Warzone 2100 Forums

bendib wrote:Hi, it bugs me that the command relay post is a decoration, and that commanders are completely useless, so I had to come up with a way to make them balanced where you don't have to use them, yet useful at the same time.

My idea is a 30 unit limit in multiplayer and $225 for the command relay post, which will be required for them.
It doesn't change the gpm too much, which is why I am for this change, and it fixes what I consider a bug, a structure required for research that provides no benefits.

why is this a bug?

Rman Virgil wrote:You should play v.1.0, the retail release peeps paid around $35.00 US for, to fully appreciate those serious changes (inc bal) the game underwent through v.1.10 - which only ended the "serious changes" because Pumpkin Studios was dissolved.

I presume from your last statement that you don't consider any of your poll suggested changes as posing any "serious balance changes" and if that is a correct reading I have to ask upon what evidence are you basing that? Have you already made and MP tested all these Mods and the results were that there were no "serious balance changes"?

I'm keeping an open-mind inspite of this not adding up to me as even bare bones consistent within your own terms.

I know that many changes have occured, but they were for the better and added strategy, not taking it away. Things like making structures auto decay (which nothing else does unless it gets no power) and giving trucks the ability to annex structures is absurd in my view, but some small things in the balance should be fixed. Also, the general feel, or if you will say "vibe" of the game stayed the same through the ages. One such change I applaud is the merging of minipod and lancer based rockets into one tree and the strengthening of cannons. Another is the addition of Sunburst and Flak cannon (which can be very strong when dealt with correctly), however I feel uneasy that Cyclone was deleted. I want the feel and strategy of the game to stay mostly unchanged, it's neared perfection, and any more large changes would taint it. Command post being an orphan and a 6 unit limit are one of those last warts that need to be given the Dr. Scholls freeze away treatment.

As far as evidence, that's why I added up a poll. I didn't make those mods and I'm letting the community decide what to do about commanders.

Here is something you may not get, here is the reason I opposed derrick changes despite the community on the forums wanting it:

A very large percentage of the people on these forums don't play multiplayer, and/or are multiplayer noobs, but a larger percentage play it constantly, become very skilled, and never even register. The campaign never changes, so the non-players won't be affected directly, and they probably don't cap oils much in a skirmish either. These people don't understand that warzone is pretty much fine the way it is, because they don't play multiplayer enough and are probably not really understanding proper game strategy. It doesn't make them stupid, but they just don't play multiplayer enough to be affected by these changes, and/or possibly understand their ramifications. I'm not sure and can't judge your skill Rman, due to insuffucient data, but I will play you in a 1v1 any time. You will see what I mean. I'm not terribly nervous about any changes made to commanders, because it is unlikely they will be widely used if anything is implemented.

bendib wrote:Command post being an orphan and a 6 unit limit are one of those last warts that need to be given the Dr. Scholls freeze away treatment.

Like I said before, I'm in favor of raising limit cap to 10 for fresh commanders. I'm more moderate when it comes to wanting gameplay to change than some people on these forums, whom seem more radical.

hmm, now that you mention it, 30 with commanders having such high HP seems like a very bad idea, remove their HP, or give them 16 unit limit?

I think 14-16 units would be good for commanders, but there are more things to change to commanders.

The repair units only follow the commander if you asing them to a commander, there should be a way to make them useful when they are asigned to commanders.At least the repair turret for tanks can repair faster now.

bendib wrote:hmm, now that you mention it, 30 with commanders having such high HP seems like a very bad idea, remove their HP, or give them 16 unit limit?

Having high HP for Commanders is less important when you're always allowed a certain number of units attached to them. As it is, they're sturdy, but far from invincible.

Uncapping, or capping based to (the max number of commanders allowed (5?)) divided by (total number of droids) balances commanders for both high and low oil.

effigy, having high hp is the only reason why it's not targeted first. It is necessary

effigy wrote: Uncapping, or capping based to (the max number of commanders allowed (5?)) divided by (total number of droids) balances commanders for both high and low oil.

No, it will make the commander OP when the player have between 25-30 units and then it will suck again until 50-60 units. Making it the main timing of the whole game in low oil

I recently thought of another idea for improving commanders. Perhaps, if 10 still seems like too steep a limit in terms of how many units a fresh commander may have assigned to it, then maybe we could increase, or even remove, the limit on how many commanders a player may control at a time.

Iluvalar wrote:effigy, having high hp is the only reason why it's not targeted first. It is necessary

In my experience, a skilled player will always attempt to kill my commander first.... and usually succeed.

effigy wrote: Uncapping, or capping based to (the max number of commanders allowed (5?)) divided by (total number of droids) balances commanders for both high and low oil.

No, it will make the commander OP when the player have between 25-30 units and then it will suck again until 50-60 units. Making it the main timing of the whole game in low oil

Still not sure about uncapping attached units being a bad thing, but most of that comment was suggesting starting and capping at 30. What do you think of that?

effigy wrote: In my experience, a skilled player will always attempt to kill my commander first.... and usually succeed.

Unless they have an higher hp/efficiency than the unit it control, then they would become logically the worst target to start with. For that, they need even more HP not less.

effigy wrote: Still not sure about uncapping attached units being a bad thing, but most of that comment was suggesting starting and capping at 30. What do you think of that?

I told you 2 time already. If we balance the stats for 20 units, it will be totally useless before it control 15 units and it will become OP, nearly god tier when it reach 25 units. In low oil, the whole game will be paced by the number of army growing (one must attack between 25 and 30 units + a commander or instantly lose)

Iluvalar wrote: I told you 2 time already. If we balance the stats for 20 units, it will be totally useless before it control 15 units and it will become OP, nearly god tier when it reach 25 units. In low oil, the whole game will be paced by the number of army growing (one must attack between 25 and 30 units + a commander or instantly lose)

Iluvalar please dont ignore my question, can you say what you suggesting about commanders in short?
i see only "balance, balance, balance"... its all s**t, you cannot balance game when you have only 10-15 good low-oil players, you need much more super-pros to say about balance in their games
may be we can make price of commander dependent on unit limit?

Shadow Wolf TJC wrote:I recently thought of another idea for improving commanders. Perhaps, if 10 still seems like too steep a limit in terms of how many units a fresh commander may have assigned to it, then maybe we could increase, or even remove, the limit on how many commanders a player may control at a time.

There is UI issue (it was designed for 5 only AFAIK, needs "tabs"), also it is probably worth to simply make them better.
For increasing amount of assigned units, it could depend (initial one, increased 25% with each next rank) on which command turret it was built (those turret upgrades replace previous one or what?) or add additional research item (for turret or CRC module maybe) which increases that limit (maybe with Mk stages, each one increasing it further).
Also, you can always use strategy of making one unit especially experienced and then recycle it to build first commander, it's easier to use it in campaign, but surely doable also in MP.

Reg312 wrote:i see only "balance, balance, balance"... its all s**t, you cannot balance game when you have only 10-15 good low-oil players, you need much more super-pros to say about balance in their games

Some things, like the unusability of commanders, are still obvious enough. There are other obvious things as well.

Iluvalar wrote:

effigy wrote: In my experience, a skilled player will always attempt to kill my commander first.... and usually succeed.

Unless they have an higher hp/efficiency than the unit it control, then they would become logically the worst target to start with. For that, they need even more HP not less.

effigy wrote: Still not sure about uncapping attached units being a bad thing, but most of that comment was suggesting starting and capping at 30. What do you think of that?

I told you 2 time already. If we balance the stats for 20 units, it will be totally useless before it control 15 units and it will become OP, nearly god tier when it reach 25 units. In low oil, the whole game will be paced by the number of army growing (one must attack between 25 and 30 units + a commander or instantly lose)

This sounds like you think there should be no advantage to commanders, or no stat bonus per rank? Also, damage modifiers don't matter?

damage modifier are generally around 30%. 20 units=>30 units is 50%. The timing on commander would become the biggest timing in the game.

There should be no advantage to commander, indeed. They should be a new way to play, but not a forced way to play. A young commander (level 3) should simply worth his own cost in the battle field. Not more, not less.

Reg : I told roman i would make him some comment soon in his post, stay tuned.