Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

The place to discuss balance changes for future versions of the game.
(Master releases & 3.X)
Cyp
Evitcani
Evitcani
Posts: 784
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 23:35

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Post by Cyp »

Shouldn't that balance table be antisymmetric? With pure cannons vs cannons+MG, both players lose? Or with cannons+MG vs flamers? Pure MGs lose against pure rockets, but pure rockets question-mark against pure MGs.

Think with 3.1's balance (not considering suggested balance changes), almost-pure MGs with the occasional mini-rocket beats anything, although against some players, pure commanders are enough to win (since the commander turret does actually do a tiny bit of damage).
User avatar
vexed
Inactive
Inactive
Posts: 2538
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 02:07

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Post by vexed »

NoQ wrote:]Emm so what? We have certain modifiers assigned to "ALL ROUNDER" in stats/weaponmodifiers.txt. There's no problem if this string is aliased to some other constant in the code, this column in stats/weapons.txt still affects weapon damage to various targets.
Um.. yeah, my bad... I forgot all about the flip side of that array and how it needs to match up with the other arrays. :oops:
I changed it back to what it should have been, looks like it was broken in '09--but I still like the other effect better for this bomb.

For the burn damage, I am just talking about burn damage when something is on fire... nothing more, nothing less. But, it appears that we are talking about different things. :stressed:
/facepalm ...Grinch stole Warzone🙈🙉🙊 contra principia negantem non est disputandum
Super busy, don't expect a timely reply back.
User avatar
Rommel
Trained
Trained
Posts: 446
Joined: 03 Nov 2012, 19:44

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Post by Rommel »

crab_ wrote: I can say it is hard to fight against flamers!
How exactly was the fighting going on, was this a straight "both armies piling into each other" or were the units fighting the flamers retreating and keeping the bulk of units out of the flames (or using some kind of strategy to out maneuver the flamers)?. Were there defenses? even tank traps can seriously mess with a flamer attack. A player's flamers getting foiled early can give him some real problems later on. Just playing devil's advocate here, just wondering if Flamers are actually impossibly over powered or peeps are not using the correct strategy against them (don't ask me what this is as the flamers overpower me at times as well).

Oh and about tank traps, units are supposed to be able to fire over these correct? I ask this because I noticed that only a few units were firing over while others seemed unable to - it's like the ones closet to / against the trap were the only ones firing.
Moving back instead of forward
Seems to me absurd
~
Metallica - Eye of the beholder
crab_
Trained
Trained
Posts: 349
Joined: 29 Jul 2013, 18:09

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Post by crab_ »

@Rommel
To with fight with flamers i used tanks on wheeled propulsion and tried keep distance.
My opponent switched from flamer tanks to flamer cyborgs, and i switched from ligh cannons to twinMg and HMG.

I never use tank traps and never tried to block flamers with tank traps.
One of reasons - i need attack and oil spreaded widely.
Rommel wrote: or were the units fighting the flamers retreating and keeping the bulk of units out of the flames (or using some kind of strategy to out maneuver the flamers)?
Yes bulk of units was keep out from flame.
Rommel wrote:Oh and about tank traps, units are supposed to be able to fire over these correct?
Yes
Rommel wrote:it's like the ones closet to / against the trap were the only ones firing
We have bug with firing units near enemy structures. Units suddenly stop auto-fire, but if set target manually then unit can fire again.
Cyp wrote:Shouldn't that balance table be antisymmetric? With pure cannons vs cannons+MG, both players lose? Or with cannons+MG vs flamers? Pure MGs lose against pure rockets, but pure rockets question-mark against pure MGs.
That balance tabls is not correct. I placed it as sample.
Pure MG loses to pure Cannons. but case i think pure MGs can beat pure Cannon by using cyborgs. This case should be tested.
We did not tested rockets.

Cyp wrote: Think with 3.1's balance (not considering suggested balance changes), almost-pure MGs with the occasional mini-rocket beats anything, although against some players, pure commanders are enough to win (since the commander turret does actually do a tiny bit of damage).
That's why we trying to nerf MGs.
Flamers tanks on half-tracks able to beat pure MGs.


vexed wrote: For the burn damage, I am just talking about burn damage when something is on fire... nothing more, nothing less. But, it appears that we are talking about different things. :stressed:
Ask Cyp. He is author of last change in burn damage calculation.
When something gets on fire it receives first one type of damage and on second stage it receives another type of damage for 10 seconds.
That second part of damage is constant damage #define BURN_DAMAGE 15
So even if we set flamer damage to 0 and burn damage to 0 then flamer be still able to damage units and kill them.
Warzone2100 Guide - http://betaguide.wz2100.net/
Cyp
Evitcani
Evitcani
Posts: 784
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 23:35

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Post by Cyp »

crab_ wrote:
vexed wrote: For the burn damage, I am just talking about burn damage when something is on fire... nothing more, nothing less. But, it appears that we are talking about different things. :stressed:
Ask Cyp. He is author of last change in burn damage calculation.
When something gets on fire it receives first one type of damage and on second stage it receives another type of damage for 10 seconds.
That second part of damage is constant damage #define BURN_DAMAGE 15
So even if we set flamer damage to 0 and burn damage to 0 then flamer be still able to damage units and kill them.
I didn't intentionally change the burn damage, except for trying to make it synchronised. As far as I remember, there are four types of burn damage:
1) Direct instant damage when hit.
1½) Maybe regular splash damage.
2) Splash area of effect damage which lasts for a certain time, applied to all units remaining within a certain radius.
3) A weird hardcoded 15 (or 5 with armour) dps, applied for 10 hard-coded seconds after units leave the splash area. In retrospect, when fixing synchronisation, perhaps there might have been an opportunity for an "accident" to happen to the related code, maybe noone would have noticed at the time.
4) Burnt up neurons, from trying to comprehend the rationale behind the third type of burn damage.
User avatar
montetank
Regular
Regular
Posts: 642
Joined: 14 Feb 2013, 00:05
Location: Montenegro

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Post by montetank »

At first i have to say sorry for my bad english- but you`r guys are intelligent enough to understand, what i want to say.
I would like to say a personal thank to crab_ and NoQ for the well done job :3
a.) Finally something was changed with the cannons and the (overpowerd) flamers balance. Very good!-agree
b.) To reduce the HP for twin machinegun was a very drastic change- i am just speaking about my "feeling"-not the (maybe) correct data. There are some more drastic changes-but your guys knew what was to change-also well done :)
c.) I agree with crab-Ground Shakers-range was stupid. Playing some high-oil games- it was near to say-"let us make a draw". One of the most important changes. Well done!
d.) And NOW: The Vtols-and i saw, that you have a problem here. VTols are a part of this game-but absolutely useless (only for defense-imo.) . To reduce the
plasmite made the VTols more unnecessary. 20 Stormbringers will make your VTols to corn-flakes. I know-the research-time for stormbringers is longer-but you have to build a army of Vtols-i will be prepared! IMO-the changes you did where logically. but....very bad :cry:
e.) The changes (Vtol) where made for lovers of high-oil- battles and lovers of artillery battles. Players, who want to see a "BOOOOM" and to lacy to create a strategy and to be prepared for defense..

Regards
In case the WZ-game ends in a draw , the game winner will be determined by penalty shoot-out.
User avatar
Alpha93
Trained
Trained
Posts: 261
Joined: 02 Aug 2008, 20:23
Location: Italy,in YOUR computer
Contact:

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Post by Alpha93 »

Actually most of the high oil matches were/are without VTOLs so... yeah...
Xfire-->chris37killer
crab_
Trained
Trained
Posts: 349
Joined: 29 Jul 2013, 18:09

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Post by crab_ »

@montetank
VTOLs are not useless.
Thermite Bombs, HEAP Bombs, Plasmite bombs are quite usable.

I agree in late game AA-guns are overpowered. In late games VTOLs are usable only for defense.
In late game you build VTOLs to make enemy spent money on AA.
Anyway late game balance was not changed a lot.


It is not good balance when 3-4 plasmite vtols can kill entire army of heavy tracked tanks.
So plasmite was made weaker.
Warzone2100 Guide - http://betaguide.wz2100.net/
User avatar
Steve Jobs
Trained
Trained
Posts: 66
Joined: 21 Apr 2011, 21:39

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Post by Steve Jobs »

crab_ wrote:@montetank
It is not good balance when 3-4 plasmite vtols can kill entire army of heavy tracked tanks.
So plasmite was made weaker.
1. Plasmit VTOLs are expensiv and very slow
2. Good players push with AA-tanks and AA-spots, it makes risk to be grilled by vtols minimal. (it works for 1-1, 2-2 high oil). If it is game 3-3 or 4-4 game high, we can get scenario, when all players produce vtols, then concentrate their attack and AA cant hold them.
Russian community - http://vk.com/warzone2100
User avatar
montetank
Regular
Regular
Posts: 642
Joined: 14 Feb 2013, 00:05
Location: Montenegro

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Post by montetank »

Steve Jobs wrote:
crab_ wrote:@montetank
It is not good balance when 3-4 plasmite vtols can kill entire army of heavy tracked tanks.
So plasmite was made weaker.
1. Plasmit VTOLs are expensiv and very slow
2. Good players push with AA-tanks and AA-spots, it makes risk to be grilled by vtols minimal. (it works for 1-1, 2-2 high oil). If it is game 3-3 or 4-4 game high, we can get scenario, when all players produce vtols, then concentrate their attack and AA cant hold them.
Point 1-i agree with the point. But only partly. Nothing is to expensive in High-oil games after 40 minutes.
Point 2-Can`t agree- The scenario you describe here is a scenario with players, who are lazy to upgrade the base-structures. And this happens frequently. They are concentrate to upgrade weapons. As i said above---30-40 Stormbringers- in good positions- are enough for defense if you upgrade the base-structures. They can handle more than 100 Vtols.

But thats the point: The research-time. crab wrote "late game balance was not changed a lot". Hmmm- :hmm:
Flashlight>Pulselaser will be changed in 3.2. Whats about the researchtime for improved laser focusing>Hi energy laser emmiter>thermopol energizer>and finally stormbringers?

What i want to say is: To spend a little more time in the research-time problem. I would expand this laser-upgrade. To get the stormbringers later and make the Vtols more attractive. Thats my subjektiv opinion.
In case the WZ-game ends in a draw , the game winner will be determined by penalty shoot-out.
Post Reply