whole reballance suggestion

Discuss the future of Warzone 2100 with us.
Sonsalt
Trained
Trained
Posts: 114
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 22:10

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by Sonsalt » 14 Aug 2007, 09:19

If you wonder why a veteran unit should deal more damage? Lets say it shoots more accurate and hits vulnerable points.

They drive faster, because the driver is more experienced, and they shoot more accurate, well, the same thing.

But after all it is gameplay. It should be worth it to level your units.

Maybe you should increase the requirements for leveling, but if someone manages to level his units he should get a reward, since most of the units get killed quite fast anyway.

Also I totally agree with Ursa. Warzone is warzone is warzone ;)

Things need to get destroyed.

Here is a suggestion. You can satisfy both player types time. For strategic unit saving players, give them good level ups for their veteran units. So they can deal with a large crowed only having few high ranked tanks. And for the rest, just make it bloody war.

bormoth
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 30
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 10:54

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by bormoth » 15 Aug 2007, 07:15

My Large Cannon Python Tracks shouldn't be killable in 2-3 hits with another large cannon. Or do I misunderstand you?
No it shouldn't count yourself caracteristics on first post.It much easier to kill them with light cannon viper
tracks(or even weels): shoot farther, cheaper, and faster, but weeker in armor and do less domage.
Second if you don't want serious speed drawbacks(look speed formulae) you never want to settle it to another then heavy bodies exept may be cobra witch has more weight limit then other middle ones.
If you wonder why a veteran unit should deal more damage? Lets say it shoots more accurate and hits vulnerable points.
Than it would be better to make them do critical heat or offguard(without armor) hits.First sugguestion
wasn't met second is too week I think.About speed and range ok i think it would be good to make bonuses per level up.

At level up slower then kills=5*2level is bad even for current WZ if units are killed in 3-4 hit(like in current WZ either(even worth in one hit with scourge)).I suggest to make it at least easier to level up (with good bonuses in range,speed and hit(hit would remain for now like in my suggestion formulae), but not overpowered)
kills=5*F(level),
where F(x) is fibonaci row (1,2,3,5,...,x,..,n=(n-1)+(n-2))

Only weapon that kills any unit in one hit is plasma cannon, but very heavy,small IAS and no HP bonus,
plus one hit ability and it's high cost makes it targect number one.It's only purpose is destroy fortress or
expierienced unit before being killed;
Last edited by bormoth on 15 Aug 2007, 08:08, edited 1 time in total.

themousemaster
Regular
Regular
Posts: 602
Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by themousemaster » 15 Aug 2007, 13:49

bormoth wrote:
Only weapon that kills any unit in one hit is plasma cannon, but very heavy,small IAS and no HP bonus,
plus one hit ability and it's high cost makes it targect number one.It's only purpose is destroy fortress or
expierienced unit before being killed;
I seem to remember the Dragon and Wyvern bodies being able to take a hit from the plasma cannon.  Granted, they are WAY down the tech tree, but then... so is the plasma cannon.

bormoth
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 30
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 10:54

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by bormoth » 16 Aug 2007, 05:27

Look at first post 9999 damage is anough even for dragon and wywern.

Chojun
Regular
Regular
Posts: 518
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49
Contact:

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by Chojun » 17 Aug 2007, 15:08

IMO the plasma cannon, wyvern, and dragon are all useless to me as about 99% of the games i've played end before getting to those items.  Even T3 games.
The best thing to do when your philosophies don't stand up to debate is to lock the thread and claim victory.

themousemaster
Regular
Regular
Posts: 602
Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by themousemaster » 17 Aug 2007, 19:17

bormoth wrote: Look at first post 9999 damage is anough even for dragon and wywern.
Then why have I had MBT's survive a plasma hit before?

User avatar
Deathguise
Trained
Trained
Posts: 85
Joined: 06 Jul 2007, 20:08
Location: UK

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by Deathguise » 17 Aug 2007, 20:04

themousemaster wrote:Then why have I had MBT's survive a plasma hit before?
The stock plasma cannon has an upgraded attack power of 1900, so an MBT could survive a hit, however bormoth is suggesting that as part of a total rebalance the plasma cannon attack power should be raised to 9999.
Last edited by Deathguise on 18 Aug 2007, 10:38, edited 1 time in total.
"Abandon All Hope" - Chiggy von Richthofen

bormoth
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 30
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 10:54

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by bormoth » 18 Aug 2007, 06:12

wywern and dragon in my sugguestion are mean units of light-medium and medium-light armors so they could move faster with heavier weapons, they also have bonus armor.
Plasma cannons are also would be good solving of decoying problem.(cause they dial 100% damage to all armors)
Ok, finished already my sugguestion so waiting critics.
Last edited by bormoth on 18 Aug 2007, 06:26, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by Watermelon » 18 Aug 2007, 10:33

One of the causes of the uselessness of late game bodies is the flawed armor system of warzone,greater armor rating(threshold) is only slightly better than early game ones,because weapon damage becomes absurdly high in late games.

Lets use the most 'balanced' RTS games' armor damage reduction system as examples:

In starcraft,the armor works exactly same as warzone's,but the unit with the highest damage output(siege tank) only deals 70(+5+5+5) points of damage compare to warzone's ridiculous 1900.

In warcraft 3,'high damage vs low armor points' problem is addressed via 6% damage reduction per armor point,damage after armor = damage * 94%^[number of armor] is very close to the formula WC3 uses if memory serves me right
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.

Chojun
Regular
Regular
Posts: 518
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49
Contact:

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by Chojun » 18 Aug 2007, 15:04

Watermelon wrote:Lets use the most 'balanced' RTS games' armor damage reduction system as examples:

In starcraft,the armor works exactly same as warzone's,but the unit with the highest damage output(siege tank) only deals 70(+5+5+5) points of damage compare to warzone's ridiculous 1900.
I wholeheartedly agree:  Starcraft was amazingly well-balanced.  They must've done an incredible amount of playtesting, or they used some sort of formula to figure out how much damage/armor each unit would get.

But on a side note:  Wasn't the Scarab the unit with the highest damage output?  Or, better yet, the infested terran?
The best thing to do when your philosophies don't stand up to debate is to lock the thread and claim victory.

themousemaster
Regular
Regular
Posts: 602
Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by themousemaster » 18 Aug 2007, 17:09

Deathguise wrote: The stock plasma cannon has an upgraded attack power of 1900, so an MBT could survive a hit, however bormoth is suggesting that as part of a total rebalance the plasma cannon attack power should be raised to 9999.

Ah.  My bad.

Watermelon wrote: One of the causes of the uselessness of late game bodies is the flawed armor system of warzone,greater armor rating(threshold) is only slightly better than early game ones,because weapon damage becomes absurdly high in late games.

Lets use the most 'balanced' RTS games' armor damage reduction system as examples:

In starcraft,the armor works exactly same as warzone's,but the unit with the highest damage output(siege tank) only deals 70(+5+5+5) points of damage compare to warzone's ridiculous 1900.

In warcraft 3,'high damage vs low armor points' problem is addressed via 6% damage reduction per armor point,damage after armor = damage * 94%^[number of armor] is very close to the formula WC3 uses if memory serves me right
Another game comes to mind, thoug it's not an RTS.  Anyone ever play Lionheart?  It's form of damage reduction was a 2-fold method.

Basically, all units had both a threshold armor (ala current WZ), and a % reduction armor (ala WC3).  Threshold was subtracted first, and the result was then multiplied by the %.

In that game, technically, you could damage values below 0.  Obviously, for WZ, 1 would be minimum; even basic MG bullets can't "heal" a unit.



Such a method was used in Linheart to specify unit's abilities to resist certain types of damage.  Basically, it combined WZ's concept of "Armor" and WZ's concept of "certain types of damage are more effective vs certain things", just from a roundabout way.

Imagine if, say, Dragon bodies had a threshold of 100, and armor values of (AP = 5%, flame=70%, cannon=40%, rocket=5%).  What effect this would have is that machineguns would be useless (the 100 threshold would negate their damage flat out), but the other AP weapon, lasers, would do substantial damage.  For flame weapons, the 100 threshold wouldn't do much, but the 70% armor value would allow them to take it quite well.  For the cannon/railgun weapons, the 100 threshold would make the low-end weapons (lightcannon,  needle gun, medium cannon, assault gun, TAG) mostly useless, whereas the heavier cannons (HPV, HC, railgun, gauss) semi-effective, as the -100 wouldn't be much, but the -50% would.  And rockets would be the "scourge" of this vehicle, as neither the threshold subtraction nor the resistance would reduce damage much.

bormoth
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 30
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 10:54

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by bormoth » 19 Aug 2007, 07:10

I waited some critics about armor  ;),but I don't that it would be good idea to change mechanics without
gamers permission.
damage after armor = damage * 94%^[number of armor]
You ment maybe that damage after armor = damage *0.94^[number of armor] ,
but I understud.So to make armor more important atribute there two ways add more threshold armor(we would have many underpowered weapons)or make proportional armor witch I like more :).

[offtopic]
in starcraft was proportional system too there were 3 types of damage(explosive,concusive and normal)
normal 100% to  all units
concusive 100% to small units(like marine) 50% to medium(like zealot) 25 to large like tank
explosive  25% to small, 50% to medium, 100% to large(scarab has explosive damage)
[/offtopic]

After I finish copy of my unit sugguestion for  wikipedia.I begin to work on upgrades.
Last edited by bormoth on 19 Aug 2007, 07:37, edited 1 time in total.

Sonsalt
Trained
Trained
Posts: 114
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 22:10

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by Sonsalt » 19 Aug 2007, 14:02

I would rather prefer a more realistic tweak.

1. Increase the projectile speed to a realistic value(Especially the twin mg)

2. More range for nearly every weapon.

3. Better splash damage for big projectiles

4. Larger napalm fields.

5. longer research times.

User avatar
Deathguise
Trained
Trained
Posts: 85
Joined: 06 Jul 2007, 20:08
Location: UK

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by Deathguise » 19 Aug 2007, 15:47

themousemaster wrote:Ah.  My bad.
Dont worry about it.
Sonsalt wrote:4. Larger napalm fields.
I remember trying to balance this on the original warzone, only to find out that any incendiary effect with a radius over 2 squares is much less likely to cause damage.

On a side note is the body point cap of 8400 on the design screen also used in game?
"Abandon All Hope" - Chiggy von Richthofen

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: whole reballance suggestion

Post by Watermelon » 19 Aug 2007, 16:59

Chojun wrote: I wholeheartedly agree:  Starcraft was amazingly well-balanced.  They must've done an incredible amount of playtesting, or they used some sort of formula to figure out how much damage/armor each unit would get.

But on a side note:  Wasn't the Scarab the unit with the highest damage output?  Or, better yet, the infested terran?
not sure which one has the highest damage,but both cost money to do damage(scarab is 15 or so mineral per shot and infested terran is a suicide bomber  :o)

The problem is that armor upgrade and new body are too weak compare to the massive damage increase of weapon damage upgrade/new weapon's damage,because of the uselessness of armor damage threshold in late game.This flaw will make single-shot-high-damage weapons(like end-game weapon such as upgraded cannon,scourge or some heavy laser/rail weapon) very powerful vs pretty much everything,while making rapid-firing-low-damage weapons almost useless,to name some:minipod, assault cannon/gun,early AA guns.

Also worth mentioning:wz's weapon damage bonus vs certain propulsion is very imbalanced too,maybe we just need more types so the counter system will actually work.

@Deathguise:
Design screen's 'bar length' limits doesn't affect in-game bodies(and the max price is unlimited too,thoug the redundant part doesnt display correctly on screen,it just shows 1000 even if the price exceeds 1000),there is no cap for max body points(HP) in source iirc.
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.

Post Reply