Run and Hit anyway

[Iluvalar]

@Effigy : But if i don't kill them, since they are faster, they can go on repair. I'll never kill any of them.

I exaggerate a bit. I know that you'll make mistake in micromanagement, you will want to make more units shot so you will come closer etc... But the fact is : The defender now lost 2 seconds of reaction during the battle.

@Cyp : I never talked about running after the MRA across all the map, I talk about moving forward at the same moment then them which reduce the range. Please stop bitching 2.3 and try to understand what I said.

@NoQ : We should correct the MRA stats now that they shoot straight. They were usable when they were shooting half their ammo skyward, so it's obviously wrong that they kept the same stats.

We should also reconsider all the charging weapons to evaluate that 2 seconds¹ delay in their efficiency.

Add a blue rocket line that do not contain the arty weapons so they dont have that weird nerf of 30% because they contain an odd type in their line. And ask the players in 3 month if, like i think, they don't prefer that line of pure anti-tank.

[Reg312]

i'm not MRA user, but i can say MRA become stronger in comparison to 2.3 (by my feelings)

@NoQ : We should correct the MRA stats now that they shoot straight. They were usable when they were shooting half their ammo skyward, so it's obviously wrong that they kept the same stats.

firts, correct accuracy issues common for all weapons
http://guide.wz2100.net/w/minirocketarray
MRA accuracy 52% + 1st upgrade = 57%
in current game MRA kills tanks precisely with ~100% accuracy

2Iluvalar: stop arguing about balance changes from 2.3 to 3.1, because all was changed and its OK
at current moment i see cannons line is weak
such invisible changes in balance can happen after each commit, so better control overall balance and dont try make it "ideal"

[zany]

2Iluvalar: stop arguing about balance changes from 2.3 to 3.1, because all was changed and its OK
at current moment i see cannons line is weak
such invisible changes in balance can happen after each commit, so better control overall balance and dont try make it "ideal"

Iluvalar loves to live in the past. after playing both versions 3.1 is better in almost every way except the broken savegames and some other issues which are bugs from looking at that trac thing.
get over it Iluvalar

[Iluvalar]

2Iluvalar: stop arguing about balance changes from 2.3 to 3.1, because all was changed and its OK

That is false. The balance and the mechanic is still similar enough to 2.3. The best course of action is still to try to compensate the changes made in the remaining.

that should be the rule : You make a change, you compensate.

@Zany, beside a weird ad hominem attack, I don't see arguments about how the 2 second delay added lately do not affect the balance. Could you stay on topic please ?

[Reg312]

that should be the rule : You make a change, you compensate.

1) it's unending, and in most cases balance becomes worse after each "compensation"
so better make 10 improvement and 100 bugfixes and only then compensate it
2) 2.3 "balance" is not ideal, no one should compensate anything
and if you think what MRA became worse in 3.1 - proof it!
.....
in last games most of enemies used rocket line (MRA and few lancers), so i think this line slightly better than another strategies
lancers also hit more precise and it became harder to stop rockets with few cyborgs at front
rockets dont shoot on 1 cyborg as it was in 2.3
so we have:
*stronger mini-rockets and MRA (accuracy up from 50% to 100%)
*stronger lancers (because its harder to use cyborgs as shield vs lancers)
and you suggest impover stats of MRA? or i misunderstood
anyway, better make more tests.... in my opinion, lancer is weapon which stronger than any weapon at same research level, so rocket line strong enough

btw MRA is artillery, so if you cannot kill htrack tanks by MRA its ok

[NoQ]

and you suggest impover stats of MRA? or i misunderstood

No, he suggests just the opposite, saying MRAs became stronger.

[Cyp]

...

@Zany, beside a weird ad hominem attack, I don't see arguments about how the 2 second delay added lately do not affect the balance. Could you stay on topic please ?

There was not added any 2 second delay lately. So discussing how adding a delay affects balance is completely irrelevant to 3.1's balance.

The only delay-related difference is that the delay is consistent between clients, and 3.1 probably has a slightly smaller delay than 2.3, on average. And the delay is no longer hidden like it was in 2.3.

Since the delay was reduced in 3.1, it's possible to micromanage much much more accurately than it was possible in 2.3, which probably does affect balance.

[NoQ]

There was not added any 2 second delay lately.

Most of the action in 2.3 happens on just one machine without any delays (and is then synced between machines in around a minute), so, in fact, there was. But the amount of delay is unknown, so the influence it has on the balance is pretty much unknown either.

P.S. I agree that MRAs need to be made weaker.

[effigy]

There was not added any 2 second delay lately.

Most of the action in 2.3 happens on just one machine without any delays (and is then synced between machines in around a minute), so, in fact, there was. But the amount of delay is unknown, so the influence it has on the balance is pretty much unknown either.

P.S. I agree that MRAs need to be made weaker.

IIRC at one time they had a much wider spread. If anything that should be tweaked.

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

Say, I wonder, how exactly does the game handle damage between opposing players in an online match? How is data sent from player to player to determine whether or not, say, the shot fired by Player A's object (droid or structure) actually does damage to Player B's object? Is it either of the following methods?

1: Real-for-the-Attacker Method: When Player A's object (droid or structure) shoots at Player B's object, the shot fired is deemed as "realistic" on Player A's system, whereas it is deemed as only a visual effect on Player B's system. On Player A's system, if the round manages to hit Player B's object on Player A's screen, then damage is done to Player B's object, even if, on Player B's screen, the shot fired from Player A's object never actually hit Player B's object. (During a laggy match, Player B might find his/her units mysteriously exploding for unknown reasons, though to Player A, Player B's units were spotted approaching them, and were fired at in turn.)

2: Fake-for-the-Attacker Method: When Player A's object (droid or structure) shoots at Player B's object, the shot fired is deemed as only a visual effect on Player A's system, whereas it is deemed as "realistic" on Player B's system. On Player B's system, if the round manages to hit Player B's object on Player B's screen, then damage is done to Player B's object, even if, on Player A's screen, the shot fired from Player A's object never actually hit Player B's object. (During a laggy match, Player B might find that rounds from Player A's droids might appear to be fired from empty space, whereas Player A might find that their shots don't seem to do damage to Player B's units right away, or that Player B's units explode a short time after they were hit with what would've been a killing blow from Player A's weapon.)

3: Real-for-Both-the-Attacker-and-Target Method: When Player A's object (droid or structure) shoots at Player B's object, the shot fired is deemed as "realistic" on both player's system. This is because the game tries to synchronize both players' actions in order to produce the most accurate results, though this would likely cause both players' units to lag behind in terms of units and structures responding to their orders.

Personally, for online real-time games in general, including not just rts games like Warzone 2100, but also fast-paced games like racing games, fighting games, and platforming games, I'd much prefer method #2, the Fake-for-the-Attacker Method, since at least players can sense incoming danger, and be able to react in time.

[NoQ]

We have #3 in v3.1 and none of those in 2.3, i guess.

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

So does this mean that, even if players can spot danger, they won't be able to order their units to avoid said danger in time due to lag?

Edit: If you've ever played Super Smash Bros. Brawl, then surely you'd notice how players' characters seem to lag behind when ordered to perform a certain action.

[NoQ]

So does this mean that, even if players can spot danger, they won't be able to order their units to avoid said danger in time due to lag?

Yes.

[effigy]

So does this mean that, even if players can spot danger, they won't be able to order their units to avoid said danger in time due to lag?

Yes.

I think we're using the word "lag" too freely here. Normally, lag is referenced when the game is running slower than it should. In 3.1 the only lag you will have when ordering units is the time it takes to sync your orders with all the other players in the game. That shouldn't be a significant amount of time unless the game is lagging, and if it is your still having equal opportunities.

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

Still, from an enjoyable gameplay perspective, I'd much rather prefer to see rounds get fired from empty space near enemy units or defenses, or see units being destroyed shortly after seeing a seemingly deadly round miss them (and to see said round explode at the same time as the destroyed unit), than to see my own units not being able to follow orders in time, orders that could've saved their lives.