More rebalancing!

[zspace]

Why does limiting the multibuild number seem weird?

Try putting up a fence by yourself- slow, 2 people speed it up, 200 people will just be too many, you'll have a lot of people sitting around doing nothing.

Its basically the law of diminishing returns. Past a certain point, each additional worker will be less and less productive.... this would be much harder to implement (say 2nd truck is at 2/3 the build rate, then the 3rd is 2/3 of 2/3, etc....), but a cap of around 3 or 4 would be fine and simple.

I like this idea, though it effect might be a bit to much. That way we could keep the larger truck number (so you can multi task), and the multi build (still contributes to multi task, because you don't have to watch them constantly to build the next in say a line of walls).
Lets say you have all 15 of your trucks working on a single building/defense. The old style would give you a 15x build speed (at least thats what I assume from playing the game).
If you half the build rate bonus each time (1,0.5,0.25...) you would drop the rate to just under 2x, which is much to slow. Using 2/3 only get you back up to 3x, I don't think that it should be any less then half speed (which was already talked about and would be roughly 7x) which would require a number more along the lines of 8/9 (1+(8/9) + (8/9)^2...(8/9)^14) = 7.46x for 15 trucks, and using 10 would still get you a reasonable 6.2x.

The only problem I see with this solution is that it does nothing to reduce truck rushing (just the insta-fortified effect). You can still spam trucks and build quickly, though the rebalance of the walls/bunkers might fix that.

[ThomasCarstein]

you mean 5 trucks per building / hardpoint / etc...?? naw - that takes for ever - 10 to 15 is awesomeness. stuff is built way faster - at least for myself. xD

Agreed... What problems do more trucks, assigned to help building, create anyway (besides a mess in your unit constelations)? The ones that help the builder can't do nothing else during this time...

Btw, i don't know how this works exactly: if more trucks build a building, do the resources get drained any faster or more? If yes, then it's like in Warcraft 2 and 3 - you get the building finished faster, but you also lose more money faster, so it's a fair tradeoff. If not, i think that it should be implemented in this way: for each additional truck beyond the first, a small fraction of the original build cost is added to the overall cost - so more trucks, faster building and less money

[elio]

Btw, i don't know how this works exactly: if more trucks build a building, do the resources get drained any faster or more?

no, the power is fully collected before the structure's being built

[zydonk]

Trucks: perhaps it's a matter of tactics. I often create forward strong points and maintain them with 2-3 trucks. With 4-5 trucks to maintain base, the 15 truck limit is soon reached. But I think it is, ime (in my experience), a pretty good balance. As for build tactics: if someone wants to play the game with 15 trucks building reactive defences, then that's OK. Only he'll soon find no-one is interested in playing with him. But there are times when you might need to put 6-8 trucks on to a job. That should remain an option.

Zarel: I've played only one game with your rebal (The Pit, 6.5 hours in, one AI down, two to go). While I acknowledge that it feels fine as a rebal, it is also just that bit dull. I mean, rebalance is a tendency towards a kind of average, ie beige. Of course, this judgement is based on a particular game style. I have no use for cannons (not even when they become double-barrel monsters as in some mods), preferring rocketry and later lasers instead. I also play defensive in first half and don't build vehicles until I have the pulse, after which I go out to play. Incidentally, is a pulse bunker too strong? I think the original balance of flashlight hp and pulse emplacement was just about right. With high rof and range, the pulse can be a lethal weapon.

The problem with letting every incidence of a weapon type shoot VTOLs means that they (VTOLs) lose much of their value. The race to keep AA research abreast of VTOL dev is always a sweaty one and should remain so. Once again, this is an area where I feel Pumpkin got it about right.

Said before, but a quick rehash. While Zarel is attempting to rebal the 1.10 vintage, there seems always a tendency in such rebals towards one game style or another. Much of Troman's work tended to serve the shortish mp rush game. But the original WZ was intended to allow a much more open, strategic long game, which is indicated by the extensive research lines and quite complex maps. Again, there is nothing wrong with developing good rush mods, but my complaint against Troman's rebals was that he inserted them into the game itself as standard. And they are still there. I would be very happy to hear - and I'm sure others would too - that something like Zarel's painstaking rebals will be introduced into the game as standard.

[ThomasCarstein]

no, the power is fully collected before the structure's being built

Silly me, didn't remember :rolleyes: Anyway, I also think that the 15 truck limit is ok; after all you don't need to build all of them, but it's nice to know that you can if so many are needed

[themousemaster]

An in case you're looking for other damage types; you realize Warzone Guide says so if you mouse over the damage, as well as if you go to the Avenger SAM details - direct homing kinetic anti-tank missile.

Oh. Well, at least now I know why I didn't see it... that site is blocked at my work ;p.

So it is missile and not rocket. just checking ;p

[Zarel]

Agreed... What problems do more trucks, assigned to help building, create anyway (besides a mess in your unit constelations)? The ones that help the builder can't do nothing else during this time...

Warzone isn't StarCraft - A truck is useless if you're not repairing or building anything. So when you're building something, you generally want all the nearby trucks on it, since they don't have anything else to do. And when you're building frontline defenses, this poses a problem. Now let's go and make a different thread for this already.

Zarel: I've played only one game with your rebal (The Pit, 6.5 hours in, one AI down, two to go). While I acknowledge that it feels fine as a rebal, it is also just that bit dull. I mean, rebalance is a tendency towards a kind of average, ie beige. Of course, this judgement is based on a particular game style. I have no use for cannons (not even when they become double-barrel monsters as in some mods), preferring rocketry and later lasers instead. I also play defensive in first half and don't build vehicles until I have the pulse, after which I go out to play. Incidentally, is a pulse bunker too strong? I think the original balance of flashlight hp and pulse emplacement was just about right. With high rof and range, the pulse can be a lethal weapon.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by dull. It's a rebalance - it's intended to make the game fairer, allow for more nuanced strategy, and make more weapons usable, s'all.

A pulse bunker would probably be too strong, which is why neither the original game nor the Rebalance has it. Pulse is lethal to infantry, but pretty weak against tanks and walls/hardpoints.

The problem with letting every incidence of a weapon type shoot VTOLs means that they (VTOLs) lose much of their value. The race to keep AA research abreast of VTOL dev is always a sweaty one and should remain so. Once again, this is an area where I feel Pumpkin got it about right.

And it's a pretty imbalanced/unfair/unfun race. Nonetheless, the change is only to give flashlight and pulse lasers the ability to shoot VTOLs. Pumpkin's balance was pretty good - they let much more than just AA shoot VTOLs. Not just machineguns, either - did you know rocket and missile cyborgs can shoot VTOLs? No one really notices cyborgs enough, although I've been seeing more of them in Rebalance, which is great.

Said before, but a quick rehash. While Zarel is attempting to rebal the 1.10 vintage, there seems always a tendency in such rebals towards one game style or another. Much of Troman's work tended to serve the shortish mp rush game. But the original WZ was intended to allow a much more open, strategic long game, which is indicated by the extensive research lines and quite complex maps. Again, there is nothing wrong with developing good rush mods, but my complaint against Troman's rebals was that he inserted them into the game itself as standard. And they are still there. I would be very happy to hear - and I'm sure others would too - that something like Zarel's painstaking rebals will be introduced into the game as standard.

My Rebalance is standard in 2.2.

[3drts]

The only problem I see with this solution is that it does nothing to reduce truck rushing (just the insta-fortified effect). You can still spam trucks and build quickly, though the rebalance of the walls/bunkers might fix that.

Combine it with a corresponding 2x increase in structure build time (since they get 2x HP), and now it is viable to pump MG viper wheels out of your factory to kill three trucks building 3 different buildings before any building is complete.
Because once a structure is finished, your combat units don't stand a chance against it that early in the game.
So the only viable option, is to tell your factory to build more trucks, and build a structure next to the one the enemy is building (since they just target the closest enemy), or next to the enemy trucks (with it between your trucks and the enemy structure), and it turns into some stupid building contest with trucks that quickly leaves your out of resources (especially if the other person is demolishing structures before they are destroyed, when they can't be saved- to put a new one up moments later)
Why make three MG viper wheels, when you can make three trucks?
Run into 3 mg vipers? no problem,you can have that MG tower up in a jiffy with just three trucks, which will easily beat 3 mg viper wheels - oh, and while you at it you can also cap oil and set up forward factories, and wall the place off- who needs combat units when a group of trucks can pop fortified positions out of their arses at a moments notice?

This requires 2 changes:
#1) increasing build time on structures
#2) limiting how many trucks can work on a structure at once

Without #2, it is easy to compensate for #1 - trucks are pretty cheap


I also feel there is maybe some issues with walls - hate it when I get walled off early on, by one truck, that then puts up a MG tower - I can't get through the wall with structures, and none of my units have enough firepower to deal with the wall early on while being shot by the MG.
Granted, I will do this too and wall other people off.

I was wondering if maybe hardcrete can be put farther down the tech tree- requiring one more engineering research - so you get tank traps first - which allow you to shoot the trucks behind trying to wall you off (or has the collision detection based system changed that?) - or at least target the enemy MG tower (which is much easier to kill when its not behind a wall)

making them available at the same time...... I'll just say I haven't seen tank traps used in multiplayer yet, I have seen a lot of walls.
Putting walls down the list will make TT used more - and isn't the goal of rebalance to make everything have a use?

[Zarel]

I also feel there is maybe some issues with walls - hate it when I get walled off early on, by one truck, that then puts up a MG tower - I can't get through the wall with structures, and none of my units have enough firepower to deal with the wall early on while being shot by the MG.
Granted, I will do this too and wall other people off.

This is why partial build needs to be implemented. I believe it'll be up soon.

I was wondering if maybe hardcrete can be put farther down the tech tree- requiring one more engineering research - so you get tank traps first - which allow you to shoot the trucks behind trying to wall you off (or has the collision detection based system changed that?) - or at least target the enemy MG tower (which is much easier to kill when its not behind a wall)

making them available at the same time...... I'll just say I haven't seen tank traps used in multiplayer yet, I have seen a lot of walls.
Putting walls down the list will make TT used more - and isn't the goal of rebalance to make everything have a use?

I don't know about tank traps. I can't really find a use for them. One of my proposals was to let cyborgs walk through them, but I'm not sure how well that would work.

Pushing hardcrete back has an unfortunate consequence because every defense except MG tower requires it. Maybe I could make bunkers cheaper?

[3drts]

Tank traps...... well I've been tempted to use them - one game I walled off a large area- no defenses, but I knew the opponent had nutin' but trucks, and at 15 per tile rather than 25, they did pose some cost savings......
but I still went with walls to protect my trucks more, and for the higher hp so i might be able to get a truck to the wall in time if a single unit with a "light" weapon started shooting at the wall.

I suppose other options are making bunkers require tank traps, and hardpoints require hardcrete.

If anyone wants a "lore" reason for it- say bunkers are typically dug into the ground (with only the top sticking out), like tank traps, and the engineering tech and the tank traps tech unlocks a sort of "trench" engineering.

What if we ret-con tank traps as sort of a sunken pit of spikes or what not- and allow hovers and cyborgs to bypass them?

bah... what would be the point, it just reenforces that everyone only builds walls.

What is a stronger defense... a MG bunker behind/in a line of tank traps, or a mg tower behind a hardcrete wall?
The only real incentive for tank traps, is that you can shoot out of them with "low to the ground" direct fire weapons - ie bunkers and droids.

Bunkers would have to be significantly more powerful relative to towers to provide incentives to use TT+bunkers rather than wall+towers.
We might even see composite walls - with bunkers in the line, or behind it, with "firing ports" made out of tank traps on adjacent tiles so the bunker can shoot at its target.
But I don't see making bunkers über powerful being a good thing....

Maybe tank traps can be like the mines implemented in 1.12 - present, but invisible.
Rather than exploding like a mine, upon entering the same tile, the tank trap is revealed and the unit cannot pass. This might cause pathfinding problems though...

You could wall off areas without your enemy being able to see they've been walled off until they try to pass.

I'm not sure how to properly balance the Tank Trap's and Hardcrete walls.

[Deus Siddis]

6. The big cannon/rail vs rocket/missile split.

I've been talking about this for a long time on the IRC channel, but I haven't mentioned it on the forums.

Basically, the idea is to change the multipliers for cannons vs rockets. Anti-tank is a huge type. It's the primary type of 5 different subclasses: cannons, rails, mini-rockets, rockets, and missiles. The next most popular type is artillery, which only has 3 subclasses: mortars, howitzers, and bombs. And it's really only two - bombs are just VTOL versions of mortars. All other types only span 2 subclasses at most.

So that's why I'm proposing a split: Give cannons/rails one type, and mini-rockets/rockets/missiles another. Here are the multipliers: . . .

Okay so what you have done is make missile more anti armor and cannons more general purpose. That sounds good, but what I would also like to see is some more diversification of rockets/missiles to be useful against more than just tanks and bunkers (and now vtols I think). So I propose that minirockets be anti- cyborg, light vehicle, base structure, instead of anti heavy vehicle, bunker, etc.

My thinking on this is that you already have cannons and rails that hurt the hard targets and machine guns and lasers that hurt soft targets. Missiles/Rockets on the other hand are more like artillery- they are not about what kind of things they attack but how they attack it. There should be different missile/rocket weapons for different target types just as there are different artillery weapons for different target types. But all missiles/rockets should share the common role amoung them, as skirmisher weapons- long range, powerful salvo attack with long reload between salvos, lightweight for increased platform speed.

As an aside, is it just me or some do missiles and rockets like the lancer have less range relative to cannons in tromans balance? They should really have at least 25% more range than cannons and rails.

7. Decrease upgrades

Here's a much better idea that was brought up on this forum a little while ago: REMOVE UPGRADES!

. . .from multiplayer and skirmish that is, not the campaign. As folks have already said, you see so little of the tech tree in a multi or skirmish game because they are usually over long before anyone has time to research technologies AND all of their damn upgrades.

At least an option to turn upgrades off for multiplayer and skirmish would be extremely cool.

8. Cyborg factory has been moved down a bit, and only requires Engineering

Previously, in Rebalance, it required Fuel Injection Engine, and before that, in 2.1/1.10, it required Hardened MG Bullets. It was changed because cyborgs have nothing to do with machineguns. I'm moving it to Engineering because it's closer in terms of time to get to as Hardened MG Bullets than FIE.

9. Cyborgs don't have to be researched.

Research flamer, get flamer cyborg free. Research lancer, get lancer cyborgs, etc. Borg factory still has to be researched, and heavy cyborgs still have to be researched.

It's a bit unfair that you can use weapons in tanks and VTOLs just by researching the weapon, but you need to research it again to use it in a cyborg. This fixes that, and should make cyborgs better.

Excellent, but don't stop there- make the cyborg factory available immediatly with no requirements.

10. Lifted structure requirements for many research items.
Researching borg transports don't require a VTOL factory built anymore. Researching Command Turret doesn't require Command Relay Post built anymore. This is so people who don't study the research tree can still get these items. The structures are still required to build them, of course, but now people will be able to see them in the research screen, first, and maybe then they'll be more inclined to build them.

Again, don't stop, lift them all!

[Zarel]

Okay so what you have done is make missile more anti armor and cannons more general purpose. That sounds good, but what I would also like to see is some more diversification of rockets/missiles to be useful against more than just tanks and bunkers (and now vtols I think). So I propose that minirockets be anti- cyborg, light vehicle, base structure, instead of anti heavy vehicle, bunker, etc.

We only have 6 types. The only other type I can replace is bunker buster, and I don't think I should. And rockets/missiles are diverse, they include MRL, a very good anti-hardcrete, bunker buster, a very good long range anti-bunker, SAMs, very good anti-air. They don't come with any good anti-cyborg defenses, but they have everything else covered, and they're already way more diverse than most other subclass progressions.

I mean, compare them:
rocket/missile - long-range anti-tank, long-range anti-bunker/wall, long-range anti-cyborg/wall, artillery-range anti-cyborg/wall, long-range anti-air
machinegun - medium-range anti-cyborg/air
laser - long-range anti-cyborg/air, long-range anti-air
cannon/rail - medium-range anti-tank/wall, long-range anti-tank/wall
mortar/howie - artillery-range anti-cyborg/wall
aagun - long-range anti-air
flamer - short-range anti-cyborg/tank/bunker
bomb - short-range anti-cyborg/wall

Rocket/missile are obviously far more diverse than the other types.

KEY:
cyborg - cyborgs, super cyborgs
tank - half tracks, tracks
wall - hardpoints, emplacements, CC
bunker - bunkers
air - vtols, transports

Other base structures, pits, towers, hovers, and wheels are excluded because they're weak against everything except dedicated anti-air.

My thinking on this is that you already have cannons and rails that hurt the hard targets and machine guns and lasers that hurt soft targets. Missiles/Rockets on the other hand are more like artillery- they are not about what kind of things they attack but how they attack it. There should be different missile/rocket weapons for different target types just as there are different artillery weapons for different target types. But all missiles/rockets should share the common role amoung them, as skirmisher weapons- long range, powerful salvo attack with long reload between salvos, lightweight for increased platform speed.

And as we learned, having a long range high damage weapon is simply too overpowered without specialization. And taking away the high damage aspect of rocket/missiles? No way.

As an aside, is it just me or some do missiles and rockets like the lancer have less range relative to cannons in tromans balance? They should really have at least 25% more range than cannons and rails.

The only range change to the rocket/missile progression is the increase of TK's range from 9 to 10.

Here's a much better idea that was brought up on this forum a little while ago: REMOVE UPGRADES!

. . .from multiplayer and skirmish that is, not the campaign. As folks have already said, you see so little of the tech tree in a multi or skirmish game because they are usually over long before anyone has time to research technologies AND all of their damn upgrades.

No. There is no "useless research fodder". Everything you research has a purpose other than just being a prerequisite for other research. Granted, few people ever use Command Relay Post, but it does serve a purpose. In any case, upgrades are very important, and researching them is an important part of Warzone strategy, and removing them would change Warzone far too much, and for the worse.

At least an option to turn upgrades off for multiplayer and skirmish would be extremely cool.

Mods. We're not going to support that option any more; it's simply not a good idea.

Excellent, but don't stop there- make the cyborg factory available immediatly with no requirements.

I'm considering a number of methods to prevent the early game from being a mindless truck rush, but I think moving borg factory up to the top would be a bit too much. It's fine where it is right now. Remember, Machinegunner no longer has to be separately researched, either.

Again, don't stop, lift them all!

I probably will at some point.

[ThomasCarstein]

Warzone isn't StarCraft - A truck is useless if you're not repairing or building anything. So when you're building something, you generally want all the nearby trucks on it, since they don't have anything else to do. And when you're building frontline defenses, this poses a problem. Now let's go and make a different thread for this already.

I mentioned Warcraft, but nevermind that since it's very similar. As for the obsolete trucks that don't do nothing - that's what the "recycle" option is for, i think Ok, enough with the trucks, for now.

7. Decrease upgrades

Here's a much better idea that was brought up on this forum a little while ago: REMOVE UPGRADES!

10. Lifted structure requirements for many research items.

Again, don't stop, lift them all!

I have an even better idea - remake the game in to Warzone 2000 redux, and get rid of ALL the research, ALL structures, ALL non-basic vehicles, ALL cyborgs, VTOL's, hovers and the rest of the 200+ designs that enable 4000+ different configurations and make WZ such a tedious, complicated and unsucessful game! (sarcasm detected)
There should be just 3 structures: a research center, a command center and a factory, which is able to produce only 3 types of vehicles: a buggy, a humwee and a tank; no other stuff like bunkers, hardpoints etc. - won't that be FUN? O_O
Seriously now: what is the point of ressurecting a game and then bringing it to it's full potential, only to later cut of it's flesh and play with it's skeleton? PLEASE consider, that not all players are hellbent on finishing the game in under 15 minutes with 1 truck rush
Me & my friends actually ENJOY researching stuff for more than 1 hour before we start whacking eachother with advanced weaponry, so at least leave players like us the fun of the original full game and make a minimal skinny version mod if you wish to play like that...

No. There is no "useless research fodder". Everything you research has a purpose other than just being a prerequisite for other research. Granted, few people ever use Command Relay Post, but it does serve a purpose. In any case, upgrades are very important, and researching them is an important part of Warzone strategy, and removing them would change Warzone far too much, and for the worse.

I'm happy to see you think this way, i agree with this^^

I probably will at some point.

Like i said, keep in mind that some of us actually prefer the game style as it is/was, including some type/version of a building required to make something else - it's part of the game's unique design PLEASE at least give players the option (like a mod or version) to play it like it was meant to be played by the original creators, so we can still have fun playing it :-S Bye, T.

[Zarel]

I have an even better idea - remake the game in to Warzone 2000 redux, and get rid of ALL the research, ALL structures, ALL non-basic vehicles, ALL cyborgs, VTOL's, hovers and the rest of the 200+ designs that enable 4000+ different configurations and make WZ such a tedious, complicated and unsucessful game! (sarcasm detected)
There should be just 3 structures: a research center, a command center and a factory, which is able to produce only 3 types of vehicles: a buggy, a humwee and a tank; no other stuff like bunkers, hardpoints etc. - won't that be FUN? O_O
Seriously now: what is the point of ressurecting a game and then bringing it to it's full potential, only to later cut of it's flesh and play with it's skeleton? PLEASE consider, that not all players are hellbent on finishing the game in under 15 minutes with 1 truck rush

Exactly. Upgrades that upgrade your weapons by insane amounts are part of what makes Warzone Warzone.

Me & my friends actually ENJOY researching stuff for more than 1 hour before we start whacking eachother with advanced weaponry, so at least leave players like us the fun of the original full game and make a minimal skinny version mod if you wish to play like that...

...although this is just excessive. You do realize you can start games in T3, right? Turtling and researching up isn't very fun unless you have to defend against people who use different strategies. If everyone does it, it's just a waste of time.

Unless you play with very limited oil, so you have to be careful in choosing what to research. But too many people I see who want to play with build times above half an hour also play on maps with tons of oil, defeating the whole point.

Like i said, keep in mind that some of us actually prefer the game style as it is/was, including some type/version of a building required to make something else - it's part of the game's unique design PLEASE at least give players the option (like a mod or version) to play it like it was meant to be played by the original creators, so we can still have fun playing it :-S Bye, T.

One of these days, I'll make an "original 1.10 balance" mod.

Regardless, why do you want structure requirements in the game? They're confusing for newcomers, since the research tree doesn't seem to be based on any prerequisites other than other research. Some of the developers only learned that technologies can have structure requirements when they read the changelog for Rebalance. This makes it so some players never find some technologies, if they never bother to build the corresponding structure. And some of these technologies are fun, and those players might never be able to experience the wonder of, say, Cyborg Transport.

Could you explain what exactly you like about structure prerequisites? I don't want to remove them if there's a good reason they should stay, and I would greatly appreciate if you could give me one.

Many times, when I think about "fixing" one of the "broken" aspects of the balance, I ask myself, "Why did Pumpkin do it this way?" or "Why did Troman do it this way?" and "Is my way really better?" and a lot of the time, I don't have a good answer.

I mean, sometimes, it was an obvious mistake they made - such as Pumpkin misspelling "Incendiary" or Troman never getting around to balancing T3 weapons or some later cyborgs (which can get pretty amusing - look at the 2.1 stats: Assault Gunner is weaker than Machinegunner). Other times, I don't know - such as Pumpkin pricing HPV hardpoint research at 3x the price of HPV research, or Troman reducing the price of all bodies so they're roughly equal - and when I change them, there's always some kind of doubt in my mind about whether I'm really doing the right thing.

So if you have ideas about why Pumpkin or Troman didn't do it "my way", I'd very much like to hear them.

[Per]

We only have 6 types.

We could easily do something about that.