain, why don't you just build that underwater too? I don't see what the defence turrets are supposed to do either. Boats are like mobile defence turrets. You can just go around static ones. (has anyone noticed how useless porc is on maps like comet? Oh wait, you porc anyway.) -_-

My suggestions I belive fully answer your problems, though? They're over in Zecrus's thread (will link later), feel free to quote them and bring them into this thread for a more relevant-to-your-ideas discussion of them. Your comments have influenced them, I think this is a more conservative solution? Anyway, the link: viewtopic.php?f=44&t=36833#p585776

Speed:
Ships are slower I remember the rough numbers and differences in speed are also lower in ships than land vehicles. they also have the misfortune of turning slower and being more clumsy due to their length with interferes with pathing.

The simcity is purely a matter of interest and a need to sort of learn the map and make different arrangements of different energy buildings. Its simply more interesting then just spamming the same building in a line. Im not saying make sea have it easier to get energy. just allow different energy construction strategies like on land. This is actually Doo's suggestion i think and i agree with him I also think there is room to make buildings that create artificial walls under and above water based on water depth. At least I think its worth thinking about.

Land attacking land through water is a very niche issue and i suggest amphibious tanks to be how land attacks sea and of course you can use the same tanks to attack land from land through water.

It makes less sense for hovers to be how sea is attacked because they currently dont have any underwater capabilities and giving hovers those makes less sense...Hovers with torpedoes...Its kind of meh and why do it when you got amphib tanks.

The samson ship? its not volnurable to air, it shoots air...How can a samson ship be more volnurable to air as oppose to current ships that dont have any aa at all? I dont follow you.

gyanbasic wrote:Original post

So here ill go into more detail about how each unit will act compared to the others.

1)sub scout:
Uses a torpedo(can shoot surface and underwater targets that has slightly higher range to land scouts.
Very low hp, comparable to land scouts.
Costs a bit more than a land scout but not by much.
Small in size and turns fast.
Shoots 360 degrees.
Very good vision range.

2)torpedo launcher:
Cheap, llt priced.
fast rapid torpedoes
Speed and homing capabilities should be such so that a very well microed sub scout can somewhat evade torpedoes when briefly entering and existing the range of the torpedo launcher.
torp launcher throws torpedo from above water.
Torpedoes explode when reaching max range.
Almost full attack range sonar .

3)medium sub:
Shoots 360 degrees torpedoes(hit both underwater and above water targets).
Priced roughly like the flash.
Fast rapid fire torpedoes that dont home and explode when reaching max range.
slighter higher range than flash.
Same category as flash but a bit more expensive.

4)Missile ship.
Is roughly a stumpy speed ship and somewhere between the stumpy and flash in terms of hp.
cos is also around stumpy prices.
Can fire depthcharges(only hits underwater targets).
Depthcharge is good versus subs for cost.
Has slightly more range than sub torps.
Can fire different missiles at air and land. When firing at land the missiles come out from its top and then fly fast to the target without homing. Missiles explode when reaching max range.
When firing at air they home better and are faster.
In both cases the missiles look identical and have the same effect.
Should prioritize land targets first when shooting.
Missile land range is slightly lower than land samsons.
lower vision than attack range.

4)missile turret.
Roughly equivalent to the torpedo launcher in terms of cost(slightly more than an llt).
Has the same missiles type the samson ship but are shot in a volley followed by a long reload.
Same range.
Lower vision than attack range.

5)slow medium sub.
A bit slower or same speed as samson.
slower turn rate.
fires very slow torpedo that doesnt home and explodes when reaching max range with very big AOE and high damage.
Takes long time to reload. Longer than janus.
fagile.
Shoots 360 degrees.
Essentially would need to get into torp launcher range to shoot and will be hit by it but not killed. Similair to how janus does with llt.

5)destroyer.
Has ok depthcharge(only shoots at underwater stuff) weaker for cost than medium sub.
Has longer range than missiles ships and turrets. Does very good single shot damage. Long reload and more fragile than current destroyers.
Cost is lower than current destroyers.
slow unit and slow to turn.
Low vision.

6)HLT, Same range as destroyer but less damage than current HLT's and cheaper.

7)support mine laying ship.
Small ship that can build mines and has good repair speed for cost.

9)surface armored plasma/laser mex.
This mex will be a surface version of the t1 underwater mex and would shoot medium range torpedoes.

10)t1 anti missile surface mex.
Shoots quick plasma balls at incoming missiles to try and destroy them.

11)Hardened wave energy generator.
Small structure that generates a certain amount of energy that is less efficient for cost at energy generation than regular energy structures but has a lot of hp.
Can be built on the front line as a dragon teeth repalcment or around defenses.

12)ramming ship.
Medium speed.
Does heavy damage to any ship it hits and pushes through lighter ships.
good at clearing mines.

This is just a thought i got after sleep deprivation so maybe i'm being too imaginative and irrational, but what if:
- We got a separate sub and ship T1 AND T2 lab, with properly thoughts interactions between ships and subs. Also justifying the use of antisub (almost) dedicated ships by the fact that, this time, you would be able to know for sure that your opponent will only be making subs from his lab, so the question on wether or not making too much of antisubs capable ships rather than pure high dps surface ones can cost you a game doesn't really exist until a later game (when you are supposedly strong enough/fast enough to act in reaction rather than in anticipation)

- Include a certain symetry with land by:
=> Restricting hovercrafts to vehicles/ships
=> Restricting T3 labs (the land and amphib ones) to Kbots and Subs
=> Having a drastically different movetype for subs (different from ships) to create a clear separation between both.
=> Deleting the UW lab as it is right now (since it allows to rush t2 parrows on maps with just a tiny patch of sea like charlie, and make game revolves around who gets the fastest one, and killing all other gameplays, it is really questionnable)
=> Having proper T1/T2 SEAPLANES, in a similar way T1 and T2 aircrafts are handled.
This allows 3 sea starts, aswell as 3 land starts, but with a completly different gameplay, because the movement types and possibilities are just completly different from the start.

I kinda like a sub based meta, but even though, i think i would, and lots of players also would, miss the t1 ships battles and/or usefulness on maps like trefoil. So instead of having one or the other as the only way to play sea, what about being able to chose both ?
We already have 2 submarine "con" models, and 2 ship con models. The Ships roster is already pretty big, and can stand by itself in a couple labs without seeming too poor. All there would be left, would be designing the submarines and redesigning some of the sea/subs interactions at t1 and t2.
What's more, using ships or subs could be decided on different map metal richness / underwater terrain / presence or lack of land patches... That could make full use of the mapping possibiities at hand. And a map almost entirely designed around sea (no or not much land) would still keep an amount of different tactics, possibilities that aren't "just" relying on ships, but also on the two other unit types, while not being unpredictable because of the possibility to scout and see what are you going to face.

[Fx]Doo wrote:This is just a thought i got after sleep deprivation so maybe i'm being too imaginative and irrational, but what if:
- We got a separate sub and ship T1 AND T2 lab, with properly thoughts interactions between ships and subs. Also justifying the use of antisub (almost) dedicated ships by the fact that, this time, you would be able to know for sure that your opponent will only be making subs from his lab, so the question on wether or not making too much of antisubs capable ships rather than pure high dps surface ones can cost you a game doesn't really exist until a later game (when you are supposedly strong enough/fast enough to act in reaction rather than in anticipation)

- Include a certain symetry with land by:
=> Restricting hovercrafts to vehicles/ships
=> Restricting T3 labs (the land and amphib ones) to Kbots and Subs
=> Having a drastically different movetype for subs (different from ships) to create a clear separation between both.
=> Deleting the UW lab as it is right now (since it allows to rush t2 parrows on maps with just a tiny patch of sea like charlie, and make game revolves around who gets the fastest one, and killing all other gameplays, it is really questionnable)
=> Having proper T1/T2 SEAPLANES, in a similar way T1 and T2 aircrafts are handled.
This allows 3 sea starts, aswell as 3 land starts, but with a completly different gameplay, because the movement types and possibilities are just completly different from the start.

I kinda like a sub based meta, but even though, i think i would, and lots of players also would, miss the t1 ships battles and/or usefulness on maps like trefoil. So instead of having one or the other as the only way to play sea, what about being able to chose both ?
We already have 2 submarine "con" models, and 2 ship con models. The Ships roster is already pretty big, and can stand by itself in a couple labs without seeming too poor. All there would be left, would be designing the submarines and redesigning some of the sea/subs interactions at t1 and t2.
What's more, using ships or subs could be decided on different map metal richness / underwater terrain / presence or lack of land patches... That could make full use of the mapping possibiities at hand. And a map almost entirely designed around sea (no or not much land) would still keep an amount of different tactics, possibilities that aren't "just" relying on ships, but also on the two other unit types, while not being unpredictable because of the possibility to scout and see what are you going to face.

I sont think anyone has the right to miss any gameplay on sea since most people dont even really know or knew the balance of sea before since it was played so rarely.

Your offer includes a lot of changes, kinda hard to even imagine it.
What would be the unit roaster in these sub and ship labs? Thats a key question and needs to be answered.
I see a problem here right away though. Imagine if one player goes subs while another goes ships. It would mean that each lab would only use a small amount of its roaster wouldnt it? or do you imagine most maps would require both players to use the same lab?
Imagine if you used kbots versus veh on land but now you could only use hammers and flea in kbots and nothing else cause it wouldnt be able to hit vehicles.

Also, it seems like creating these new labs would require the addition of even more units.
Do we really want another sea plane duplicate series of land aircraft?

Doo, I love your idea! I don't know if it's necessary to add the extra labs, though, but it definitely makes more sense. The concept of underwater terrain, though – would you be talking about something like minwaterdepths?

Would units like the triton and gimp and other amphib units be in the underwater lab? And what will make people choose ships over subs, since subs are definitely the superior option in water?

gyanbasic wrote:I see a problem here right away though. Imagine if one player goes subs while another goes ships. It would mean that each lab would only use a small amount of its roaster wouldnt it? or do you imagine most maps would require both players to use the same lab?
Imagine if you used kbots versus veh on land but now you could only use hammers and flea in kbots and nothing else cause it wouldnt be able to hit vehicles.

Also, it seems like creating these new labs would require the addition of even more units.
Do we really want another sea plane duplicate series of land aircraft?

Ideally both people will choose the same, but yes, small amount of the roster – just like when you're kbots and only spamming hammer or veh and mainly spamming stumpy. It would likely require a t2 antisub option?

I'd also be interested in the tech2 possibilities of sub gameplay – a sub spy that can cloak, a shortrange rapidfire, I'm not sure how much variety we can afford. And I'd really like a better distinction between battle subs and sub killers than just special damages, I find that silly.

Sea is a metagamespace... Ships are the kbots of sea.. Hover the tanks.. Subs are the planes.. And that is where the imbalance of options creeps in. A plane player can attack both land and sea..



Alliw for subs to take flight.. Restore symmetry of options.

PicassoCT wrote:Sea is a metagamespace... Ships are the kbots of sea.. Hover the tanks.. Subs are the planes.. And that is where the imbalance of options creeps in. A plane player can attack both land and sea..

Alliw for subs to take flight.. Restore symmetry of options.

That could be balanced by introducing a "digger" class of land units. They can dig into enemy territory below porc, be detected by seismographs and their tunnels collapsed by bombing your own land.

The only question is... can they dig below the sea too??

And... what if their tunnels end one side in water and the other end opens to land - can we have geysers?

And.. can subs travel flooded tunnels?

if you change sea any more its not even ba

Ares wrote:if you change sea any more its not even ba

Soon there wont be any BA because of people who rely on nostalgia to decide how BA should be.
What is it now? 50 players left? Do you ever want to see the community actually grow? I know it has more to do with the game's infrastructure but nobody wants to develop with a toxic conservative community that simply wants things to stay as they are, even if things as they are dont work properly.

If you got nothing better to say than "this isnt as it used to be" Your opinion is not adding anything to the discussion.

gyanbasic wrote:

Ares wrote:if you change sea any more its not even ba

Soon there wont be any BA because of people who rely on nostalgia to decide how BA should be.
What is it now? 50 players left? Do you ever want to see the community actually grow? I know it has more to do with the game's infrastructure but nobody wants to develop with a toxic conservative community that simply wants things to stay as they are, even if things as they are dont work properly.

If you got nothing better to say than "this isnt as it used to be" Your opinion is not adding anything to the discussion.

Basic, Ares has a point. We all love this game so we want to get more players, yes, but we don't have to completely change it. It doesn't necessarily require a massive overhaul. The more similar we keep it the better, imho.

Of course it's stupid to not make changes just for nostalgia's sake, but it doesn't mean that nostalgia shouldn't be an element in our thoughts at all.

Think of BA like an old fighter, you could either change certain things or you could rebuild it entirely into a bomber. Or you could just scrap it. You have to have something to aim for and a reason to aim for it.

Learn to appreciate people constantly arguing against you even if they have no basis for what they're saying. They're challenging you and forcing you to justify your position. They're helping you. So let them help you and don't just disreguard them.

So please, can you give him some of a respons? Not for his sake but for yours.
~

sea is like microing rows of sumos now, no skill just drive a wall of boats at each other, no torpedo or destroyer micro and its all so slow too, not an improvement

MasterBel wrote:

gyanbasic wrote:

Ares wrote:if you change sea any more its not even ba

Soon there wont be any BA because of people who rely on nostalgia to decide how BA should be.
What is it now? 50 players left? Do you ever want to see the community actually grow? I know it has more to do with the game's infrastructure but nobody wants to develop with a toxic conservative community that simply wants things to stay as they are, even if things as they are dont work properly.

If you got nothing better to say than "this isnt as it used to be" Your opinion is not adding anything to the discussion.

Basic, Ares has a point. We all love this game so we want to get more players, yes, but we don't have to completely change it. It doesn't necessarily require a massive overhaul. The more similar we keep it the better, imho.

Of course it's stupid to not make changes just for nostalgia's sake, but it doesn't mean that nostalgia shouldn't be an element in our thoughts at all.

Think of BA like an old fighter, you could either change certain things or you could rebuild it entirely into a bomber. Or you could just scrap it. You have to have something to aim for and a reason to aim for it.

Learn to appreciate people constantly arguing against you even if they have no basis for what they're saying. They're challenging you and forcing you to justify your position. They're helping you. So let them help you and don't just disreguard them.

So please, can you give him some of a respons? Not for his sake but for yours.
~

Icant reply to someone who makes absolutely no arguments. Saying "this is not even BA anymore" is not something Anyone can respond to nor does it challenge anyone. Also why would we care some parts are not as they used to be if nobody plays them or likes them.

gyanbasic wrote: Icant reply to someone who makes absolutely no arguments. Saying "this is not even BA anymore" is not something Anyone can respond to nor does it challenge anyone. Also why would we care some parts are not as they used to be if nobody plays them or likes them.

For sake of not derailing any more than I already have (oops) I'll just say, he's asking for a justification that it is still BA. But anyway.

Subs generally seem to be a problem when trying to balance because they outcompete ships – they're designed to be ship killers and ships aren't properly equiped to take down subs. So either ships need an effective, relatively cheap anti-sub ship (like t1 aa is against aircraft, say) subs will become the dominant naval craft in the open sea. I think once people know that, it's not going to be that much of an issue. Just like on maps like CCR Stumpy is the relatively dominant unit, then bulldogs, etc.

In order for there still to be a place for surface ships, then, we need to place some kind of limitation on subs. Easiest option would be a depth limit – say the water has to be at least a certain depth else subs won't go there. I'm not sure how many current maps this would be relevant to but I'm going to try out making some new ones.

gyanbasic wrote:

MasterBel wrote:

gyanbasic wrote: Soon there wont be any BA because of people who rely on nostalgia to decide how BA should be.
What is it now? 50 players left? Do you ever want to see the community actually grow? I know it has more to do with the game's infrastructure but nobody wants to develop with a toxic conservative community that simply wants things to stay as they are, even if things as they are dont work properly.

If you got nothing better to say than "this isnt as it used to be" Your opinion is not adding anything to the discussion.

Basic, Ares has a point. We all love this game so we want to get more players, yes, but we don't have to completely change it. It doesn't necessarily require a massive overhaul. The more similar we keep it the better, imho.

Of course it's stupid to not make changes just for nostalgia's sake, but it doesn't mean that nostalgia shouldn't be an element in our thoughts at all.

Think of BA like an old fighter, you could either change certain things or you could rebuild it entirely into a bomber. Or you could just scrap it. You have to have something to aim for and a reason to aim for it.

Learn to appreciate people constantly arguing against you even if they have no basis for what they're saying. They're challenging you and forcing you to justify your position. They're helping you. So let them help you and don't just disreguard them.

So please, can you give him some of a respons? Not for his sake but for yours.
~

Icant reply to someone who makes absolutely no arguments. Saying "this is not even BA anymore" is not something Anyone can respond to nor does it challenge anyone. Also why would we care some parts are not as they used to be if nobody plays them or likes them.

i see u just ignore my specific balance points as it suits you ok

Are you both a bunch of trolls?
Why would I address your points about current sea If i also think its shit? Did you not notice my post about completely changing how sea works?
I dont like sea, It was never good which is why it was never played which is why making small changes wont fix that which is why we need an overhaul which is what i offered.

gyanbasic wrote:It was never good which is why it was never played which is why making small changes wont fix that which is why we need an overhaul which is what i offered.

I don't like this kind of thinking. A complete overhaul doesn't make sense. There were always only small issues with sea. No one really made an attempt to fix it, afaik. Sea need to be designed in concert with land and it was, originally, even if it never worked well. It wasn't an utter fail. May have been boring but not an utter fail.

Your suggestions have only moved the problem underwater and gained nothing, if I can be brutally honest. To be honest they're not really a full overhaul at all. The biggest problem I sea is that we still need above-water play both for optimal interaction with land and for variety. I believe others will agree on this with me?

What you have suggested isn't even a complete overhaul. It's just a heap of tweaks with no substantial justification. You've mainly said that what we have is bad, and suggested something else without really detailing why it solves the problem. I know that you've tried to substantiate it but the only change you've suggested that I've seen real basis for is making amphib units able to shoot underwater (and you made a very good point there).

Then Doo built on your idea and did substantiate it a little (not enough to avoid hole-poking though) and I said I kind of liked it. You challenged his suggestion because a) it added a number of units (Doo's quite good at adding units) and b) the optional scenario of someone starting ships against a sub player. That's not a problem in design; it's a gameplay mistake, just like you shouldn't start air because it's crazy. And tbh, only rokko and hammer can hit stumpies with decent micro, and flash can't hit rokko and hammer unless expertly micro'd. So yeah.

gyanbasic wrote:Are you both a bunch of trolls?

Do note that my intention here is not to troll and never has been. I've been trying to give constructive feedback. Please note that I apologised for derailing the conversation, it was never my intention to do that. And Ares is the guy here to make you think. He kinda is trolling but in a way that provides you a method of showing off how good your idea is – if you think it's a good idea. He says it's horrible; now it's your turn to say why he's wrong and why it's actually amazing.

Oh, and at least try to consider Doo's and my suggestions? And when you have criticisms of them, suggest a solution to fix those criticisms. That'll help this conversation be more effective.

@Ares can you avoid quoting more than you need to? It means we have to re-read a lot and scroll over endless quotes to get to the new stuff. So yeah.