Yet another balance proposal.

The place to discuss balance changes for future versions of the game.
(Master releases & 3.X)
User avatar
tmp500
Trained
Trained
Posts: 120
Joined: 30 Jun 2010, 16:31

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by tmp500 » 27 Apr 2012, 11:40

i seriously appreciate your work here noq!

Reg312
Regular
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Reg312 » 27 Apr 2012, 14:25

@NoQ: another hint about MG:

HMG looked a bit stronger in 3.1, at current moment its become more stronger in your mod (with ROF upgrades)

high-oil balance suggection: reduce price and range (damage? splash?) of cannon fortress (and rockets fortress may be)
fortresses are making artillery-turtle tactics very easy
bunker busters dont help with it

User avatar
tmp500
Trained
Trained
Posts: 120
Joined: 30 Jun 2010, 16:31

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by tmp500 » 27 Apr 2012, 20:32

u got my vote for merging that into beta!

crass
Trained
Trained
Posts: 113
Joined: 21 Mar 2012, 02:26

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by crass » 27 Apr 2012, 20:42

tmp500 wrote:u got my vote for merging that into beta!
I don't agree.
you guys seem to always play high oil maps and that is the worst way to balance anything.
this is better for normal maps

Flamer research points 600->750
Inferno price 80->95 incend.radius 64->52 incend.damage 40->38
Thermite Cyborg incend.damage 38->35
Plasmite price 80->95 incend.radius 96->86 incend.damage 63->55
Incendiary Mortar price 150->170 incend.damage 30->28
Incendiary Howitzer price 250->270 incend.damage 60->50
Minipod range 1152->1088
MRA damage 34->28 reload time 145->150
AG fire pause 3->3
TAG price 100->110 fire pause 3->4
AG Cyborg fire pause 4->5 damage 20->18
MG ROF upgrades 15%/30%/45% -> 16%/32%/47%.
MC research points 4800->4200
HPV research points 7200->6500

User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by NoQ » 27 Apr 2012, 20:59

crass wrote: you guys seem to always play high oil maps and that is the worst way to balance anything.
Oh booooy you're srsly wrong. Today was my first high-oil game in half a year. I'm sure tmp and Ilu doesn't play much high-oil either (Ilu tests NRS on NTW a lot, but that's different). Reg likes high oil, but he's not bad at all at low, as far as i remember.

Come to IRC now, most of us are there right now to show off our skills if you don't trust us (:

Also, you seem to misunderstand the incend.radius change. It is absolutely necessary to set it below 64, see the flamers thread.

Reg312
Regular
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Reg312 » 27 Apr 2012, 21:11

i can say high oil games could be balanced by build time parameter
i mean 'balanced' as 'extended list of good weapons/bodies/structures' and ways to win game

User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1803
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Iluvalar » 27 Apr 2012, 22:14

There is no maximum factory in 3.1 (i think) so why changing build time have any impact ?
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Reg312
Regular
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Reg312 » 27 Apr 2012, 22:41

Iluvalar wrote:There is no maximum factory in 3.1 (i think) so why changing build time have any impact ?
5 factories.
build time good parameter because it can be adjusted without breaking low oil 'balance'
some plaeyrs cannot play high oil in 3.1 due lags, unlimited factories = lag

User avatar
tmp500
Trained
Trained
Posts: 120
Joined: 30 Jun 2010, 16:31

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by tmp500 » 27 Apr 2012, 23:39

crass wrote:you guys seem to always play high oil maps and that is the worst way to balance anything.
very funny :D i just play low oil games....

User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1803
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Iluvalar » 28 Apr 2012, 00:54

tmp500 wrote:u got my vote for merging that into beta!
+1
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by NoQ » 10 May 2012, 09:57

Emm another attempt ...
Removed the standard flamer research delay (doesn't make much difference, why increase changelog?), decreased machinegun damage (to compensate ROF upgrade improvements; pure MGs shouldn't work!).
Inferno price 80->110 incend.radius 64->48 incend.damage 40->32
Thermite Cyborg incend.damage 38->32
Plasmite price 80->130 incend.radius 96->60 incend.damage 63->50
Incendiary Mortar price 150->200 incend.damage 30->22
Incendiary Howitzer price 250->300 incend.damage 60->32
Minipod range 1152->1088
MRA damage 34->28 reload time 145->165
HMG damage 18->17
AG fire pause 3->4 damage 20->19
TAG price 100->120 fire pause 3->4 damage 30->28
AG Cyborg fire pause 4->5 damage 20->18
MG ROF upgrades 15%/30%/45% -> 17%/34%/50%.
MC research points 4800->3600
HPV research points 7200->4800
Last edited by NoQ on 10 May 2012, 16:20, edited 1 time in total.

Reg312
Regular
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Reg312 » 10 May 2012, 16:16

i'm agreed with 2 options in your poll :)
and i think poll is not good way
better if some workgroup (3-4 players\developers) will decide balance things and provide result

anyway, i'm agreed with NoQ's suggestion! must include it in next beta10! :)

User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by NoQ » 10 May 2012, 16:19

and i think poll is not good way
Ok, removed it :oops:
(:

Reg312
Regular
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Reg312 » 10 May 2012, 16:27

NoQ wrote:
and i think poll is not good way
Ok, removed it :oops
(:
mmm, sorry :oops:
i suggest to form workgroup of experienced players
candidates are: NoQ, tmp, Iluvalar (but he does not play 3.1!)
anyone else?

i dont know what with support from project administrators, "they" is they :)
so if project administrators will give word and will be agreed with workgroup organization, then work on balance can be more effective, some rules can be written for this... thinking

also, balance changes should be proven by tests
so i think better if we plan and perform test games and write down results here
test tasks:
- pure flamers vs anti-flame tactics (when player know about flamers)
- pure MG vs anti-mg tactics
- cannons in any combination

Dororo
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 16
Joined: 25 Apr 2012, 06:28
Location: Australia AND Austria
Contact:

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Dororo » 11 May 2012, 13:02

1) Fire dmg:

If you fix that please don't forget the VTOL's, as I remember they are listed in the weapons.txt and not completely calculated. What I am going to say is when you play a long game, a typically wz-game you come to a point
when you have researched thermit-bombs or higher. When I build just 10 VTOLS every base is THAT devestated, there
doesn't survive anything! Hm I am actually a fan of this so called "napalm"-bomber but they are too strong. But it gives
the game a sense of criticism (I mean if you don't watch its over, very quickly) so what I would suggest to fix that:

-) improve the targetting of the anti aircraft weapons (automated, robot, intelligent, etc... target selection, hmm maybe some-
thing for 3.2??)
For explanation: I send about 30 cheap VTOLS with nothing but a mg or so to lure the AA-fire and within them are
hidden the 10 termit-bomber or even plasmit-bomber, so I guarantee, they reach their target...
-) or just improve the dmg of the AA-weapons
-) or reduce the dramatic, devestating, absolutely hell dmg of this bombers xd

However, maybe I have no idea how to play :) but what I know is that every match ends with that attack...
(My best friend have had a similar thing, he produced endless hellstorms, but that seems to be balanced now and doesn't
work that good anymore...)
Generally it seems that fire-dmg is the key to win a game.

2) Assault Cannon:
I love the twin-assault-cannon too but its only fun to play if
your enemy have medium bodies or lower. I know it shall just be the "tank" which lures the fire and the firepower
should come from behind but for this real purpose (my opinion) the assault-tank is still to weak, I mean it needs more
hit-points.

3) Minirockets:
I would agree with 8.5. Anyway it is a value for the first 15min gameplay or 25.. depends. With 8.5 range I would go back and
use the MG tree again instead being forced to use the rocket or mortar/cannon tree the first few minutes.

4) Armor in general:
Warzone offers the possibility to set front/side/rear/top-armor. I hope I will not burn my fingers, but I reckon latest with
3.2 you will introduce formations again, will you? Then it may be more useful to set the values right for tank-armor.
But that would be another topic, so I suggest to think about it now either, you could reduce top armor and rear armor for
instance to make ambush attacks more useful and that would increase artillery dmg (comes from the top...) so further,
when you reduce artillery dmg (incenediary...) then buildings, cyborgs etc. would take less dmg, but tanks still the same
if you like it that way...
However I don't wanna talk to much, that should be enough from my side.


PS: I just read about the change within the discussion, so that isn't puplic anymore forget about me, but I will not
delete this post, maybe you find something interesting within

Post Reply