Rebalancing

[Zarel]

So I'm going to make a topic discussing all the aspects of my rebalance, so you guys can provide feedback on which parts should make it into 2.2.

SECTION ONE: MAJOR CHANGES

1. Adding Pulse Laser Tower, Lancer Tower, and/or Tank Killer Tower

This is mainly a personal thing - I've always wanted a pulse laser tower. The other ones also make sense, though - all light long-range weapons should get towers.

2. Double Pulse Laser ROF, set damage to slightly more than half

This will slightly lower DPS.

3. Make lasers and/or missiles able to shoot VTOLs (like machineguns)

I feel like people should have choices other than dedicated anti-air for dealing with VTOLs. Making a few more weapons versatile could help. (I'm going to use jargon from another RTS and say "V" when I mean "weapon that can hit either air or ground targets") Lasers and missiles seem like obvious choices for V weapons. Here are all the subclasses, and an analysis of how good they could be:

- Machinegun - already V
- AA-gun - should obviously be AA-only
- Flamer - Ground-based flamers obviously shouldn't hit air
- Cannons, rails - Seem like they would be too heavy to aim at aircraft well
- MIni-rockets, rockets - Seem too slow
- Mortars, howitzers, bombs - Anti-air artillery aren't possible in Warzone, and even if they were, wouldn't be the same weapon as anti-ground artillery
- Missiles - A good possibility
- Lasers - A good possibility
- Electronic, EMP - A good possibility
- LasSat - way too slow to hit air

4. Rearrange the research tree a bit to make more sense

Some of my proposed changes:
- Make CB Tower require Mortar Targeting Computer instead of HE Mortar Shells Mk3 - a "targeting computer" sounds a lot more like the precursor to CB tech than higher mortar damage.
- Make VTOL CB Tower require Sensor Upgrade Mk2 instead of CB Tower - VTOLs are a different approach to anti-artillery that's different from using artillery, so it shouldn't require artillery. Other possible requirements: Cluster Bombs Bay.
- Remove the MG Guard Tower requirement from Sensor Tower - If anything, it should be the other way around. If you have enough tech to research an MG tower and a sensor, you have enough to make a sensor tower.
- Nerf Stormbringer and make it require Thermopole Energizer Mk2 instead of Mk3.
- Make Flashlight require NSRB Mk2, Sensor Upgrade Mk3 instead of NSRB Mk3 and Sensor Upgrade Mk2 - We shouldn't leave weapons like this so far into the end-game, since most games end before that. This will let more players use it.

5. Make MG Guard Tower require a Command Center

It's just giving too much power to the turtles for MG Guard Tower to be built so much earlier than Machinegun Viper Wheels. And it makes it impossible to defend against truck rushes without your own MG Guard Tower on small maps, and people shouldn't ever be forced to only one strategy.

Here's how you get MG Guard Tower:
- Build Research Facility
- Research MG
- Research MG Guard Tower
- Build MG Guard Tower

Here's how you get MG Viper Wheels:
- Build Research Facility
- Research MG
- Build Command Center
- Design MG Viper Wheels
- Build Factory
- Manufacture MG Viper Wheels

It's a lot slower, and it shouldn't be.

SECTION TWO: WEAPON BALANCE CHANGES

6. Put cannon power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, cannons have:
- 1.5x as much damage
- Slightly lower HP

Anyone who's played 2.1 would know that cannons are overpowered in this version. Aivolution uses cannons in late-game exclusively, for precisely this reason, and Aivolution is so effective, for precisely this reason.

7. Put rocket power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, rockets have:
- Half as much damage
- Much higher HP

Rockets are intended to be low HP, high damage weapons. The changes in 2.1 make rockets completely useless, as is obvious to anyone who's played. They do barely enough damage, and they're buried under a lot of unintuitive upgrades (no other non-rotary weapon requires ROF upgrades, and no other weapon requires Automated Factory Production except VTOL weapons). They should be reverted to closer to 1.10.

8. Put mortar power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, mortars have:
- 3x as much damage

I don't remember all that much consensus that mortars were underpowered in 1.10, but they are very obviously overpowered in 2.1. I think setting them at 1.5x as much would.

9. Put flamer power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, flamers have:
- 3x as much damage
- 10x as much fire rate
- slightly higher HP

Everyone agrees flamers were underpowered in 1.10. But "30x more powerful" is enough to turn any weapon from massively underpowered to massively overpowered. And anyone who's been subjected to a flamer cyborg rush in 2.1 can tell you this. My current rebalance puts it at somewhere closer to 15x more powerful.

10. Put missile power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, flamers have:
- 1/3 as much damage
- significantly higher HP

See rockets. And as weak as rockets are in 1.10, missiles are worse. It takes nearly every single scourge upgrade before it's as powerful as TK is at that point, which is just not right.

SECTION THREE: MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES

11. Change tower sensors from 8 tiles to 10 tiles.

Currently, except for sensor turrets/towers, all structures have a sensor range of 8 tiles (including, I believe, satellite uplink center - the "reveal whole map" functionality is separate from its actual sensor range, which is why assigning artillery to it doesn't let you artillery-fire anywhere). Anyway, weapon towers need to be something other than weaker versions of hardpoints/bunkers, and it makes sense that a tower would be able to see further than a bunker or hardpoint.

12. Change fortress sensors from 8 tiles to 16 tiles.

Same justification as for towers. They're underpowered - increasing the range would help.

------

Please reply to each one specifically, instead of just saying "Those are all good" or "Those are all bad", which is completely useless. Here's an example useful reply:

1. Good idea.
2. No opinion.
3. I have a strong opinion about this, so I will write about it in detail. I like this part and this part, but this part is back because of this reason and this reason. Consider doing this suggestion, which would solve this problem with it.
4. Good idea.
...etc...

[themousemaster]

FIRST!


I love these threads...

(and being the resident SP / Skirmish nerd rather than MP, I might have additional insights)

1. Adding Pulse Laser Tower, Lancer Tower, and/or Tank Killer Tower

Why not.

Double Pulse Laser ROF, set damage to slightly more than half

Hrm... this actually sounds to me like it would make the PL worthless. Right now, it's primary function is to replace the MG as the premier anti-cyborg weapon; even with it's damage bonus to cyborgs though, reducing its base damage too far will make it fall into the "too minimal to do it's job properly" category. But I'm up for making this modification in 2.2.betaX, just to see how it goes.

Make lasers and/or missiles able to shoot VTOLs (like machineguns)

.

I disagree with this one. MG's firing "up" are pretty worthless as is, and do nothing more than waste MG rounds going "up" instead of at a more useful ground target. This may be largely due to the pathetic hit ratings of any non-missile AA weapon right now... that, and I (personally) don't see how these weapons would suffice when shooting "up". non-missile AA weapons work by filling the sky with large amounts of projectiles, hoping that "some" will hit their targets (even Flak uses airborne exploding shrapnel, but still in the hopes that some of it will hit the plane). Pulse Lasers (which aren't real lasers, they are more like a plasma-pulse weapon) don't fire "fast' enough to make them viable as AA weapons (talking from a theoretical perspective, not a game balance one), and dedicated AG missiles are designed that way for a reason, and don't really go "up" well. If you *really* want a new V weapon, my say would be the Assault Cannon / TwinAssaultCannon. It's designed with rapid-fire in mind, so it would be my natural choice for "filling the sky with shrapnel". And it would give the largely useless AC/TwinAC a use beyond just being the most useful Bunker-mounted gun.

Make CB Tower require Mortar Targeting Computer

Yup. Never understood that one anyway.

Make VTOL CB Tower require Sensor Upgrade Mk2 instead of CB Tower

Yup.

Remove the MG Guard Tower requirement from Sensor Tower

Yup.

Nerf Stormbringer and make it require Thermopole Energizer Mk2 instead of Mk3.

I would venture to say the opposite; nerf it, sure. But take away all it's requirements *except* having the Flashlight Laser researched. Give people who aren't going down the AA-flak tree a viable "rapid" (cough) AA-turret at a point before their base is totally leveled by VTOLs.

Make Flashlight require NSRB Mk2, Sensor Upgrade Mk3 instead of NSRB Mk3 and Sensor Upgrade Mk2

There's a sensor upgrade Mk3? I don't remember seeing it. But if there is, I'm for it.



As an aside, as far as weapon pre-reqs, I seem to remember a late-on RoF upgrade series requiring an odd pre-req... I wish I could remember which, but I want to say that the final version of the AA, Cannon, and Mortar RoF upgrade series require the final Rocket RoF upgrade to access. That never made sense to me.

Make MG Guard Tower require a Command Center

Why not. But I have this nagging feeling this won't actually stop the mg-tower rush from only being defendable by mg-towers...

Put cannon power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

Ok. I always though of cannons as being the MMO-"tank" of warzone anyway; *ok* damage vs other vehicle bodies, but their specialty being huge HP.

Put rocket power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

That's fine. But in the process, I recommend them taking a slight nerf to anti-structure damage; they were in 1.10 the way cannons are now, the "only" endgame weapon; they killed vehicles before the vehicles could kill them, and they destroyed structures so fast that defenses couldn't stop them. They are supposed to be anti-vehicle weapons after all... (not counting BBs of course)

Put mortar power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 1.10, they were worthless after the NP campaign; their base damage was just too low, so even the Bombard did only 1 damage to anything in Gamma and the majority of Beta. I realize you get the Howitzer at that point, but no other weapon suffers such an immediate disparity between it's max-upgrade version and the "next greatest thing's" non-upgrade version as the Mortar->Howitzer did.

I say that if you want to bring it's damage down, go for it; but I also say give them a larger anti-structure bonus.

Also, (for MP only), I say make the Incendiary Mortar available much earlier than it currently is. Given that when the first Howitzer rolls off the line, your entire Mortar fleet may as well be mothballed, at least this would give Mortars value (until much later when the Incendiary Howitzer shows up). Ya know, for people who like burning artillery.

Put flamer power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

The only reason I never used flamers in 1.10 is because they wouldn't live long enough to deliver their payloads. Having an earlygame anti-structure/cyborg weapon that takes 5 of them just to get a single one within firing range of 3 MG towers for a single shot was terrible.

Your changes seem fine, but of the three 1.10->2.X changes, I'd say don't touch the higher HP part.

Also, in 1.10, Flame weapons hit their target, and that's it. Now, flame weapons leave a trail of burning death from the shooter to the target. This may be part of why they are so devastating now.

Put missile power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

I kinda wonder if it would be better to leave the Scourge as *weaker* than a fully researched TK rocket, but having it be "better" due to it's homing nature, and giving it the ability to out-range the TK (by improving vehicle internal sensors). But in lieu of that, yes to the quote.

Change tower sensors from 8 tiles to 10 tiles.

Yup. Given that NEXUS doesn't seem to have the internal-sensor problem that the Project does, this would somewhat level the playing field involving NEXUS's ubiquitous 12-range Scourge Towers as well

Change fortress sensors from 8 tiles to 16 tiles.

Sure. Not that I use em a lot myself, but I see nothing wrong here.

[Zarel]

Since it appears I forgot to mention in my first post, I'll mention this now: "V" stands for "versatile".

Hrm... this actually sounds to me like it would make the PL worthless. Right now, it's primary function is to replace the MG as the premier anti-cyborg weapon; even with it's damage bonus to cyborgs though, reducing its base damage too far will make it fall into the "too minimal to do it's job properly" category. But I'm up for making this modification in 2.2.betaX, just to see how it goes.

Well, I said reducing base damage to a bit more than half. It would make pulse laser more effective against cyborgs and less effective against tanks.

I disagree with this one. MG's firing "up" are pretty worthless as is, and do nothing more than waste MG rounds going "up" instead of at a more useful ground target. This may be largely due to the pathetic hit ratings of any non-missile AA weapon right now... that, and I (personally) don't see how these weapons would suffice when shooting "up". non-missile AA weapons work by filling the sky with large amounts of projectiles, hoping that "some" will hit their targets (even Flak uses airborne exploding shrapnel, but still in the hopes that some of it will hit the plane). Pulse Lasers (which aren't real lasers, they are more like a plasma-pulse weapon) don't fire "fast' enough to make them viable as AA weapons (talking from a theoretical perspective, not a game balance one), and dedicated AG missiles are designed that way for a reason, and don't really go "up" well. If you *really* want a new V weapon, my say would be the Assault Cannon / TwinAssaultCannon. It's designed with rapid-fire in mind, so it would be my natural choice for "filling the sky with shrapnel". And it would give the largely useless AC/TwinAC a use beyond just being the most useful Bunker-mounted gun.

One of the changes I deemed "too minor to make a thread out of it" was to push lasers' projectile velocity as high as the projectile system will support without weird collision-detection problems, then make them homing. The "homing" part shouldn't be noticeable because of how fast the projectile is, but my justification is that the lasers are actually going at light speed, and the projectile you see is just a visualization to make it visible, and if you could actually see the light-speed photons slowed down that much, they'd curve/home like that due to relativistic effects.

Anyway, the point is, because of that, lasers are viable AA weapons. And maybe dedicated AG missiles can't go "up", but it shouldn't be too hard to retcon Scourge as a V missile - such things should exist.

Assault Cannon is a possibility from a balance point of view, but it suffers from slow projectile speed. Perhaps when we have the AA bug fixed, it'll be worth considering (it would need a substantial speed boost, though).

I would venture to say the opposite; nerf it, sure. But take away all it's requirements *except* having the Flashlight Laser researched. Give people who aren't going down the AA-flak tree a viable "rapid" (cough) AA-turret at a point before their base is totally leveled by VTOLs.

Well, it's not "rapid" at all, it takes about as much time for a VTOL army to destroy 8 bases to research Stormy and Stormy Site. Stormies are completely unviable as AA unless you've researched them way ahead of time.

"People who aren't going down the AA-flak tree" is the audience my suggested V weapons are intended for.

There's a sensor upgrade Mk3? I don't remember seeing it.

Cough. I added it.

As an aside, as far as weapon pre-reqs, I seem to remember a late-on RoF upgrade series requiring an odd pre-req... I wish I could remember which, but I want to say that the final version of the AA, Cannon, and Mortar RoF upgrade series require the final Rocket RoF upgrade to access. That never made sense to me.

Cannon Autoloader Mk2 requires Advanced Factory Production. I always hated that. Later Mini-pod ROF upgrades also require Automated Factory Production Mk2.
Mortar Fast Loader and AA Chainfeed Loader require Cannon Rapid Loader (which is 2 steps after Cannon Autoloader Mk2).

(This, by the way, is ridiculously easy to figure out using my guide, ahem ahem)

So you're close, the final AA and mortar ROF upgrades require one of the later cannon upgrades, which requires Advanced Factory Production. Then again, late ROF upgrades are ridiculously powerful (like, "increasing DPS from 100 to 150" powerful). Suggestions?

(Rockets) That's fine. But in the process, I recommend them taking a slight nerf to anti-structure damage; they were in 1.10 the way cannons are now, the "only" endgame weapon; they killed vehicles before the vehicles could kill them, and they destroyed structures so fast that defenses couldn't stop them. They are supposed to be anti-vehicle weapons after all... (not counting BBs of course)

The problem with that, is that it would nerf cannon anti-structure damage, but furthermore, they're one of the few non-BB weapons that does more than 50% damage against hard structures and bunkers.

I've increased cannon and rail HP, so this should be less of an issue. I guess I can reduce their damage some more.

In 1.10, they were worthless after the NP campaign; their base damage was just too low, so even the Bombard did only 1 damage to anything in Gamma and the majority of Beta. I realize you get the Howitzer at that point, but no other weapon suffers such an immediate disparity between it's max-upgrade version and the "next greatest thing's" non-upgrade version as the Mortar->Howitzer did.

I say that if you want to bring it's damage down, go for it; but I also say give them a larger anti-structure bonus.

Also, (for MP only), I say make the Incendiary Mortar available much earlier than it currently is. Given that when the first Howitzer rolls off the line, your entire Mortar fleet may as well be mothballed, at least this would give Mortars value (until much later when the Incendiary Howitzer shows up). Ya know, for people who like burning artillery.

Good ideas. Artillery already have a ridiculously high anti-personnel bonus, though, and they're really effective against pretty much everything except tanks, and pretty decent against tanks, too (hence why MRL is so powerful). I'm not sure they need better anti-structure bonus. Remember that I'm not bringing their damage back down to 1.10 levels, but significantly higher than that.

The only reason I never used flamers in 1.10 is because they wouldn't live long enough to deliver their payloads. Having an earlygame anti-structure/cyborg weapon that takes 5 of them just to get a single one within firing range of 3 MG towers for a single shot was terrible.

Your changes seem fine, but of the three 1.10->2.X changes, I'd say don't touch the higher HP part.

Also, in 1.10, Flame weapons hit their target, and that's it. Now, flame weapons leave a trail of burning death from the shooter to the target. This may be part of why they are so devastating now.

Note that flamer cyborgs live plenty long enough to deliver their payloads in 2.1, since machineguns were nerfed, few other weapons are very effective against cyborgs, and their HP/armor were increased.

I kinda wonder if it would be better to leave the Scourge as *weaker* than a fully researched TK rocket, but having it be "better" due to it's homing nature, and giving it the ability to out-range the TK (by improving vehicle internal sensors). But in lieu of that, yes to the quote.

The problem is that it's pretty much impossible to improve vehicle internal sensors for a specific weapon. And considering the TK is already one of the longest-range weapons out there (you need one of the endgames: rail, laser, or missile, to outrange it anyway), leaving the Scourge weaker doesn't help. Also, leaving the Scourge so weak makes it just a low-HP version of Pulse Laser and Gauss Cannon, which also have the same range (16), but significantly less damage than Scourge in 1.10.

Yup. Given that NEXUS doesn't seem to have the internal-sensor problem that the Project does, this would somewhat level the playing field involving NEXUS's ubiquitous 12-range Scourge Towers as well

Note that Nexus actually has range-16 Scourge Towers. All Nexus sensors are range-16.

[Mysteryem]

Anti-air artillery aren't possible in Warzone, and even if they were, wouldn't be the same weapon as anti-ground artillery

Oh yeah?

I don't think it's supposed to happen, but a few times my artillery have been shooting at a ground target whilst a V-TOL has flown over that unit, the explosion then destroyed both the ground target and the V-TOL.
Aside from that, here is my feedback:

1. Adding Pulse Laser Tower, Lancer Tower, and/or Tank Killer Tower

I strongly agree that these, apart from the tank killer tower, should be added.

2. Double Pulse Laser ROF, set damage to slightly more than half

We have a double pulse laser? Please, enough with the double weapons.

3. Make lasers and/or missiles able to shoot VTOLs (like machineguns)

I think that there should just be a load of new anti air weapons that are base on the previous weapons. Such as a lancer with only one side (fires one rocket)

4. Rearrange the research tree a bit to make more sense

Some of my proposed changes:
- Make CB Tower require Mortar Targeting Computer instead of HE Mortar Shells Mk3 - a "targeting computer" sounds a lot more like the precursor to CB tech than higher mortar damage.

Yes, it makes sense

- Make VTOL CB Tower require Sensor Upgrade Mk2 instead of CB Tower - VTOLs are a different approach to anti-artillery that's different from using artillery, so it shouldn't require artillery. Other possible requirements: Cluster Bombs Bay.

I have no view on this one.

- Remove the MG Guard Tower requirement from Sensor Tower - If anything, it should be the other way around. If you have enough tech to research an MG tower and a sensor, you have enough to make a sensor tower.

Why not start of with a machinegun emplacement (new structure), then move to the twin machinegun tower and then get the heavy machinegun tower, or maybe start off with a twin machine gun tower/emplacement.

- Nerf Stormbringer and make it require Thermopole Energizer Mk2 instead of Mk3.

I think it should remain as it is, it's useless early on but it's still not brilliant after researching everything, I find that the Vindicator SAM is much better.

- Make Flashlight require NSRB Mk2, Sensor Upgrade Mk3 instead of NSRB Mk3 and Sensor Upgrade Mk2 - We shouldn't leave weapons like this so far into the end-game, since most games end before that. This will let more players use it.

Leave it as is, just start with at T2 level instead of a T1.

5. Make MG Guard Tower require a Command Center

It's just giving too much power to the turtles for MG Guard Tower to be built so much earlier than Machinegun Viper Wheels. And it makes it impossible to defend against truck rushes without your own MG Guard Tower on small maps, and people shouldn't ever be forced to only one strategy.

Here's how you get MG Guard Tower:
- Build Research Facility
- Research MG
- Research MG Guard Tower
- Build MG Guard Tower

I suggest adding a twin or single machine gun tower/emplacement that has to be researched first.(but after researching MG)

Here's how you get MG Viper Wheels:
- Build Research Facility
- Research MG
- Build Command Center
- Design MG Viper Wheels
- Build Factory
- Manufacture MG Viper Wheels

It's a lot slower, and it shouldn't be.

I have no view on this.

SECTION TWO: WEAPON BALANCE CHANGES

6. Put cannon power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, cannons have:
- 1.5x as much damage
- Slightly lower HP

Anyone who's played 2.1 would know that cannons are overpowered in this version. Aivolution uses cannons in late-game exclusively, for precisely this reason, and Aivolution is so effective, for precisely this reason.

No view.

7. Put rocket power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, rockets have:
- Half as much damage
- Much higher HP

Rockets are intended to be low HP, high damage weapons. The changes in 2.1 make rockets completely useless, as is obvious to anyone who's played. They do barely enough damage, and they're buried under a lot of unintuitive upgrades (no other non-rotary weapon requires ROF upgrades, and no other weapon requires Automated Factory Production except VTOL weapons). They should be reverted to closer to 1.10.

This would be a good change.

8. Put mortar power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, mortars have:
- 3x as much damage

I don't remember all that much consensus that mortars were underpowered in 1.10, but they are very obviously overpowered in 2.1. I think setting them at 1.5x as much would.

Bombards are far too powerfull I find that a couple of bombards obliterate most enemies.

9. Put flamer power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, flamers have:
- 3x as much damage
- 10x as much fire rate
- slightly higher HP

Everyone agrees flamers were underpowered in 1.10. But "30x more powerful" is enough to turn any weapon from massively underpowered to massively overpowered. And anyone who's been subjected to a flamer cyborg rush in 2.1 can tell you this. My current rebalance puts it at somewhere closer to 15x more powerful.

I've never used flamers much, too short range for my style.

10. Put missile power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, flamers have:
- 1/3 as much damage
- significantly higher HP

See rockets. And as weak as rockets are in 1.10, missiles are worse. It takes nearly every single scourge upgrade before it's as powerful as TK is at that point, which is just not right.

Huh? I find they're pretty good because of their fastish reload time, I've never liked tank killers because of their slow reload time.

SECTION THREE: MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES

11. Change tower sensors from 8 tiles to 10 tiles.

Currently, except for sensor turrets/towers, all structures have a sensor range of 8 tiles (including, I believe, satellite uplink center - the "reveal whole map" functionality is separate from its actual sensor range, which is why assigning artillery to it doesn't let you artillery-fire anywhere). Anyway, weapon towers need to be something other than weaker versions of hardpoints/bunkers, and it makes sense that a tower would be able to see further than a bunker or hardpoint.

A good change, currently i just treat towers as cheap hardpoints, this would make them useful.

12. Change fortress sensors from 8 tiles to 16 tiles.

Same justification as for towers. They're underpowered - increasing the range would help.

Yes please, it is a fortress after all...

[Per]

3. Make lasers and/or missiles able to shoot VTOLs (like machineguns)

I agree for lasers. They are extremely expensive to research, but almost useless in the game. Missiles should have other uses, IMHO.

- Make CB Tower require Mortar Targeting Computer instead of HE Mortar Shells Mk3

Sounds sensible.

5. Make MG Guard Tower require a Command Center

Wouldn't this just make slower/worse players (even more) helpless against rush attacks? I notice that some RTS games solve this by making it hard to build base defenses anywhere on the map, but easy around your own base.

6. Put cannon power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

Good. Cannons are ridiculously overpowered at the moment.

7. Put rocket power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

Perhaps. But keep in mind that rockets and missiles have more range, and this counts for something, especially when attacking turtle players or AI bases.

8. Put mortar power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

Oh, no...

Ok, maybe. But they were seriously underpowered in 1.10. Maybe going down to 2x instead of 3x? Keep in mind that mortars are still rather hard to use, since units with mortars need to stop to fire.

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, flamers have:
- 3x as much damage
- 10x as much fire rate
- slightly higher HP

The high rate of fire is a nice effect. It is visually pleasing

12. Change fortress sensors from 8 tiles to 16 tiles.

Same justification as for towers. They're underpowered - increasing the range would help.

Are you sure fortresses are still so underpowered? After our work on the targetting code, they have become a lot better. Also, it would be better that they have some weaknesses, such as that you need to build sensors towers or sensor droids for them that can be attacked by the enemy.

[themousemaster]

Anyway, the point is, because of that, lasers are viable AA weapons. And maybe dedicated AG missiles can't go "up", but it shouldn't be too hard to retcon Scourge as a V missile - such things should exist.

Oh, I'm not worried about the "lore", as it were. It's just that we don't use Sidewinders for anti-tank purposes anymore than we use Tomahawks to take out F-16s. Also, a common Airborne strat is to send a scrub bug-MG plane in front to attract SAM fire, and then send the bombers in behind it. Given the "long" reload times for missiles, a single scrub-bug could potentially cause a defensive line to become inept to the approaching huge wave of tanks for far too long. So... don't change the Scourge functionality is all I'm sayin'.

That said, I disagree that the AC would need a projectile speed upgrade to be effective AA; once the AA-hit detection is fixed, what you would have is an AC what misses fast airborne targets consistently, but does wonders at bringing down slower moving bombers while not suffering the long reload times of an SAM. Which if I were to imagine a cannon firing "up", is what I would expect at least.

Well, it's not "rapid" at all, it takes about as much time for a VTOL army to destroy 8 bases to research Stormy and Stormy Site. Stormies are completely unviable as AA unless you've researched them way ahead of time.

I put rapid in quotes for just that reason. It's not "rapid" compared to AA, but it is compared to SAMs. I still suggest that they should be researchable as soon as the flashlight is done however; Lasers are far along enough in the tech tree as is, and the Stormbringer is pretty far down even THAT tree.

Cough. I added it.

Most of my 2.1.X play has been campaign, with a smattering of skirmish. If it is not in the SP mode, then the couple times I researched it in skirmish mode I may have missed it. My bad.

(This, by the way, is ridiculously easy to figure out using my guide, ahem ahem)

Yes, yes, you have a guide, and it rules. Sorry. But I was right about the weird pre-req at least . As for a suggestion about it, just have all final weapon RoF upgrades tie into a late-game system-tech that everyone is likely to get anyway. Factory Production of some variety would work (I don't see why you hate it), or perhaps the currently-pointless Command Turret upgrades (I.E. better commanders let you put more ordinance on a target faster?). Doesn't make much sense, but it's better than 105mm Cannon loaders preventing you from knowing how to reload AA guns.

As long as we are int he "why does X have Y as a pre-req", I never understood why Advanced Cyborg production could technically be researched without Automated or Robotic versions first. Ah well.

they're one of the few non-BB weapons that does more than 50% damage against hard structures and bunkers.

That is true from a % standpoint, but the raw damage of these weapons still made them way more effective at anti-structure warfare than anything else in 1.10. If reducing Rocket vs. hardcrete ends up making cannons have the same problem.... eesh. Who on earth made a cannon round and an anti-tank rocket the same type of damage in this game .

Good ideas. Artillery already have a ridiculously high anti-personnel bonus, though, and they're really effective against pretty much everything except tanks, and pretty decent against tanks, too (hence why MRL is so powerful). I'm not sure they need better anti-structure bonus. Remember that I'm not bringing their damage back down to 1.10 levels, but significantly higher than that.

The artillery rounds themselves have a high bonus to AntiPersonnel, but I wasn't aware their burning aftereffects had any bonus beyond what "burning" normally does. As for the anti-structure part, If the only weapon you open up to "earlier research" in the incendiary-artillery tree is the Mortar, then you could still counter it's early effects with further Hardcrete/Base Structure research, without changing the dynamic of the Incen-howitzer any.

Note that flamer cyborgs live plenty long enough to deliver their payloads in 2.1, since machineguns were nerfed, few other weapons are very effective against cyborgs, and their HP/armor were increased.

I was more referring to FlamerTanks. But yes, this went from one end of the usefulness scale to the other in a hurry.

And considering the TK is already one of the longest-range weapons out there...

The "bug" with TK weapons not firing often that I (and some others) experience in the Campaign makes it's effective range much shorter than it's actual one, which is what I was basing my statements off of. In any event, you can disregard that part of my post if you want; I just don't want the "Nexus Scourges killing Tiger-Track Tanks from 3 screens away in 2 volleys" to return. I know that, with NEXUS not producing their own units, there has to be "some" way of adding difficulty to the GAMMA campaign, but the above method is a terrible way of doing it .

Note that Nexus actually has range-16 Scourge Towers. All Nexus sensors are range-16.

Keyboard-finger slip.

[Zarel]

We have a double pulse laser? Please, enough with the double weapons.

(The problem with the Internet is that I can't tell if you're joking)

I was referring to doubling the ROF of the Pulse Laser.

(V lasers/missiles) I think that there should just be a load of new anti air weapons that are base on the previous weapons. Such as a lancer with only one side (fires one rocket)

There are already SAMs on the rocket/missile line.

(Stormy) I think it should remain as it is, it's useless early on but it's still not brilliant after researching everything, I find that the Vindicator SAM is much better.

Really? It feels way too powerful to me. Then again, I'm usually several levels of research ahead of the AI in skirmishes by that point, and multiplayer games end way before reaching that point...

I suggest adding a twin or single machine gun tower/emplacement that has to be researched first.(but after researching MG)

The main idea of having such a strong tower in early game is because defense is important in early game (and because game designers probably want players to survive beyond the initial rush, otherwise the game wouldn't be very fun.

(MG Guard Tower) Wouldn't this just make slower/worse players (even more) helpless against rush attacks? I notice that some RTS games solve this by making it hard to build base defenses anywhere on the map, but easy around your own base.

Nah, slower/worse players would want to make a Command Center first. It's the rushers with an innate idea of Warzone mechanics that put off Command Center as long as possible (it's unnecessary until you want tanks - I think it might even be completely unnecessary if you use cyborgs and trucks exclusively).

(Mortars) Ok, maybe. But they were seriously underpowered in 1.10. Maybe going down to 2x instead of 3x? Keep in mind that mortars are still rather hard to use, since units with mortars need to stop to fire.

So were flamers. Multiplying their damage by 3 is a really good way to go from "seriously underpowered" to "seriously overpowered", and many people I've spoken to say mortars are overpowered in 2.1.

(Flamers) The high rate of fire is a nice effect. It is visually pleasing

I agree. I'll just nerf damage and leave the ROF untouched.

Are you sure fortresses are still so underpowered? After our work on the targetting code, they have become a lot better. Also, it would be better that they have some weaknesses, such as that you need to build sensors towers or sensor droids for them that can be attacked by the enemy.

I guess you're right. But it seems that they should be able to see further than towers. 12, then?

Oh, I'm not worried about the "lore", as it were. It's just that we don't use Sidewinders for anti-tank purposes anymore than we use Tomahawks to take out F-16s. Also, a common Airborne strat is to send a scrub bug-MG plane in front to attract SAM fire, and then send the bombers in behind it. Given the "long" reload times for missiles, a single scrub-bug could potentially cause a defensive line to become inept to the approaching huge wave of tanks for far too long. So... don't change the Scourge functionality is all I'm sayin'.

Others seem to appear, so I guess I will make it lasers V, scourge AG.

That said, I disagree that the AC would need a projectile speed upgrade to be effective AA; once the AA-hit detection is fixed, what you would have is an AC what misses fast airborne targets consistently, but does wonders at bringing down slower moving bombers while not suffering the long reload times of an SAM. Which if I were to imagine a cannon firing "up", is what I would expect at least.

Not a bad idea.

I put rapid in quotes for just that reason. It's not "rapid" compared to AA, but it is compared to SAMs. I still suggest that they should be researchable as soon as the flashlight is done however; Lasers are far along enough in the tech tree as is, and the Stormbringer is pretty far down even THAT tree.

Agreed.

Most of my 2.1.X play has been campaign, with a smattering of skirmish. If it is not in the SP mode, then the couple times I researched it in skirmish mode I may have missed it. My bad.

I meant I added it in my rebalance. Parts of it will go into trunk soon, but not yet.

Yes, yes, you have a guide, and it rules. Sorry. But I was right about the weird pre-req at least . As for a suggestion about it, just have all final weapon RoF upgrades tie into a late-game system-tech that everyone is likely to get anyway. Factory Production of some variety would work (I don't see why you hate it), or perhaps the currently-pointless Command Turret upgrades (I.E. better commanders let you put more ordinance on a target faster?). Doesn't make much sense, but it's better than 105mm Cannon loaders preventing you from knowing how to reload AA guns.

I hate Automated Factory Production since I don't use it except for as a research prereq. I usually find power the bottleneck for unit production rather than production speed. And if you need faster production speed, just build more factories. Faster factory production just makes production harder to keep track of.

As long as we are int he "why does X have Y as a pre-req", I never understood why Advanced Cyborg production could technically be researched without Automated or Robotic versions first. Ah well.

Warzone is full of stuff like that (Engines, VTOL rearming, etc). I like it - it lets people familiar with the research tree to save some power.

That is true from a % standpoint, but the raw damage of these weapons still made them way more effective at anti-structure warfare than anything else in 1.10. If reducing Rocket vs. hardcrete ends up making cannons have the same problem.... eesh. Who on earth made a cannon round and an anti-tank rocket the same type of damage in this game .

They're both direct kinetic anti-tank. I guess I could make rockets thermal. I've been considering doing that. Thermal works better against early-game tanks and cyborgs, kinetic works better against structures.

The artillery rounds themselves have a high bonus to AntiPersonnel, but I wasn't aware their burning aftereffects had any bonus beyond what "burning" normally does. As for the anti-structure part, If the only weapon you open up to "earlier research" in the incendiary-artillery tree is the Mortar, then you could still counter it's early effects with further Hardcrete/Base Structure research, without changing the dynamic of the Incen-howitzer any.

Well, they're also thermal damage, and cyborgs have much lower thermal armor. Incendiary artillery is pretty much the best anti-cyborg weapon in existence.

[Mysteryem]

(The problem with the Internet is that I can't tell if you're joking)

I was referring to doubling the ROF of the Pulse Laser.

Ah I see, it's just that twin pulse lasers have featured in quite a few mods, I understand the sense of what you said now.

Really? It feels way too powerful to me. Then again, I'm usually several levels of research ahead of the AI in skirmishes by that point, and multiplayer games end way before reaching that point...

Although that's probably because of some of the problems with AA at the moment, currently I find that it does loads of damage, but hardly ever hits.

The main idea of having such a strong tower in early game is because defense is important in early game (and because game designers probably want players to survive beyond the initial rush, otherwise the game wouldn't be very fun.

I still see them as too powerfull, I only think that other structures should be researched before it in T0 no bases. Anyway, won't a twin MG be classed as strong considering you start off with single MG. Maybe you could give it a different MG than has a slightly higher base damage than a normal MG. In the same sort of way that the sensor tower has a longer range than the sensor turret (mp only).

[Alpha93]

- AA-gun - should obviously be AA-only

What's all this dislike for Flak88s

Make Cyclone able to fire at ground targets xD

[themousemaster]

Sorry Zarel, but I feel compelled to post this:

I hate Automated Factory Production since I don't use it except for as a research prereq. I usually find power the bottleneck for unit production rather than production speed. And if you need faster production speed, just build more factories. Faster factory production just makes production harder to keep track of.

I think {The Command Center} it might even be completely unnecessary if you use cyborgs and trucks exclusively

Warzone is full of stuff like that (Engines, VTOL rearming, etc). I like it - it lets people familiar with the research tree to save some power.

It sounds like you are specifically favoring yourself in these changes.

In the first quote, you don't like the Factory idea because it makes your own pre-planned strategies harder to maintain, whilst micro-managing exact power income (as inidcated by the second quote, where you indicate you are so specific as to used power that you might end up not even making a CC to min/max your output potential);

But then in the 3rd quote, you like the Cyborg research inconsistency because it allows advanced users to circumvent a logical flow to allow them to do better, to further min/max their output.



The overall tone of these aspects taken together give the impression that the rebalancing's purpose may be less to bring individual weapons viably in line with each other, and more catered to pinpoint-precise strategies used only by the players concerned with multiplayer balance of the e-sport mentality (for example, professional Starcraft competitors).

This is, as you might expect from one such as me who is less into competitive MP matches and more into logical coherence, a train of thought I tend to (for lack of a more eloquent way of putting this) "not like".






*Please note that I am not trying to dismiss your entire proposal, or even really any specific aspect, despite my quotes above; as history has repeatedly proven, just because a student disagrees with a teacher's methods, that doesn't necessarily mean the lesson being taught is wrong. But if I were forced to pick, I would make a change that favors "logical sense" over "advanced gameplay".

[Zarel]

Sorry Zarel, but I feel compelled to post this:

No need to apologize for this kind of stuff, seriously. I criticize Troman's balancing often enough, I should be able to take it myself. However, I think you're misinterpreting me.

"I hate Automated Factory Production since I don't use it except for as a research prereq. I usually find power the bottleneck for unit production rather than production speed. And if you need faster production speed, just build more factories. Faster factory production just makes production harder to keep track of."

"I think {The Command Center} it might even be completely unnecessary if you use cyborgs and trucks exclusively"

"Warzone is full of stuff like that (Engines, VTOL rearming, etc). I like it - it lets people familiar with the research tree to save some power."

It sounds like you are specifically favoring yourself in these changes.

In the first quote, you don't like the Factory idea because it makes your own pre-planned strategies harder to maintain, whilst micro-managing exact power income (as inidcated by the second quote, where you indicate you are so specific as to used power that you might end up not even making a CC to min/max your output potential);

But then in the 3rd quote, you like the Cyborg research inconsistency because it allows advanced users to circumvent a logical flow to allow them to do better, to further min/max their output.

I think you should pay closer attention to my tone.

I never said I wanted to change anything, I was just bringing up that I disagreed with your contention that "everyone is likely to get" AFP. I say I usually don't get AFP unless I'm going cannons. By the same idea, I said I like the skipping upgrades tree organization since it lets me save power.

In neither case do I say I want to change the game to accommodate my preferences. Analogously, I'd like to be able to make my units completely indestructible, but I wouldn't actually change the game to let me do that - I'm a balancer, not an imbalance-the-game-in-my-favor-er.

Remember, the only major changes I'm currently proposing are the ones in my first post. Rest assured, I'm not going to change the game just to make it better for me.

As for my second quote, I meant that I dislike the fact that min/maxers could play cyborgs without ever creating a CC (and this is something I think is severe enough to be changed - and I would change it only after posting a topic for people to discuss the idea first). So I meant exactly the opposite of how I think you interpreted me.

The overall tone of these aspects taken together give the impression that the rebalancing's purpose may be less to bring individual weapons viably in line with each other, and more catered to pinpoint-precise strategies used only by the players concerned with multiplayer balance of the e-sport mentality (for example, professional Starcraft competitors).

This is, as you might expect from one such as me who is less into competitive MP matches and more into logical coherence, a train of thought I tend to (for lack of a more eloquent way of putting this) "not like".

I'm not sure where you got that impression. Most of the rebalancing proposed in my first post is along the lines of:
1. Make the research tree make more sense (such as removing the Fast Fire Mini-Rockets prereq for lancer, or making CB tower require Mortar Targeting Computer)
2. Give min/maxers less advantage over more "casual" players (such as making CC a prereq for more things, so min/maxers can't get a time/power advantage by skipping it)
3. Make more weapons balanced so they're all viable, instead of 2.1's situation, where only mortars, cannons, mini-pods, and flamer cyborgs are usable (such as nerfing cannons and strengthening rockets/missiles)
4. Make weapons and other technology more diverse (such as increasing tower range, or making lasers versatile)

As far as I know, #3 is exactly bringing "individual weapons viably in line with each other", and #2 is preventing "pinpoint-precise strategies".

[themousemaster]

I think you should pay closer attention to my tone.

This being a text-based forum, I can't really go off of "tone", just the words. Unless you are saying a voice-forum for WZ2100 is coming...


The reason I thought the way I did was this. I'll put the quotes in order to try and describe my train of thought, with certain parts bolded for emphasis:

Nah, slower/worse players would want to make a Command Center first.

It's the rushers with an innate idea of Warzone mechanics that put off Command Center as long as possible

I hate Automated Factory Production since I don't use it except for as a research prereq. I usually find power the bottleneck for unit production rather than production speed.

Warzone is full of stuff like that (Engines, VTOL rearming, etc). I like it - it lets people familiar with the research tree to save some power.

and #2 is preventing "pinpoint-precise strategies".

When taken like this, it makes it sound like you think that people who use Command Centers are worse players, which you aren't because you are optimizing your production (which is why you dislike having a "tech pre-req"), which is an ability you like to have by being able to skip logical flow of Cyborg Production Enhancements.

I figured (since you had used self-referential pronouns in quotes 3 and 4, but not 2) that you did not like rushers, so you wanted to stop the all-or-nothing rush-tower strat, without impeding your own strategies in any way. And then, quote 5 isn't actually true; it's only preventing pinpoint-precise all-or-nothing rush-tower strategies. No others would really be affected, since the Command Center is a fixed cost, and that for any strat that starts by building infrastructure rather than rushing to an enemy base, fixed-cost additions aren't part of the larger picture (any equation of the form ax + b has b's significance decrease over time).

Hence, why I thought this was somewhat self-fueled. I got the wind of "I need to stop do-or-die rush-towerers from being able to beat my carefully planned strats". Perhaps I'm spending too much time reading the WoW and Red Alert forums.




Please note, I agree (agreed, way back in post #2) about the CommandCenter change... I really have no qualms with said change, or for that matter, most of what you posted. Out of that whole original post, I agreed with, had only nitpicks/tangential ideas on, or agreed to "see" in a beta version, all the changes mentioned, save for the "logically flowing" ones; which were the pre-reqs, and the "upward firing" lasers. For the lasers, you said you'd be changing their "physics" anyway, so that point went sorta moot, and for the pre-reqs, I just find the weird-prereq RoF's and the Skippable Cyborg advancements to, as Yhatzee would put it, "break flow" of the robust tech tree.

[Zarel]

This being a text-based forum, I can't really go off of "tone", just the words. Unless you are saying a voice-forum for WZ2100 is coming...

I dunno, I seem to believe I can get some idea of tone from a post.

When taken like this, it makes it sound like you think that people who use Command Centers are worse players, which you aren't because you are optimizing your production (which is why you dislike having a "tech pre-req"), which is an ability you like to have by being able to skip logical flow of Cyborg Production Enhancements.

I don't judge whether someone is a "good player" or a "bad player". I couldn't care less about whether players are good or bad. My job is game balance, and that's the important part: How fun the game is. I think it's not fun for Command Center to be skippable, because then players are going without a minimap or "go to X" shortcuts.

I figured (since you had used self-referential pronouns in quotes 3 and 4, but not 2) that you did not like rushers, so you wanted to stop the all-or-nothing rush-tower strat, without impeding your own strategies in any way. And then, quote 5 isn't actually true; it's only preventing pinpoint-precise all-or-nothing rush-tower strategies. No others would really be affected, since the Command Center is a fixed cost, and that for any strat that starts by building infrastructure rather than rushing to an enemy base, fixed-cost additions aren't part of the larger picture (any equation of the form ax + b has b's significance decrease over time).

I don't mind rushers. Rushing is a good strategy. It's the specific tower-rush that I don't like, and I've explained why I don't like it - because it's overpowered. It's definitely "impeding my own strategies", since I do tower rushing myself, which is how I can tell that it's overpowered. Furthermore, I've never had anyone do it to me, so it's not as if I'm trying to improve my chances of winning.

My justification for making tower-rushing more difficult is, again, because it's not fun. The only thing that can counter a tower rush is a tower rush. If you didn't build a research facility, research machinegun, and research machinegun guard tower immediately, you're pretty much guaranteed to lose in a small map like Rush, if your opponent decides to tower rush. To me, this is poorly balanced, and many agree with me. It shouldn't be possible to build towers in an opponent's base so long before your opponent has enough time to make MG Viper Wheels.

Hence, why I thought this was somewhat self-fueled. I got the wind of "I need to stop do-or-die rush-towerers from being able to beat my carefully planned strats". Perhaps I'm spending too much time reading the WoW and Red Alert forums.

Well, that was a misinterpretation. It was more like "It seems that there is consensus that tower rushing is overpowered, and from my calculations it seems so to me." I'm not affected by tower rushing, since I know to build a research facility first, and immediately research MG and MG Guard Tower. It's just that it's too easy to overwhelm more casual players with a tower rush. I wasn't thinking of myself at all when I wanted to change how MG Guard Tower worked.

For the pre-reqs, I just find the weird-prereq RoF's and the Skippable Cyborg advancements to, as Yhatzee would put it, "break flow" of the robust tech tree.

I can make them un-skippable, but that should be in another thread.

[themousemaster]

I can make them un-skippable, but that should be in another thread.

While my motivations about their chaging are from a logical flow standpoint and not a balance one, the fact remains that moving things around the tree, or adding/removing pre-reqs, does indeed involve questions of balance, so I dropped them in here.

I'll be happy to shut up now.

[Buginator]

Wake me up when we start to talk about doomsday weapons.


As for the rebalancing stuff, I would just make several mods, and have people test which one works the best.
While it is one thing for people to *talk* about it, it is another thing to actually see what it does *in game*.


Continue on