Yet another balance proposal.

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

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby Iluvalar » 23 Jun 2012, 22:16

The weapon modifiers "rock-paper-scissors" mechanic is what create a margin for the game balance. We know that if a line become more popular because the balance is a bit upset, it counter will still efficient against it and will be likewise played more often.

That's one of the gift the professional game theorist from pumpkin gave to us and that made this game so good.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby C27 » 23 Jun 2012, 22:51

Reg312 wrote:
NoQ wrote:They were pretty good. Seriously good.

- weak wheeled propulsion (whyyy??)
- weak tracked propulsion (due to slowness, but yes depend on map and teams)


I wouldn't mind if wheels were a little cheaper to make up for it, but I'll still use them on anything that I don't intend to have taking damage - not just trucks, but back-line repair vehicles and sometimes artillery too.

Tracked propulsion is in many respects the biggest bang for your buck that you can get. It's slow, yes, but that's its only real weakness. It's essential for front-line sluggers, and slow speed doesn't matter when you're fighting something that can't run (see later).

- heavy MG tower aviable from start (i guess old balancers just adoived balance with defensive structures, but yes depend on map)
- weak/less usable cannon hardpoints
- weak defensive/turtle tactics in low oil games (except first 10 minutes, when you can turtle with mg tower)
after strong mg tower in begin of game player cannot use defenses, because he need fight enemy in 2 or more directions and manage oil derricks


I never thought MG towers were particularly strong. I use them a lot for derrick security, yes, but they're more of a delaying tactic to keep the attacker busy until my mobile defenders can get there. I've never seen them hold a derrick against a moderately strong attack by themselves.

If you need to fight on multiple fronts, then try one of these two approaches:
1. building defenses on your narrowest front, freeing up more defenders for other areas.
2. giving up on "defensive lines" and instead building a "hedgehog" defense. This is a tactic developed to counter the blitzkrieg attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog_defence) Instead of trying to build a narrow wall to hold the enemy out, build multiple smaller strong points along a deep defensive zone. If the enemy stops to attack every one, they'll be slowed down much more than the time it would take to break through a wall. If they don't attack each one, then artillery emplacements and guerilla raiders will levy a constant toll on them and make reinforcement and retreat difficult and painful.
3. Build defenses only on critical sites (inside your base, maybe some derricks) and give up on controlling empty territory. This is in some ways similar to 3.

In any case, I don't see how players expect to win by relying on defenses. That's not their point. The point of them is to slow down the enemy's attack and/or to give your own forces a home advantage - they can help you win, when used properly, but they're not more important or powerful than droids and aren't intended to be.
User avatar
C27
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 18 Jun 2012, 21:24

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby Reg312 » 23 Jun 2012, 23:54

@C27
1) wheels - if you use this for few repair turrer is not argument...
wheels should serve as "brigde" to hover.. wheels is ideal propulsion.. i see how it could be used to make game more variative
if player want fast army but more weaker he should be able to use wheels.. current wheels stats too low

2) tracks
- due to weird\broken weight system tracks are good only with yellow bodies
- speed disadvantage makes hard to concentrate fire.. faster units always can attack from flank
- you cannot use hit&run with tracks, but if enemy do it you always lose
... tracked propulsion works only in few cases..
- in team games you cannot defend you base from behind or help ally with slow tracked army

3) MG tower
- why MG tower have so confusing name? (same with MG bunker)
- why heavy Mg tech aviable when it is not researched
- why MG tower so strong in first minutes, 3-4 MG towers can be killed only with army on half-tracks
on certain maps (small, narrow) mg tower became too strong
- MG tower is used not for derrick security but for attacking derricks when your army makes enemy busy on another direction

i just dont like when game confuse players

4) Defenses
- i know many players like warzone because it has nice defenses.. defenses make warzone more funny that many other games
- its juts your opinion "The point of them is to slow down the enemy's attack and/or "
- most of defensive structes used too rare in low oil games
my opinion is: if some stuff used too rare = something wrong
i see tendention: defenses cannot surprise enemey
- in most cases better make more tanks than use defenses

>> "then artillery emplacements and guerilla raiders will levy a constant toll on them and make reinforcement and retreat difficult and painful."
do you saying about warzone2100?
all that you say is right, but in game with good player you cannot spent money and time..advantage in 10 tanks makes your army able to crush enemy... so what's why i say defenses are bad in low oil games (except some maps/and some situations)
Reg312
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby Giani » 24 Jun 2012, 00:29

Reg312 wrote:@C27
2) tracks
- due to weird\broken weight system tracks are good only with yellow bodies
- speed disadvantage makes hard to concentrate fire.. faster units always can attack from flank
- you cannot use hit&run with tracks, but if enemy do it you always lose
... tracked propulsion works only in few cases..
- in team games you cannot defend you base from behind or help ally with slow tracked army

If your enemy uses hit & run and you use tracks, if he wins or not depends on the map and even players...
And I have seen tracks a lot in the map DA-firefight. Even if there are lot of ways to reach a base. But maybe there should be a change whit tracks...
My maps: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9501
User avatar
Giani
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 804
Joined: 23 Aug 2011, 22:42
Location: Argentina

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby Giani » 24 Jun 2012, 00:32

Reg312 wrote:3) MG tower
- why MG tower have so confusing name? (same with MG bunker)
- why heavy Mg tech aviable when it is not researched
- why MG tower so strong in first minutes, 3-4 MG towers can be killed only with army on half-tracks
on certain maps (small, narrow) mg tower became too strong
- MG tower is used not for derrick security but for attacking derricks when your army makes enemy busy on another direction

I agree whit that, except whit MG towers being too strong. In beta they are usually useless, because in beta defenses can't atack if there is something in front of them(except bunkers, tank traps and walls whit no weapons).
And if the enemy atacks by the sides, the MG towers will die very easy.

Btw, walls are too weak. And flamers and mgs shouldn't destroy them so easy...
My maps: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9501
User avatar
Giani
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 804
Joined: 23 Aug 2011, 22:42
Location: Argentina

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby C27 » 24 Jun 2012, 02:38

Giani wrote:
Reg312 wrote:Btw, walls are too weak. And flamers and mgs shouldn't destroy them so easy...


Didn't the flamer part of that get fixed?
User avatar
C27
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 18 Jun 2012, 21:24

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby Giani » 24 Jun 2012, 03:35

Actually, idk why but flamers are stronger against walls than in 2.3.9.
My maps: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9501
User avatar
Giani
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 804
Joined: 23 Aug 2011, 22:42
Location: Argentina

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby NoQ » 24 Jun 2012, 05:33

- op inferno and op thermite bombs and other incendiary weapons
The incendiary damage bug appeared only very recently, i think i even remember the moment when it happened (laser satellite used to be useless against a player who has completed body and base structure research, but it suddenly became very strong against anything). Inferno and plasmite bombs appeared and were balanced up much earlier.
old balancers never ever cared about high oil games or games on another maps than they play
This is both good and wrong. The fact that artillery is fairly weak agains tracks is a pure high oil thing, and it was changed relatively recently.
- why MG tower so strong in first minutes, 3-4 MG towers can be killed only with army on half-tracks
on certain maps (small, narrow) mg tower became too strong
Yes they are strong, but are they used? How much are they used in actual hardcore games? I think they exist only as an argument for considering a rush to be a less hated strategy (for building a cool tower that holds it is easier than making a tank).

Other things you mention are relatively minor compared to what has been fixed after the retail version.
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby Reg312 » 24 Jun 2012, 09:09

NoQ wrote:The incendiary damage bug appeared only very recently

i play game since 2.3.5, i think incendiary damage was OP last 2 years

NoQ wrote:How much are they used in actual hardcore games?

1) i think you need try map: Darkness, i see mg towers usable on that map even in hardcore games
2) mg tower very good choise for getting oil on sides of map, because its easier to manage 1 truck than 1-2 tanks
- first i want MG tower to be renamed to HMG
- next i want replace HMG tower with something else.. because its weird that we have HMG tower before HMG research

so do you agreed what defenses useless in most hardcore low oil games?
you can use walls for holding enemy and use mg towers for getting oil.. thats all
i kwon few maps where you can use more defenses in low oil,
but many defesive structures never used in low oil games, do you agreed?

NoQ wrote:Other things you mention are relatively minor compared to what has been fixed after the retail version.

what version you meant? what year? may be first balancers was good, i said about middle-time balancers.
Reg312
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby NoQ » 24 Jun 2012, 11:28

but many defesive structures never used in low oil games, do you agreed?
Not quite yet, it depends on a map. I had enough defeats against turtles on Contention; they managed to tech to VTOLs with pure defenses.
what year? may be first balancers was good, i said about middle-time balancers.
I'm talking the 1.10 balance, which in my opinion is much worse than 2.3 balance in the sense of weapon branch balancing and several other aspects.
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby Reg312 » 24 Jun 2012, 11:36

NoQ wrote: I had enough defeats against turtles on Contention;


in 2.3 turtlers had advantage which was removed in lastest 3.1 betas - shoot through walls (i suspect this change was supported by you)
in 3.1 only 1 line of defenses can attack enemy tanks while all enemy tanks can attack your defenses
...
so i think turtle tactics still can work on maps with 1 narrow passage, may be need test it
Reg312
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Postby NoQ » 24 Jun 2012, 12:27

i suspect this change was supported by you
It wasn't (:
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Previous

Return to Balance