Rebalancing WZ: A Modest Proposal

[Troman]

zydonk: I don't quite agree with your argumentation. I took a look at the prerequisites for the lancer. Those are all small and cheap upgrades and don't take much time to research with a research module.

But it is not a matter of principle. There are other ways of achieving an equivalent balance with lancer being moved down the tech tree, though it can't be moved too much, because of mini-pods and all of its many upgrades becoming useless way too soon, which would really be a shame.

I hope this compromise is suitable for everyone.

[Deus Siddis]

It was a reaction. Look at the action. The word and smiley choice has clearly revealed your mood and attitude. Don't be silly, I can't read your mind to see who you are directing your complains to.

Heh, the smiley looked like he was saying "rtfm" so I used him. I didn't think smileys were taken seriously but either way I didn't mean I was angry or anything.

To sum it up.
I understand everyone wants to have balancing his way, but it obviously can't work. I will keep in mind the suggestions made so far, but they all can't be merged obviously, trade offs will be needed.

Well as you said before it sounds like in alot of places 'my way' would be about the same as your way, anyway.

My only goal in this was to offer a suggestion that as the much needed balancing continues forward, not to forget the tactical/action feel/gameplay offered by such things as greater unit versatility relative to other RTS games. So with that done I'll bow out of this subject.

[Deus Siddis]

zydonk: I don't quite agree with your argumentation. I took a look at the prerequisites for the lancer. Those are all small and cheap upgrades and don't take much time to research with a research module.

But it is not a matter of principle. There are other ways of achieving an equivalent balance with lancer being moved down the tech tree, though it can't be moved too much, because of mini-pods and all of its many upgrades becoming useless way too soon, which would really be a shame.

I hope this compromise is suitable for everyone.

Yeah, the lancer was overpowered for when it arrived before, it was the only defense worth getting since it was the only weapon with the range and firepower to counter lancer attacks. And lancer squadrons with a little micro could devastate MBTs.

One thing I never understood about mini pods though is why they are only used early on when such weapons appear in modern warfare amoung other modern weapons like cannons and vulcan guns and such, albeit mostly on aircraft. It seems they could be given enough of a general boost that would make them perfectly useful up until T3. I think this could easily be done by a dual-mini-pod turret, a bit like the dual hyrdra pods you see on modern gunships. In fact, I can't believe pumpkin didn't do this, it seems so obvious and fitting from a purely aesthetic standpoint.

If you like this idea, Troman, I will make a dual mini-pod model (and refurbish the old single mini-pod as part of the process) in blender for you to use as content for this, as I understand that content is often considered the limiting factor. I can also make whatever shader maps you would want to go with it, though I don't know when the engine would be able to use such things.

[Troman]

If you like this idea, Troman, I will make a dual mini-pod model[...]

I don't see why it shouldn't be done. The more choices the player has the better.

What we could also use are direct firing missiles that could be placed above Scourges in the tech tree. Becuase Scourge is basically a dead end now. So if anyone has the necessary skills your input is welcome.

[Arcalane]

I don't see much point in adding further direct-fire rockets or missiles above the Scourge, tbh. More choices is not always necessarily a good thing, especially if you want to maintain clear lines of difference between variants. I do support the twin mini-pod idea, but only if it's well balanced of course.

What could be viable are some alternate damage type missiles, however. EMP would be a good start; it could require the EMP Mortar, EMP Bomb and Scourge techs and reload fairly slowly, firing two fairly inaccurate missiles per volley. It might temporarily disable the target for 2 seconds base, with three enhancements adding an extra second of disable time per level.

[Troman]

I don't see much point in adding further direct-fire rockets or missiles above the Scourge, tbh. More choices is not always necessarily a good thing, especially if you want to maintain clear lines of difference between variants.

Does democracy really work when it comes to game making and especially to such a subjective thing as balancing? </rhetorical question>

Arcalane: very well. I can expain it. You missed the point. A direct successor to Scourge doesn't add additional choices.

The point is: you need some calculations to find out that when fully upgraded, HC is twice as powerfull as a fully upgraded Scourge. Twin Assault Cannon is 3 times as powerfull. There are 5 different cannons plus Rail/Needle Guns and Gauss Cannon that succeed LC, MC and HC. And Scourge is bsically a dead end, as I said.
I hope that explains the point.

[Arcalane]

That explains a little more. If you'd mentioned that in the first place...

[Deus Siddis]

If you like this idea, Troman, I will make a dual mini-pod model[...]

I don't see why it shouldn't be done. The more choices the player has the better.

Alright then. Refresh my memory on just one thing though, how many times does a rocket pod fire in a barrage? I imported its model into blender but it came out all mutilated in the front so I cannot count the tubes.

What we could also use are direct firing missiles that could be placed above Scourges in the tech tree. Becuase Scourge is basically a dead end now. So if anyone has the necessary skills your input is welcome.

Okay and for this one then I need to know the specs for it (number of missiles fired in each salvo, damage relative to other missile weapons in its line, etc.) so that I can make it look like it fits its place in the tech tree that you have in mind for it.

[Zarel]

Does democracy really work when it comes to game making and especially to such a subjective thing as balancing? </rhetorical question>

Arcalane: very well. I can expain it. You missed the point. A direct successor to Scourge doesn't add additional choices.

The point is: you need some calculations to find out that when fully upgraded, HC is twice as powerfull as a fully upgraded Scourge. Twin Assault Cannon is 3 times as powerfull. There are 5 different cannons plus Rail/Needle Guns and Gauss Cannon that succeed LC, MC and HC. And Scourge is bsically a dead end, as I said.
I hope that explains the point.

Doesn't this seem like it should be rebalanced instead? Make Scourge do slightly more damage, and HC do slightly less? After all, Scourge is a T3 weapon (and therefore should be a dead-end, or at least close), and HC is a T1 weapon, and HC has more HP than Scourge does (in a brief 2.0.10 test, Scourge has 28 and HC has 1400). Maybe give Tank Killer the current Scourge stats, and make Scourge a more powerful weapon (and maybe push Scourge up and Tank Killer down the tech tree a bit)?

(I don't know much about this aspect of game design, so my ideas may be completely stupid for reasons I don't understand.)

(If you're wondering why I tested with 2.0.10, I'm on a Mac and there are no working Mac builds of 2.1)

[Troman]

Alright then. Refresh my memory on just one thing though, how many times does a rocket pod fire in a barrage? I imported its model into blender but it came out all mutilated in the front so I cannot count the tubes.

It has one barrel, no salvo fire. Nominal fire rate: 1 shot per sec.

Okay and for this one then I need to know the specs for it (number of missiles fired in each salvo, damage relative to other missile weapons in its line, etc.) so that I can make it look like it fits its place in the tech tree that you have in mind for it.

Would you have any ideas for this, or anyone else?

Do we have any weapon enthusiasts here? Otherwise I might do some research on the existing weapons that could become a prototype for it. But don't complain afterwards.

Doesn't this seem like it should be rebalanced instead? Make Scourge do slightly more damage, and HC do slightly less?

It is difficult, sometimes impossible to rebalance weapons like this once the relative balance was fixed, because not only do you have to keep breadth balance, across the different technology branches, but you must also keep an eye on the length balance, ie rockets/cannons/lasers/etc vs Scourge/TK/Lancer.

And just rebalancing as in tweaking weapon values will not work in this case for a different reason as well. The problem comes from the many upgrades cannons have and from the fact that a single upgrade boosts weapon firepower by 10-30 %, depending on upgrade type (accuracy, damage etc), which is a huge value.

And the last point I will quote:

There are 5 different cannons plus Rail/Needle Guns and Gauss Cannon that succeed LC, MC and HC.

After all, Scourge is a T3 weapon (and therefore should be a dead-end, or at least close)

Why? Needle Gun is a T3 weapon and has 2 successord: Rail Gun and Gauss Cannon. Flashlight Laser is a T3 weapon and has 2 successors: Pulse Laser and Heavy Laser.

But that said I'd like to point out that I don't insist on the solution offered. Make other offers.
Although I have already talked about this problem (albeit from a slightly different point of view) and other possible solutions were declined too.
Swan, Pike and Crawfish comes to my mind again.

[Deus Siddis]

Okay and for this one then I need to know the specs for it (number of missiles fired in each salvo, damage relative to other missile weapons in its line, etc.) so that I can make it look like it fits its place in the tech tree that you have in mind for it.

Would you have any ideas for this, or anyone else?

Do we have any weapon enthusiasts here? Otherwise I might do some research on the existing weapons that could become a prototype for it. But don't complain afterwards.

I thought you said you already had something in mind? Wouldn't it just be something with similar but noticeably better stats than the scourge missile (with specifics of said stats worked out by yourself with your balancing algorithms)?

But since you ask, here's a real creative idea unlike anything I have suggested before (you might want to be sitting down for this):

Double the amount of launchers to create a quad scourge!

. . . Pure awesomesauce, yes, but no need to thank me, it is what I do.

But if that is not powerful enough, then I would make an ion/plasma thruster missile with a proton-negatron warhead, which do to its lightweight but potent payload, fires two missiles each about as powerful as a gauss round but takes 150% times longer to reload them, has 150% times the range of gauss, same durability and accuracy as the scourge and weight between it and a missile pod.

Basically the idea with this weapon is it is the end of the AT missile line, so it should be as good as or better in each stat versus all others in its line before it (except for power and time consumption of course). But even more importantly, it must be balanced against gauss, in such a way that its focus is on beating out this competitor in skirmish combat-- out-range and out-run (via lower weight), while in a forward assault it losses out to dual-gauss do to reload time and lower hitpoints.

Let me know what you think about this.


So back to the mini-pods, I've completed my models for single and dual mini pods as well as most of their texturing. What mostly remains now is the team-coloring and export process, both of which I have no idea how to do, so I must ask any developers with knowledge of this and the will to "help me, help you" to put it in the words of xenu's favorite son.

I have attached rendered images of both mini-pod textured models below. Note that these renderings were rendered using only ambient light. That means they should look the same in-game, minus the anti-aliasing. When completed I will turn in the source files for everything, including the bump map and the normal map created using it and a higher res model (also included in the source file) ambient occlusion map and the blend file of course. Note the source maps are 512x512 even though in game the weapon will use (for now) 256x256. This is for future proofing, as is the shaders maps which you don't have support for yet.

Hopefully if enough of these end up in the project repository someone will bother to start making a new unfugly graphics engine or port one over from anyone of the OSS projects with realtime lighting and shaders like vega strike, nexuiz, irrlicht, etc., and put the Spring project in its place in so doing.

[Troman]

I thought you said you already had something in mind?

No, never said anything like this.

But if that is not powerful enough, then I would make an ion/plasma thruster missile with a proton-negatron warhead, which do to its lightweight but potent payload, fires two missiles each about as powerful as a gauss round but takes 150% times longer to reload them, has 150% times the range of gauss, same durability and accuracy as the scourge and weight between it and a missile pod.

Basically the idea with this weapon is it is the end of the AT missile line, so it should be as good as or better in each stat versus all others in its line before it (except for power and time consumption of course). But even more importantly, it must be balanced against gauss, in such a way that its focus is on beating out this competitor in skirmish combat-- out-range and out-run (via lower weight), while in a forward assault it losses out to dual-gauss do to reload time and lower hitpoints.

Let me know what you think about this.

That sounds good IMHO.

The absolute values will have to be worked out depending on the balance of other weapons, their upgrades and several other aspects during the implementation process, but I will try to keep it close to the weakness and strengths model you proposed.

So back to the mini-pods, I've completed my models for single and dual mini pods as well as most of their texturing. What mostly remains now is the team-coloring and export process, both of which I have no idea how to do[...]

Take a look at this page for team color info.
As for exporting look here, there's an export plugin for Blender. I'm not familiar with the whole process, but if you will have any further problems let me know and we will find some solution.

I have attached rendered images of both mini-pod textured models below. Note that these renderings were rendered using only ambient light. That means they should look the same in-game, minus the anti-aliasing.

Those looks good so far, keep it up.

[Deus Siddis]

That sounds good IMHO.

The absolute values will have to be worked out depending on the balance of other weapons, their upgrades and several other aspects during the implementation process, but I will try to keep it close to the weakness and strengths model you proposed.

Well that shouldn't be too much of a problem since that is the same balance between missile and cannons in the lower tiers-- you just extrapolate out that same balance from cannons and chemical rockets to gauss and ion-thrust missiles.

But I would make them appear different aesthetically from the older missiles even though their role is mostly the same. To do this, you just have to make all the previous tier rockets use orange particle trails and the futuristic ones leave blue trails (like the current missile pod, only now it should have orange instead). This is both realistic and an aesthetic improvement.

Finally, the same things should be done to not just AT rockets but also Pod rockets and Artillery Rockets. All of these weapons should have late game roles with the graphics to show how much they have advanced. (The same can be said for resurrecting Plasma Artillery, I mean why the hell did pumpkin drop the ball on this-- there is no T3 cannon artillery, just lower overall damage / higher range rocket artillery!)

So with your approval for inclusion in the balanced official trunk release, Troman, I will make a second advanced missile pod and dual missile pod couple of models to represent a new tier 3 missile pod technology. It will be the same as the post tier 3 AT line we've worked out only with a focus on lighter propulsion rather than heavier as is the case with AT missiles, and it will of course deal out damage using less powerful but faster firing ordnance. So these T3 missiles pods are equally useful as T3 AT missiles with a similar role of longer ranged higher speed (via lightweight) skirmishing, but a different target. So let me know if this idea has your approval and I'll start on the model.

(Also ATs might be a little better at defense structures and Pods a little better at base structures. ATs better at VTOLs and Pods better at Cyborgs/Infantry, both equally well against Walker propulsion).

Take a look at this page for team color info.

Hmm, that is no good, you can't have 8 times the amount of every texture just for team colors, that is a horrendous waste that will give your gpu a heart attack. Just for one unit combination that means something like what, one and a half 1024x1024 textures? That is so inefficient, there is so much more that could be done with those pixels, like all models getting 512x512 textures and then using any old hack to get team colors.

This problem needs solving, but until then the best solution is probably to just leave weapons un-team-colored.

As for exporting look here, there's an export plugin for Blender. I'm not familiar with the whole process, but if you will have any further problems let me know and we will find some solution.

. . .

Those looks good so far, keep it up.

Alright then I am finished, so lets test this pipeline. The blender->-pie exporter script is really randomly buggy, but I think I was able to get it to cough up a working export of the missile pod base and launcher. I have put them both in a zip file and attached them to this post. Let me know if they work asap and then I will try and export the double launcher and turn in my source files.

[Troman]

So with your approval for inclusion in the balanced official trunk release, Troman, I will make a second advanced missile pod and dual missile pod couple of models to represent a new tier 3 missile pod technology. It will be the same as the post tier 3 AT line we've worked out only with a focus on lighter propulsion rather than heavier as is the case with AT missiles, and it will of course deal out damage using less powerful but faster firing ordnance. So these T3 missiles pods are equally useful as T3 AT missiles with a similar role of longer ranged higher speed (via lightweight) skirmishing, but a different target. So let me know if this idea has your approval and I'll start on the model.

(Also ATs might be a little better at defense structures and Pods a little better at base structures. ATs better at VTOLs and Pods better at Cyborgs/Infantry, both equally well against Walker propulsion).

Deus Siddis, I would like to remind you that this is a rebalancing project, and when new weapons are added within the scope of this rebalancing effort, then only if it is the best way to face major balance issues, if something was badly broken.
Your proposal doesn't seem to have any obviouls balance issue as its target, so I can neither approve nor disapprove it. A single new weapon - double minipod - is ok, but if you want to add even more weapons, I have to ask you to start a new thread for this where it can be discussed.
I hope you understand it.

Hmm, that is no good, you can't have 8 times the amount of every texture just for team colors, that is a horrendous waste that will give your gpu a heart attack. Just for one unit combination that means something like what, one and a half 1024x1024 textures? That is so inefficient, there is so much more that could be done with those pixels, like all models getting 512x512 textures and then using any old hack to get team colors.

This problem needs solving, but until then the best solution is probably to just leave weapons un-team-colored.

I don't understand what the problem is here. That's how all team-colored objects work currently, whether there is a more efficient way to store textures or not is a different question. If it will ever change in the future we can easily fix the texture by removing redundant parts. Considering that all current weapons use team colors, a weapon with no team colors will not look good. So don't let this stop you.

Let me know if they work asap and then I will try and export the double launcher and turn in my source files.

It crashes here when I use your modified gnlrcktp.pie file. gnlrcktp.pie doesn't seem to have any polygon and connector info (look at the original gnlrcktp.pie file). Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the blender plugin to say what exactly is wrong, maybe you missed some option that is supposed to export polygon information?

EDIT: error message:

Code: Select all

error   : [_imd_load_polys] (_load_polys) [poly 0] error loading flags and npoints

[Deus Siddis]

Deus Siddis, I would like to remind you that this is a rebalancing project, and when new weapons are added within the scope of this rebalancing effort, then only if it is the best way to face major balance issues, if something was badly broken.

I am aware of that.

Your proposal doesn't seem to have any obviouls balance issue as its target, so I can neither approve nor disapprove it. A single new weapon - double minipod - is ok, but if you want to add even more weapons, I have to ask you to start a new thread for this where it can be discussed.

Maybe it is not obvious then, but I do think this would fix a couple noteworthy balance issues. Just let me try to explain my thinking on why this is relevant to the balancing effort and then you can tell me if this is within the scope of your rebalancing efforts or not:

Problem 1: AT missiles fill an important role of long range, high mobility, moderate damage, low armor skirmishers and fire support. But their target focus is on 'heavy' propulsion units, that is their specialty. Overall, their specific role they fill quite well except, as you have pointed out, when you get into later Tier 3, thus you have said you want a more advanced missile than scourge to be created for late game, which makes total sense. But now lets look at the missile pod line, whose role is the same as AT missiles except that its focus is on the 'light' propulsion vehicles. This line ended at the first weapon which became obsolete in T1 and maybe now with your rebalancing and my dual missile pod can make it someways into T2 instead of just being a partial stepping stone to the lancer (which made it originally just a mostly useless weapon which the sort of thing your rebalancing effort is meant to eliminate). But now missile pods still do not fill their role into T3 or maybe even late T3. So if the anti heavy propulsion AT line is going to be viable all the way through to the end then the anti light propulsion Pod line should be in parody to fill its other half of the skirmisher/support role.

Summary 1: I think there is a bad gap in the mid to late game tech tree that this expanded line would fill.

Problem 2: The rebalancing is supposed to make every weapon have enough of a use that it is worth building, so that good players use all weapons in multiplayer. As alluded to above, one of these weapons that has been mostly unused in the past is the missile pod, which players would usually only research as a prereq to the lancer, but not actually use on the battlefield. So part of the fix for this has been raising or 'buffing' its stats as I understand, but it is still a very short line with no actual sequels (again the lancer and its sequels are of course anti-tank focused). So adding more sequels with improved stats to keep it competitive with the other weapon lines in the later game would in my opinion finish the job of making it a useful weapon filling a specific and important role that we will see used in multiplayer by competent players along with the other rebalanced weapons.

Summary 2: I think the missile pod is a weapon whose useful lifetime in a game is far too short for it to be worth learning to use correctly or building but continuing its line all the way to the end of Tier 3 would certainly fix this issue.

Final Summary: So I see two of what I would consider imbalance problems that can both be solved by the same solution, of which I am personally willing to do all of the content work for.


(BTW, in case this still is not considered a balance issue, how then do I get content approved or disapproved and by whom? Surely this project has some method of handling official content contributions right?)

I don't understand what the problem is here. That's how all team-colored objects work currently, whether there is a more efficient way to store textures or not is a different question. If it will ever change in the future we can easily fix the texture by removing redundant parts. Considering that all current weapons use team colors, a weapon with no team colors will not look good. So don't let this stop you.

So be it, if your engine can take it then I can make it.

But I would suggest that this system of assigning team colors to content be retired in the future, it is grossly inefficient and hogs the most expensive element of 3D content- texture space.

It crashes here when I use your modified gnlrcktp.pie file. gnlrcktp.pie doesn't seem to have any polygon and connector info (look at the original gnlrcktp.pie file). Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the blender plugin to say what exactly is wrong, maybe you missed some option that is supposed to export polygon information?

EDIT: error message:

Code: Select all

error   : [_imd_load_polys] (_load_polys) [poly 0] error loading flags and npoints

No there are no options in the exporter script (besides precision level, which appears to be the number of decimal places that are stored for each vertex).

I tried to export it using the same rig that came with the old missile pod when I imported it (which allowed the exporter to at least recognize that it was a model to be exported to the pie format).

So where do we go from here? Is there a manual or some sort of documentation for how to get working content into the game (I looked on the wiki, but didn't see anything)?