The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Discuss the future of Warzone 2100 with us.
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Zarel » 10 Sep 2009, 09:29

DFStormbringer wrote:it was a bug.. the origional devs even admited it. same with the ripple rockets and the flashlights auto upgrading when the archangels and the pulse lasers where researched.. but being it was sch a minor bug compared to the hell that was pathfinding and the pipeline instability.. they never got around to fixing it.
Um, no... the Archie/PL auto-upgrades were very intentional. I mean, why would they write code specifically for auto-upgrading turrets, unless they intentionally wanted turrets to auto-upgrade?

Anyway, afaik, all auto-upgrades have been removed for 2.2.
DFStormbringer wrote:99% of each of thier updates were mainly them releasing the SP nexus equipment into the mulitplayer games to expand the battles past the lancers... it wasent till thier final update 1.10 that anything "new" even came out which was the super heavy bodies and the fortresses.
EMP Cannon? Incendiary mortar? Incendiary howie? EMP mortar? Twin Assault Gun? Assault Cannon? Twin Assault Cannon? Plasmite Bomb? Plasma Cannon? Stormbringer? Combat Engineer? Cyborg Mechanic? Cyborg Transport? Super Cyborgs?

None of these are in the SP campaign, you know. And I'm pretty sure a lot of them came before 1.10.
DFStormbringer wrote:and being all the in game maps arent "super oil rich" maps.. 2000+ power is substancial to spend on a 2x2 turrent that gets hosed by a couple BBs or scurge when as i said.. 4 hardpoints in that same 2x2 space have MORE totall hitpoints and far more firepower and usualy far less cost.
Yes; I'm going to try to fix this.

User avatar
Serman
Trained
Trained
Posts: 244
Joined: 25 May 2007, 03:54
Location: New York City

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Serman » 11 Sep 2009, 01:22

I think the Twin Assault Cannon model's size should be decreased. It looks far too large on all bodies except Dragon.

Also, please add a Twin Assault Cannon hardpoint as well as the existing bunker, because its a nice weapon, and bunkers look ugly when you're building a walled base.

User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Zarel » 13 Sep 2009, 23:30

Added:
- Move CB/VTOL-strike/VTOL-CB turrets before towers, change turret price to tower price, change tower price to something ridiculously low

Ilr
Trained
Trained
Posts: 61
Joined: 07 Sep 2009, 22:11

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Ilr » 14 Sep 2009, 01:20

Hi, I'd like to request some info plz? I'm curious as to where the Previous balance changes are listed? (some links I clicked on in the announcement section were dead I think) Or is this the first update that will focus on a rebalance?

In any case I support it, whatever is done... I loved the features of this game, but always felt that some components were just so obviously superior to others that it actually suspended belief to some degree. (rockets VS lancer/missiles, regular cyborgs just being hopeless cannon-fodder, ridiculously Low armor values on smaller bodies, VTOL's not having enough counters, "emplacements" VS hardpoints, Wheels vs Hover, etc, etc...)

User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Zarel » 14 Sep 2009, 01:30

Previous balance changes are here:

http://guide.wz2100.net/rebalance

This doesn't list the 1.10 -> 2.1 changes, though.

Ilr
Trained
Trained
Posts: 61
Joined: 07 Sep 2009, 22:11

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Ilr » 14 Sep 2009, 05:55

Thank you!

...I'm sorry I can't offer any direct feedback right now, as I've only been playing through the Campaign and it's been ages since I even played out a full skirmish. But while I'm in the middle of the campaign (beginning of the Nexus chapter) I just want to throw some stats out:

Code: Select all

Body 	| Cost | HP | Armor | Track_spd | wheel_spd /w Arty
Bug    		21	156	22	125		114(Bombard)
Viper  		31	184	28	125		105(Bombard)
Leopard		51	240	33	87 		76(Bombard)

Scorpn 		38	352	33	125		145(Hellstorm)
Cobra  		51	366	42	123		129(Hellstorm)
Panther		71	408	50	86 		100(Hellstorm)

Mantis		56	506	50	125 		175(Ripple)
Python		71	562	56	122 		148(Ripple)
Tiger-		91	632	61	90  		120(Ripple)
See where I'm going with this? Compare the Leopard directly to the Mantis and tell me what's the point? ...Even towards end-game, the Dense composites or w/e just don't close the gaps. Some body types are just obvious rip offs b/c they're slow and expensive while the Armor just doesn't scale up with Upgrades in a way that makes up for it... Granted I don't know exactly how hit-detection factors into this, but I see no reason as to why vehicles should have such reduced "Armor" just because they have a smaller body size. The exterior of the Leopard should be no different than the Tiger, IoW: The way I understand it, It would be far more intuitive if Armor values were a bit more normalized(not completely, just a bit more) by Body Type rather than Body Size.

EDIT:
No I stand corrected I think... Nexus' Cyborgs almost single handedly wiped out my main Tank Column yesterday with a little help from a couple Angel Missile emplacements. ...So I guess Cyborgs & Angel missiles are definitely pulling their weight now.
Last edited by Ilr on 15 Sep 2009, 05:42, edited 1 time in total.

Kacen
Trained
Trained
Posts: 294
Joined: 19 Feb 2007, 19:28

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Kacen » 15 Sep 2009, 01:06

I can safely say the Collective Bodies are the bodies I use the least. In fact I can go through an entire game without using them at all. They're heavy yet have underpowered engines.

I use the New Paradigm and Nexus the most. Until I get Nexus I use New Paradigm Mantis bodies for all my front-line combat vehicles (The Mantis is just cost effective; cheap enough to replace light bodies without straining your economy). Sometimes I use the Scorpion for anti-tank missile vehicles, and I may make some cheap VTOLs with the Bug body.

My main trucks also use Bug body/Wheels for mass production, and I use Half-Tracks/Scorpion Trucks for more durable front line trucks if I'm using them in a dangerous area. I use the Project bodies strictly for artillery; Cobras for mortars and Pythons for everything else, usually on half-tracks. The Python body actually supports more weight than the Vengeance and it's cheap and cost-effective for that purpose, and since howitzers/ripple rockets/archangels are long range they don't need to be heavily armored since they're usually far away from the enemy.

With that strategy in mind, I rarely use Collective bodies...the only time I ever use them is if I desperately need -heavily- armored trucks, in that case I make Half-Tracked/Panther trucks.

Also from a purely aesthetic standpoint, Collective bodies are ugly as sin. The only half decent looking one is the Leopard, while the Panther looks like a freakin` box and the Leopard's shape combined with it's awful texture makes it the ugliest body in game.

Late game, though, if I have the money, it's Nexus exclusive for front-line vehicles, barring New Paradigm and Project for trucks and artillery.

And if I have the money late game Half-Tracks/Retribution trucks will replace any niche I needed the Panther body to fill.

Occasionally if I need serious resilience in combat I will use Wyvern/Tracks/Gauss Cannon as my main battle tank in place of Vengeance/Tracks/Gauss Cannon, but I rarely use the Dragon...just impractically large.

But overall, the Mantis is more cost-effective and beats both the medium and light Collective bodies, and the Tiger is just so slow it can't make up for it's armor.

Post Reply