Target variety

[NoQ]

Yet another "/me is thinking" thread.

Right now we have around 2.5 different sorts of targets. Tanks, cyborgs, and, technically, defenses, but they are rarely used. Well, maybe VTOLs sometimes. So all games boil down to a faction-based approach: "choose one anti-cyborg weapon, [probably] choose one anti-tank weapon, produce them". All we are interested in is enemy's ratios of tanks:borgs and AT:AP. That's what we all have learned. But hey, guys.

• That's pretty dumb.

If we create many different sorts of targets, we can probably

• force players to research all weapon branches in every game!

And i believe that'd make the game much more interesting than current faction-based approach. It will bring more adaptation and improvisation and more varied game situations than simply splitting the game into 3.5 different games.
___________

We already have tracks, hovers, cyborgs, yellow and green bodies, three body sizes. That's a lot of different sorts of targets, but we never care about it enough to change rockets to cannons in mid-game or change machine guns to flamers in mid-game.

For example, we could make sure lancers are worse than cannons against light body halftracks. Either due to overkill, or due to armor factor, or due to worse modifiers. If this effect becomes important enough, if lancers would have really difficult time dealing not only with cyborgs but also with leopard halftracks spam, we could force the players keep cannons to fight against light bodies and keep rockets to fight against heavy tracked tanks.

Another way would be to buff the HP of cannons and nerf the HP of machineguns and rockets. Then players would need cannons as meat shields and mgs or rockets in certain proportion to deal damage either against tanks or against cyborgs, even though cannons would not do much damage on their own (but upgrading them would still be hopefully useful, with correct upgrade prices).

[crab_]

I was thinking the same thoughts BTW

That's pretty dumb.

You are right!

force players to research all weapon branches in every game!

Why we need to force to research all weapons?
I think research 2-3 different weapons is ok.

We already have tracks, hovers, cyborgs, yellow and green bodies, three body sizes. That's a lot of different sorts of targets, but we never care about it enough to change rockets to cannons in mid-game or change machine guns to flamers in mid-game

You are right once again
You saying true, i can approve it, because i played many games. I dont remember game where i was forced to change weapon line during the middle game.
But there was cases when i was forced to add second weapon line, For example if i crushing enemy with my flamers then later i needed some MGs or cannons to make holes in enemy walls.

For example, we could make sure lancers are worse than cannons against light body halftracks. Either due to overkill, or due to armor factor, or due to worse modifiers. If this effect becomes important enough, if lancers would have really difficult time dealing not only with cyborgs but also with leopard halftracks spam, we could force the players keep cannons to fight against light bodies and keep rockets to fight against heavy tracked tanks

agreed.
I have a bit more thoughts, very similar but different, Hard to explain, i can do it on native language in PM

Another way would be to buff the HP of cannons and nerf the HP of machineguns and rockets. Then players would need cannons as meat shields and mgs or rockets in certain proportion to deal damage either against tanks or against cyborgs, even though cannons would not do much damage on their own (but upgrading them would still be hopefully useful, with correct upgrade prices).

Do you saying about researching 3 weapon lines at one time?
I think such possiblities should be retained for team games with shared research.
anyway, i'm agreed with overall idea of using more than 1 weapon line


NoQ, you saying in right direction. But you have to understand, To make such changes we need solid vision of whole game and research tree should be reviewed. Please comment here viewtopic.php?f=42&t=11138

Another global problem.
See.. I'm trying to explain... we have "levels" of research. Example:
level0: MG, wheels
level1: MG cannon wheels, hall-tracks, defenses
level2: MG cannon Mini-Pod flamers cyborgs, wheels half-tracks, defenses
level3: MG cannon Mini-Pod flamers cyborgs Mortar MRA python cobra mantis hover , defenses
level4: MG cannon Lancer flamers cyborgs Mortar MRA howitzer vtol ripples python mantis, defenses

See. Each time we open more and more components.
We can bring order in levels from 0 to 3. but its looks impossible on higher levels.
We have more than thousand tank designs. I'm afraid it is impossible to evaluate all variants. Impossible to say why tank XYZ can beat tank ABC.
Ok Ok we can build system and set purpose of each weapon line, each body and propulsion. But how verify?

[crab_]

Sample of my thoughts about early balance:
Flamers beat Cannons, because cannons are slow.
Mini-Pod beat Flamers, because mini-pod are faster and have higher range.
Cannon beat Mini-Pod because cannons have same range, same damage and more HP than Mini-Pod
Machinegun can beat wheeled tanks and cyborgs. Machinegun weaker than other weapons, but usable if enemy uses wheels and half-tracks
Cyborgs can beat cannons or rockets, but weak against flamers.
Half-tracked tanks good in fitgh with machinegun..
copyright (c) crab_

I think such schemes in not good, because it boring when one weapon just stronger than another weapon. E.g. if cannon player see flamers he just leaves game.

[The Overlord]

Sample of my thoughts about early balance:
Cannon beat Mini-Pod because cannons have same range, same damage and more HP than Mini-Pod.

But mini rockets are faster, I think if the damage is the same the rockets will win - If the player has repair..but do they produce at the same speed?

Machinegun can beat wheeled tanks and cyborgs. Machinegun weaker than other weapons, but usable if enemy uses wheels and half-tracks


So machine guns are anti-wheel/half track and cyborg? Perhaps most effective against cyborgs, weaker against wheels, then weaker still against h/t until when the opponent uses tracks, mg is almost useless.

E.g. if cannon player see flamers he just leaves game.

Maybe something should be put into effect that punishes people for leaving games often, which would force the players to change their strategy - to keep people playing, better tutorials and helpful tips should be made accessible to the player.


As for NoQ, I agree with crab in the sense that you shouldn't force the people to research every weapon, but should at least go two in low oil games (which I am assuming you are talking about). Machine guns well researched are way overpowered as it should only be for anti-structures and cyborgs, not tanks. I like the idea of mgs dealing less to wheels then borgs, h/t then wheels, and tracks then h/t. In fact, purely researched rockets are the same (overpowered) and perhaps cannons/flamers too, but I have yet to try those.

The mgs don't deal less damage to tracks, h/t, and wheels do they? Correct me if I am wrong

[crab_]

But mini rockets are faster, I think if the damage is the same the rockets will win - If the player has repair..but do they produce at the same speed?

Fast tank has big advantage only if that tank can use hit&run tactic or\and have longer range of fire.
In my sample mini-rockets have the same range like cannons and they cannot use hit&run tactic.
Fast speed gives ability to make fast attack at oil and rush base from behind, but rockets have bad damage modifier when attack structures.
Anyway i think this task is solvable (task how make slow cannons stronger than rockets)

Maybe something should be put into effect that punishes people for leaving games often, which would force the players to change their strategy - to keep people playing, better tutorials and helpful tips should be made accessible to the player.

I think flamers army shall not ensure victory on cannon army.
I think cases when rockets do 30% damage to cyborgs is bad behaviour. Damage modifier should be more soft. Just advantage in 10-20%.
Damage modifiers have to make player to be able to defense and possibly adapt to attacking enemy.

The mgs don't deal less damage to tracks, h/t, and wheels do they? Correct me if I am wrong

MG do good damage to cyborgs, wheels, hover
MG do bad damage to half-tracks and tracks, and less damage to defenses

[NoQ]

I agree with crab in the sense that you shouldn't force the people to research every weapon, but should at least go two in low oil games

Since this is the whole point of the thread to change this paradigm, i'd expect to hear a bit more argumentation.
Why shouldn't i? It's dumb and boring when two weapons are all you will ever need. When you need more weapons and have more targets, more combinations and more game situations appear.

And, of course, i do assume a full rebalance. It's pointless to discuss current balance in this thread, it's rather one of the possible visions and expectation, alternative to faction-based approach, that i want to discuss here.

[crab_]

it's rather one of the possible visions and expectation, alternative to faction-based approach, that i want to discuss here.

Thinking. "Faction-based approach" can be mixed with your "alternative".
For example, in current Research Tree Rocket faction has own anti-cyborg and artillery sub-lines.
I mean when you play Rockets you also easily receive some artillery and some anti-cyborg weapons (Ripples, MRA, Seraphim).

Next we can make mortars linked to cannons . Mortars will become alternative weapon for Cannon faction.
....

[NoQ]

Well, i mean that sometimes having rockets and cannons together in a single army is something more balanced and varied (and probably even more realistic!) than forcing the player to choose either rockets or cannons.

[crab_]

Well, i mean that sometimes having rockets and cannons together in a single army is something more balanced and varied (and probably even more realistic!) than forcing the player to choose either rockets or cannons.

Fast thinking.
Well, what you suggest to do with damage and ROF upgrades?
I think ability to focus on some weapon is funny thing. This movivates people to play again and again and try more and more combinations of research strategy


[update]
Principe of "weapon types" (weapon lines) are forbid to play with 2-3 different weapons at one time. When you research damage for cannons, all types of your cannons became upgraded.
Lest think, what will happen if we remove concept of "weapon line"..

[NoQ]

We change it to short-term focusing on certain weapons, while pulling all of them in the long-term. You may stay all right with focusing on machineguns and cannons for 20 minutes until python tracks come around, but then if you fail to get lancers ("switch faction"!) quickly enough you may eventually die.

So the plan is to force players switch factions regularly.

In fact it's a major problem with current balance: cannons fail epically against tracks on all phases of the game (from mediums to railguns), but it is always too late to switch to rockets.

Principe of "weapon types" (weapon lines) are forbid to play with 2-3 different weapons at one time. When you research damage for cannons, all types of your cannons became upgraded.
Lest think, what will happen if we remove concept of "weapon line"..

Well, whenever a player tries to focus on stuff, he will be punished by inability to adapt to a certain sort of targets. With current tree he won't be punished, so focusing is overpowered.

[crab_]

We change it to short-term focusing on certain weapons, while pulling all of them in the long-term. You may stay all right with focusing on machineguns and cannons for 20 minutes until python tracks come around, but then if you fail to get lancers quickly enough you may eventually die.

In fact it's a major problem with current balance: cannons fail epically against tracks on all phases of the game, but it is always too late to switch to rockets.

Cannon vs tracks? In current balance this situation is rarely happened. Cannon have good damage to tracks,
60 cannons can beat 60 lancers.
But 10 lancers will sure beat 10 cannon.
So your are wrong with "major problem". When you played last time? Sorry for the joke

Rockets is just anti-tank weapon. In 'tank game' rockets are the best eventually.

So i think rockets should not be "anti-tank" because such weapon is not balanceabl

[NoQ]

So i think rockets should not be "anti-tank" because such weapon is not balanceabl

Well that's what i'm trying to say. Don't make "anti-half-of-everything" weapons.
If rockets were, say, anti-large-slow-tank weapon, and cannons were anti-small-dummy-spammed-up-tank weapon it would have been much more fun.

[crab_]

Well, whenever a player tries to focus on stuff, he will be punished by inability to adapt to a certain sort of targets. With current tree he won't be punished, so focusing is overpowered.

In my sample research tree focusing was nerfed a bit (by redusing effect of damage upgrades).

he will be punished by inability to adapt to a certain sort of targets

But why we need punish player so much? May be better reduce "punishment"
If player failed in his assumptions then he should be punished a bit, but not so much when he lose game immediately.
I meant one weapon should not be 100% stronger than another weapon.
For example, Rockets can have 15-20% effective bonus to tracked tanks and thats enough.

[NoQ]

If player failed in his assumptions then he should be punished a bit, but not so much when he lose game immediately.

Well, there's no other way to punish. If he hasn't lost, then he'd just win and be happy with that.

I meant one weapon should not be 100% stronger than another weapon.

I don't think i said that ... Even a little loss is enough to loose.

[crab_]

So i think rockets should not be "anti-tank" because such weapon is not balanceabl

Well that's what i'm trying to say. Don't make "anti-half-of-everything" weapons.
If rockets were, say, anti-large-slow-tank weapon, and cannons were anti-small-dummy-spammed-up-tank weapon it would have been much more fun.

In current WZ balance rockets is "anti-everything" weapon, but machineguns and inferno are overpowered a bit, so rockets are not the best weapon in warzone nowadays.
Some cannos do not have splash damage (HPV, light cannon).

I'm trying to say. One weapon should not be as panacea to some another weapon. I think adaption bonuses have to be nerfed a bit. So player should be able to fight with his tracked army with rocketer enemy. Not lose game when he just discovered "wrong" enemy army.

I don't think i said that ... Even a little loss is enough to loose.

agreed.
Little lose also can be enough to lose positions on map BUT also be enough to change weapon and try to adapt.