Yet another balance proposal.

The place to discuss balance changes for future versions of the game.
(Master releases & 3.X)
User avatar
aubergine
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3459
Joined: 10 Oct 2010, 00:58
Contact:

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by aubergine » 22 May 2012, 01:50

Regarding HOMING-INDIRECT, would it be worth updating the C++ code so that missiles only do homing once "Search & Destroy Missiles" has been researched?
"Dedicated to discovering Warzone artefacts, and sharing them freely for the benefit of the community."
-- https://warzone.atlassian.net/wiki/display/GO

User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC » 22 May 2012, 06:33

@aubergine: I'm afraid that we'd need to implement those mutators that Emdek suggested a long time ago in order for such code to be supported. Specifically, we'd need to create a new event that only triggers once a research has been completed (Edit: seems like there's already an eventResearched() so nevermind), and we'd need to be able to adjust stats in-game.
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

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

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Reg312 » 22 May 2012, 12:06

since MG and Flamers was nerfed i have question, how resist to hover tanks?
i dont know what to do with army of hover lancers mixed with some AP weapons (MRA or flamers)
that hit&run tactics very annoying

and.. how about some few nice fixes in balance
-improve tank traps (double hp or divide price by 2)
-remove bunker prerequisite for HMG hardpoint

how about to improve wheeled propulsion a bit? :)

User avatar
Giani
Regular
Regular
Posts: 804
Joined: 23 Aug 2011, 22:42
Location: Argentina

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Giani » 22 May 2012, 13:24

Reg312 wrote: -improve tank traps (double hp or divide price by 2)
And making it difficult to shoot at? (I mean weapons missing lot of shots against tank traps)
My maps: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9501

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

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Reg312 » 22 May 2012, 13:31

Giani wrote:
Reg312 wrote: -improve tank traps (double hp or divide price by 2)
And making it difficult to shoot at? (I mean weapons missing lot of shots against tank traps)
i think its impossible decrease accuracy to specified object
or may be you meant that tanks already have lot of missed shot to tank traps? O_o

User avatar
Giani
Regular
Regular
Posts: 804
Joined: 23 Aug 2011, 22:42
Location: Argentina

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Giani » 22 May 2012, 14:04

Reg312 wrote: or may be you meant that tanks already have lot of missed shot to tank traps? O_o
No, I meant to do that.
My maps: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9501

User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1798
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Iluvalar » 22 May 2012, 18:19

That would be a nice improvement as well : Some body/structure with accuracy decrease attribute (only when the accuracy of course) hmmm
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Lord Apocalypse
Regular
Regular
Posts: 678
Joined: 29 Jul 2009, 18:01

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Lord Apocalypse » 25 May 2012, 08:22

Yeah tank traps seem to be low enough to the ground to cause tanks an issue when trying to shoot at them, at least at close range. Only so much elevation you can get out of a turret in either direction. Cyborgs or other infantry should not have any problem shooting them though.

User avatar
Giani
Regular
Regular
Posts: 804
Joined: 23 Aug 2011, 22:42
Location: Argentina

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Giani » 25 May 2012, 15:43

Lord Apocalypse wrote:Yeah tank traps seem to be low enough to the ground to cause tanks an issue when trying to shoot at them, at least at close range. Only so much elevation you can get out of a turret in either direction. Cyborgs or other infantry should not have any problem shooting them though.
Yeah, but I think the best weapon against tank traps should be artillery, and the worst unit against tank traps should be the tanks.
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.

Post by Giani » 25 May 2012, 15:45

And what about changing the weight of the plasma cannon, it is too slow and the most useless weapon...
If reducing the weight of the plasma cannon makes it OP, then I think the best is to reduce the damage it makes.
That weapon has very few hp too...
My maps: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9501

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

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Reg312 » 25 May 2012, 17:50

Giani wrote:And what about changing the weight of the plasma cannon, it is too slow and the most useless weapon...
If reducing the weight of the plasma cannon makes it OP, then I think the best is to reduce the damage it makes.
That weapon has very few hp too...
we have bad/broken speed/weight system...i think better make all slow tanks a bit faster and make fast tanks slower a bit :)

User avatar
Giani
Regular
Regular
Posts: 804
Joined: 23 Aug 2011, 22:42
Location: Argentina

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Giani » 25 May 2012, 18:19

Yeah, but the plasma cannon is even useless as defense, because the emplacement is very weak and the hp of the plasma cannon is too low. So the price is too high for something so weak, whit so slow reloading...
The only good thing of it is the damage and the splash damage. But it is useless for any use.
My maps: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9501

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

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Reg312 » 25 May 2012, 18:26

i think you can try mix common army of cheap units with 2-3 plasma cannons.. plasma cannon is deadly weapon, but it useless without support army.. i did not tried such tactics because it useless because we have vtols/artillery/fast hovers, but if your enemy have slow army on tracked propulsion - i think plasma cannon can be usable.
my suggestion: improve tracked propulsion.. then you will see more tracked tanks and then your plasma cannons will be useful :)

User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC » 25 May 2012, 18:42

Reg312 wrote:we have bad/broken speed/weight system...i think better make all slow tanks a bit faster and make fast tanks slower a bit :)
I agree. In fact, for my Contingency mod, I'm planning on actually making Tracked Propulsion lighter than Half-Tracks, Half-Tracks lighter than Wheels, and Wheels lighter than Hover propulsion. Even though, in real-life, the Tracked propulsion would be heavier than wheeled propulsion, they are typically able to support more additional weight (in addition to their own weight, though that would be ignored) than wheeled or hover propulsion without slowing down in the process.

Alternately, we could give propulsions a multiplier in terms of engine power to compensate for their weight. For example, while tracks could still be made heavier than hovercraft, they could receive a much higher engine power multiplier than hovercraft, so that, in the end, they could support heavier weapons before slowing down than hovercraft.
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

User avatar
Giani
Regular
Regular
Posts: 804
Joined: 23 Aug 2011, 22:42
Location: Argentina

Re: Yet another balance proposal.

Post by Giani » 31 May 2012, 14:40

The guide says that the EMP mortar pit is more expensive than the cannon fortress and the heavy rocket fortress. And the EMP mortar pits aren't so good...
Shouldn't them have a bit more hp and be cheaper?
My maps: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9501

Post Reply