On paid derricks again

The place to discuss balance changes for future versions of the game.
(Master releases & 3.X)

On paid derricks again

Postby NoQ » 11 Jan 2014, 19:53

I'd say give derricks a built-in heavy machinegun for their $100, and remove heavy machinegun from the early mg tower.

This way we nerf truck rush, and also nerf tank rush by making the rusher devote much more of his mg viper wheels on sabotaging economy on the captured territory which decreases techer's losses and makes it easier to recover, and buffs homeground advantage.

All we need is a suitable model.

Or did anybody propose that already? :hmm:
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
 
Posts: 6048
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby crab_ » 11 Jan 2014, 20:24

I like the idea.
Did not heard that idea before.

Currently we have Res Tree more less balanced for rush/tech.
Nerfing rush more => we need nerf tech too.

This paid-mg-derrick will change too much things in game.
Warzone2100 Guide - http://betaguide.wz2100.net/
crab_
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 345
Joined: 29 Jul 2013, 18:09

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby NoQ » 11 Jan 2014, 20:34

Currently we have Res Tree more less balanced for rush/tech.
You can't really break that balance, you can only move the time frame between the two up or down. It's a very fundamental thing that the bigger your map is, the more time you have before producing your first unit, the more tech you can grab before that, and you really want that as your units will be more cost-effective, and you can't grab too much because if you don't produce any units you eventually die. So i think that no matter how much you change game rules, rush vs. tech still exists, you only get your timing scaled. Every RTS has that. One can only discuss if the timing is too fast or too slow, and how much it affects the overall game pace.
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
 
Posts: 6048
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby Berg » 11 Jan 2014, 23:26

I think this would change balance to a great degree it would make so many things un-affective and then everyone would start the game with new maps that ALREADY HAVE DERRICKS .
You would only mess everything up.
User avatar
Berg
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1811
Joined: 02 Sep 2007, 23:25
Location: Australia

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby NoQ » 11 Jan 2014, 23:28

I think this would change balance to a great degree
Sure, i'm aware of it, so what?
everyone would start the game with new maps that ALREADY HAVE DERRICKS
There are no such maps. Even if there were, i don't see why.
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
 
Posts: 6048
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby Terminator » 11 Jan 2014, 23:30

NoQ wrote:I'd say give derricks a built-in heavy machinegun for their $100, and remove heavy machinegun from the early mg tower.


why not just repalce heavy MG tower with twince mg tower for example for a 20 power cheaper (80$) ?
Death is the only way out... sh*t Happens !

Russian-speaking Social network Group http://vk.com/warzone2100
User avatar
Terminator
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 Aug 2006, 13:46
Location: Ukraine

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby Berg » 11 Jan 2014, 23:31

Your not thinking ahead There will be...you know very well you will hav ethem making work arounds for every bad change you make look at the past events ...you make it idiot proof they make a better idiot.
User avatar
Berg
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1811
Joined: 02 Sep 2007, 23:25
Location: Australia

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby Per » 11 Jan 2014, 23:52

... so we give up? I'm not sure what you are arguing for, Berg.

I think this is an interesting idea.

There is also another option. I was playing around a bit with a patch that allows us to restrict the building placement of certain buildings to only be adjancent to another building. It worked, and I used it to restrict the mg tower, but I was not very happy with it, as it was so easy to work around by building some cheap building first (eg tank trap...). But if we changed it slightly, so that you can only build the first defensive building adjacent to an oil derrick... that would be trivial to implement, and we would not need any new model. The in-game excuse could be that the earliest defensive structures need to be powered directly from the derrick, since, uhm, they have not researched good batteries yet. Or something.
Per
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
 
Posts: 3583
Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 19:39

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby Berg » 12 Jan 2014, 00:08

Per wrote:... so we give up? I'm not sure what you are arguing for, Berg.

IM not arguing im pointing out facts if you make them pay for derricks and remove other things this will affect the game as a hole like other changes no thought went into what the end result would be.
You know they will make maps with pre installed derricks.
PS . Truck rush will be to build on other player oil resources it will not change much in the rush effect
User avatar
Berg
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1811
Joined: 02 Sep 2007, 23:25
Location: Australia

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby stiv » 12 Jan 2014, 00:22

But if we changed it slightly, so that you can only build the first defensive building adjacent to an oil derrick.


So you couldn't build an MG tower at the entrance to your base?

I get the feeling we are over-thinking this.
stiv
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
 
Posts: 876
Joined: 18 Jul 2008, 04:41
Location: 45N 86W

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby crab_ » 12 Jan 2014, 00:23

Per wrote:. you can only build the first defensive building adjacent to an oil derrick... that would be trivial to implement, and we would not need any new model. The in-game excuse could be that the earliest defensive structures need to be powered directly from the derrick, since, uhm, they have not researched good batteries yet. Or something.


What goal of your suggestion? Kill Truck Rush/Tower Rush?
We have issue - player expanding too fast. Player get all oil resources at map from start of game. Player does not need to defend his oil resources.
Also player can take resources directly at enemy base.
Paid oil derricks - was solution which should restrict player from very fast expanding.

Well. I think we can make variable price for oil derrick
price = Math.max(([count of your derricks] - 4) * 20, 100);
5th - $20
6th - $40
max price - $100

Anotehr suggestion - make variable power income from derricks
More derricks => less power income / per derrick
Warzone2100 Guide - http://betaguide.wz2100.net/
crab_
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 345
Joined: 29 Jul 2013, 18:09

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby Iluvalar » 12 Jan 2014, 19:44

crab_ wrote:Anotehr suggestion - make variable power income from derricks
More derricks => less power income / per derrick

indeed.
Income taxes in NRS end up working like this : I give 25% of expected oil derrick worth to poor player, but i taxe 25% of each derrick you build. Each derrick therfore produce a fixed 75% of intended. But the law of diminishing return works just as well. It also solve the problem of not having enough power for the first derrick.

I'm against your idea NoQ, I quite like the idea of sending a single puny unit harrasing an oil derrick and forcing the player to react to the threat.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: On paid derricks again

Postby Hesterax » 14 Jan 2014, 05:44

So NoQ you want to abandon the machine gun tower from what I see. What if they want to reinforce their derricks with more mg's? :?
Holocaust and Genocide, both linked to Mass Slaughter.
User avatar
Hesterax
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 282
Joined: 11 Jan 2014, 13:32


Return to Balance