Balance Option 3 - Cherry pick in Autobalance V2

[Iluvalar]

1-A) All bodies review.
It is known that the heavy bodies are stronger than the light bodies. I propose to change that by running my autobalance script on every bodies. That way, the leopard will be better than python (at least for some weapons). The way we all jam on python will be over.

This will not change the research time progression. For exemple, the python will still be a bit stronger than the cobra. But with some design, the cobra could be preferred anyway. That will make more design option possible.

1-B) Propulsion balance
Tracks (tracked01)* 84%
Hover (hover01)* 77%
Half-tracks (HalfTrack)* 86%
Naval (Naval)* 124%

Again, the result will be that htracks will be stronger than wheel, but by a much smaller gap. It will be possible to keep on wheel for speed and the design choice will just be better.

3) Weapons selected manually from the autobalance suggestions to fit most players complaints :
3-A) Incendiary Artilleries : much stronger than they should.
3-B)Inferno (Flame2) and Plasmite heavy adjustement. I know we voter for balanced flamers, but that was before they fix the armor bug .
3-C) Vtol bombs : Late bomb are very strong and early one are useless.
3-D) Nexus links and EMP cannon need a boost !

4) More changes ! Until now, that's the old "option 2" but i got more request I believe they are legitimate.
4-A) MRA reevaluation. The MRA now shoot straight obviously it made it stronger than before.
4-B) The "twins" TAG and TAC are too much stronger compared to the low amount of time it take to get them.

Is there anything I forgot ?

This is a real suggestion. If enough players approve this I gonna make it. Be rational, we need some balance change and we need to all come to agree on the same plan.

[zany]

did you even look at the balance poll? viewtopic.php?f=42&t=8806
Naval (Naval)* 124% ? WTF, there are no naval units
Tracks (tracked01)* 84%
Hover (hover01)* 77%
Half-tracks (HalfTrack)* 86% ? WTF, how the hell you coming up with those numbers?

This is a real suggestion. If enough players approve this I gonna make it. Be rational, we need some balance change and we need to all come to agree on the same plan.

you are not being rational at all so WTF?
one big veto on all your screwy changes. DEVS DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS PUNK!

[Reg312]

@zany: balance poll is just poll,
some things are overpowered and some things are underpowered and we can proof it easily
many people still playing 2.3x...

i prefer say not about "balance" but about whole gameplay
example: if wheeled propulsion is totally useles, this means we lost something in gameplay

@Iluvalar:
1) i suggest first fix accuracy issue, or at least dont adopt balance to weird accuracy (i dont want balance again when accuracy will be fixed)
2) TAC need to be tested, i had 1 game where my AG army killed TAC army easy
3) i suggest dont use weird numbers from auto-balance and use round numbers instead (use auto-balance as a guide)
4) i suggest implement balance things step by step
5) i still suggesting make some thing to make high-oil games more balanced, high oil games can be easily balanced by adjusting build time of OP units/buildings

for example, steps of balance:
1) Propulsion balance
if we nerf hovers, then flamers (and possibly cannons) become nerfed a bit
2) Bodies
3) flamers and all incendiary things (?)

[Giani]

"I propose to change that by running my autobalance script on every bodies. That way, the leopard will be better than python."

The light bodies shouldnt be strong, they are light for being fast and cheap.

Half-tracks (HalfTrack)* 86%
Tracks (tracked01)* 84%

Whit a 2% of difference NOBODY would use tracks. They already are slow, and now you want them to be almost the same than half-tracks?

[zany]

my point is he is pulling numbers out of his ass with no reason for them. it is the same crap in his mod.

This section of the forums will be used to discuss balance related changes.

The way it works, identify what the issue is.
Post about it. (yes, you can make a poll about the thing you want to balance)
Come up with a new balance solution. (Having a mod to prove your point is also a nice touch.)
Explain why you think this will solve the issue.
Discuss amongst your peers.

Once consensus has been reached, we will integrate said change into the game.

did he follow the rules? no. he just posts crap about this autobalance v2 with crazy ass results.

[effigy]

What's this I keep hearing about accuracy and 3.1? Is there a bug that maker everything more accurate, or the weapon stats were all changed?

A change I'd like to see with MRA is for it to get it's wild spread back. Some balance change awhile back took that away. I think it should fan out another 10-20% at max accuracy.

@Reg312, wouldn't making flamers lighter help with slowing hovers? Also, I still feel like cannons did more damage to hover in 2.3. Maybe that modifier could be increased also.

[Reg312]

What's this I keep hearing about accuracy and 3.1? Is there a bug that maker everything more accurate, or the weapon stats were all changed?

all weapons have high accuracy in 3.1

@Reg312, wouldn't making flamers lighter help with slowing hovers? Also, I still feel like cannons did more damage to hover in 2.3. Maybe that modifier could be increased also.

misunderstood sentence about flamers, if we nerf hovers, flamers become nerfed automatically (nerfed a bit)

2.3.9 and 3.1 have 100% same stats, except new transporter and new models
i was not beaten with cannon in 3.1 yet, and i did not tested cannon in 3.1
if you feel changes => make tests (2.3 vs 3.1) and post on forum test steps and results


-----------------------------
1) patch for propulsion
https://github.com/crabster/warzone2100 ... 463065d3ab

[aubergine]

Would it not make the progression too linear? One of the things that got me hooked on WZ was finding that what I expected to happen did not happen. If the research just becomes more linear improvement from one item to the next, it's not going to catch people out.

[effigy]

...
all weapons have high accuracy in 3.1
...
2.3.9 and 3.1 have 100% same stats
...

Hmm... if they have the same stats why are they more accurate in 3.1?

[Mysteryem]

...
all weapons have high accuracy in 3.1
...
2.3.9 and 3.1 have 100% same stats
...

Hmm... if they have the same stats why are they more accurate in 3.1?

Perhaps because direct fire units won't fire if they don't have line of sight in 3.1, instead of shooting into the smallest bump in the map in 2.3? There was a bunch of new projectile code since 2.3 IIRC, I think it was something like that and more.

[Reg312]

...
all weapons have high accuracy in 3.1
...
2.3.9 and 3.1 have 100% same stats
...

Hmm... if they have the same stats why are they more accurate in 3.1?

stats - is files like "weapon.txt" with parameters
in weapons.txt we can see "Chance to hit: 60%"
formulas of damage and accuracy processed in game code

in current 3.1 code 60% of accuracy means:
60% of shots fall precise on target
40% of shots fall on map tile closer to target (and seems this close up tile is again same target, but need more tests and research)

in 2.3x missed (40%) shots had fall in more wider area


so, with same stats, if unit have bad luck and missed shot, this shot still fall on target

[Iluvalar]

OMG lot of answer to gives.
@Zany, that poll says that 70% of the players don't find the actual balance "good". There is still improvement to do.
Btw, you are already playing over my screwy changes since 2.3.8. It must not be so bad...

@Giani,
Of course the leopard will have less hp than the heavy python but it will also be a lot cheaper. So in total, the leopard will be more attractive.

the number are a scale by comparison to the actual value. The track will still stronger than htrack because I scale them with similar values.

@reg312
1) I base my change with the fact that a 45% accuracy will hit twice less as a 90% accuracy. If it doesnt work like that, yeah it need a fix.
2) I use the same formula on both AG and TAC, I don't see how I could be so much wrong. I bet there were more parameter in that game that affected it.
4) Step by step is a dream, I'll be happy if I make one balance.

[Reg312]

4) Step by step is a dream, I'll be happy if I make one balance.

i suggest begin from propulsion, with "balanced" propulsions we can start (or continue) discussion about flamers
i dont see why we should try to change all things in 1 time
seems people agreed about propulsion, at least about hovers

[Iluvalar]

None of the changes I propose are game breaking. You play in a beta version anyway. The last change we had is 6 month old now. If you continue to be scared about any little change of 15%, that rate of change will not increase. I wont spread versions up to 2014. Forget me if it's your plan.

[zany]

None of the changes I propose are game breaking. You play in a beta version anyway. The last change we had is 6 month old now. If you continue to be scared about any little change of 15%, that rate of change will not increase. I wont spread versions up to 2014. Forget me if it's your plan.

BS
the last time they put in your crazy changes it did break the game unless you play whatever style of play you are playing.
thank god they rolled back those changes
look at the poll again and you will see that most people are happy with the way things are