Rebalance reconsidered

[Per]

I have been playing a number of games with some friends the last weeks, and come to think that perhaps it would be better if we inverted two of the basic assumptions of the rebalance effort.

These assumptions are:

• Cannons are anti-building, missiles/rockets are anti-tank. The fundamental problem with this is that cannons (other than HVC) have very low range, and to take out enemy defenses, you need to get close, at which point rocket/missiles defenses will have destroyed you. I think that we should swap these two, so that cannons are anti-tank, while direct fire rockets/missiles are anti-building. The player in T1 should also start with cannon instead of mg, and cannon bunker instead of mg tower. The early cannon should be so bad against buildings that cannon bunker rush should be pointless (unless you merely target enemy trucks), and cheap flamer cyborgs can remove them easily.
• Tracks are anti-turtle. Currently tracks get huge bonuses against indirect fire weapons. The idea is that they can make their way through enemy mortar/howitzer fire to break a turtler's defenses. The basic problem with this is its glacial speed - by the time the track units get close enough to fire, they will have received so much fire that a true turtler's defenses will have destroyed it, bonuses or no bonuses. This goes especially for the AI, which does not understand how to mass units properly. Instead, I think tracks should be for tanks-vs-tank combat, while hover propulsion should get bonuses against indirect fire weapons.

One other thing we need to fix is VTOL resupply - it takes way too much effort to build those rearm pads. We should be able to lay them down in stripes similar to walls and defenses. The require one-space-between buildings rule should not apply between rearm pads.

That said, I would like to add that we played almost as much Supreme Commander as Warzone, and the former crashed more, had worse path-finding, and no better AI. The game still holds up pretty well, if only we can improve the graphics a bit

Edit: Fixed text blooper in italics.

[Zarel]

Eheh. We had a long conversation about this on IRC.

The main problem with this is: Cannons are all-rounder. In addition to high damage to walls, they do high damage to tanks, and medium damage to cyborgs. Making them purely anti-tank is only going to make them do slightly more damage to tanks, but way less damage to everything else, and currently cannons don't need to be any weaker than they already are.

Rockets/missiles, on the other hand, are anti-tank. They are anti-tank because if they were anti-nearly-anything-else, they would be overpowered. Rockets/missiles used to do more damage to structures, but that made them overpowered - so much so that in the late game of 1.10, no one used anything except Scourge Missile, and 1.10 earned the nickname "Lancer Edition". This is because the advantages of rockets/missiles are long range and high damage.

In addition, rockets/missiles have always been extremely low HP, which makes them bad at anti-turtle in the first place. Rails, on the other hand, eventually have as much range as missiles, and are designed to be anti-turtle.

So in other words, these assumptions were made after lots of careful research, and inverting them would wreak havoc with balance.

Tracks being anti-turtle, on the other hand, is a valid objection. I can see removing hover's vulnerability to artillery. Maybe even giving it a 20% multiplier, so anyone dealing with hovers will find their artillery effectively useless. I'd need to up hover's vulnerability to other things, though, or else I can see everyone switching to hover for everything.

[Per]

So we agree about hover. That's progress Let's throw wheels in there, too, then using wheels will have some purpose too.

You are probably right about rockets. Changing them would require a lot of rethinking.

However, there is no reason why rockets and missiles have the same strengths. Rather, missiles should be more like artillery, and be good against buildings rather than tanks. With their awesome range, it is overkill that they are best against tanks.

In regards to cannons, I do not like all-rounder weapons. They either get too weak or too strong with little chance of there being anything in between. Cannon are way too weak early game, but get almost too strong late game. I think I would prefer that they do more damage to hardpoints, less damage to bunkers, and less damage to cyborgs. Perhaps also more damage against wheel and hover propulsions. That way they get more specialized. HVC range should be nerfed, though.

In regards to tower rush, let's make mg almost entirely useless against buildings other than bunkers. That will force rushers to use cannon bunkers, which are later and can easily be eaten by flamer cyborgs or mg stuff.

[Samowar]

So we agree about hover. That's progress Let's throw wheels in there, too, then using wheels will have some purpose too.

How about giving more HP to wheels and less to hover? This would make wheels useful even after hover is researched and it would compensate for the proposed artillery-immunity of hover.

Just one question: What game modes do such rebalances affect? Only Multiplayer or MP and Skirmish or even the Campaign? Because I think the balance shouldn't differ too much between those modes; I want to be able to transfer some of my experience about the strengths and weaknesses of the respective weapons from one mode to the other.

[Zarel]

New weapon: Bunker Blaster. T3 version of Bunker Buster with longer range (16), higher damage, and homing (which will be hilarious since it will do ~30% damage to anything that moves). Graphics, it should look like a twin bunker buster. Or maybe a slightly larger regular bunker buster, with stripes. Put it on hover and watch it annihilate artillery installments. Seems like it could be overpowered, though. Seems to fit the rocket philosophy - you have a bunch of different types of rockets, most of which are really only good against a single type of target. A nice contrast to cannons, which are more general-purpose.

I understand the dislike for all-rounder weapons, but cannon isn't that all-rounder. It can't hit VTOLs, and it does low damage to bunkers and only moderate damage to cyborgs - certainly not nearly as much as it does to walls and tanks. As they are, cannons are a bit weak, but they're still usable. HPV especially. How does everyone feel about decreasing prereqs of Needle Gun? Down to APFSDS Mk3?

Might be too much, though. Cannons are easier to get up:

MG -> Hardened -> Cannon -> HEAT C -> HEAT C 2 -> HEAT C 3 -> APFSDS C -> APFSDS C 2 -> APFSDS C 3

Compared to rockets:

Eng -> FIE -> MR -> HE MR -> HE MR 2 -> HE MR 3 -> HEAP MR -> Lancer -> HRW -> HRW 2 -> HRW 3 -> RLD -> TIR

I guess rockets are a bunch of smaller upgrades, while cannons are a few large upgrades. Maybe decrease HPV range/damage, then bring it down the tech tree? Do the same with Needle Gun, and draw out the upgrade progression more?

I don't think it should extend to wheels - wheels are intended to be useless by late game. And wheels aren't nearly so maneuverable as hovercraft.

Keep in mind that we meet NP's hardcrete walls early in the campaign, when the only weapons we have are HMG and Flamer (maybe mortar?). Making them both extremely weak against walls seems excessive.

How about giving more HP to wheels and less to hover? This would make wheels useful even after hover is researched and it would compensate for the proposed artillery-immunity of hover.

Less to hover is workable. Note that a lot of HP is in the weapon turret itself, though, which is why you see so many HC hovers in 1.10. I don't like the HP change, though. Let's just let wheels get obsoleted by hover.

Just one question: What game modes do such rebalances affect? Only Multiplayer or MP and Skirmish or even the Campaign? Because I think the balance shouldn't differ too much between those modes; I want to be able to transfer some of my experience about the strengths and weaknesses of the respective weapons from one mode to the other.

Currently only MP. We're planning on eventually applying it to the campaign, though.

[Revelo]

Can I just ask is there really much point to upgrading wheels anyway? I can understand hover since it's very useful for mobile artillery. But even if you do tweak wheels I doubt people will pick them over half tracks or tracks. I'd only use wheels if I needed to pump out some Truck Viper Wheels fast for base repair.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. It's just a bit puzzling.

[Per]

Zarel, I think I agree with everything you said in your post, except the proposed name for the new T3 rocket. "Bunker Blaster" sounds rather lame, or rather like something like a hip-hop dude would carry on his shoulders while making the moves. I can't think of anything that isn't lame right now, but my first thought was "Debaser Missile". De-base-r... gettit? xD

I am not sure about the needle gun. Perhaps a bit earlier, but not in direct competition with HPV.

As regards mg and campaign, we can perhaps make the initial mg useless against buildings. Then allow upgrades to make it useful.

Anyway, you didn't address my suggestions about making missiles in general (not rockets) anti-building, not anti-tank.

[Zarel]

Anyway, you didn't address my suggestions about making missiles in general (not rockets) anti-building, not anti-tank.

Oh, didn't see it.

It's even more overkill that with their long range, missiles are anti-building. Remember, missiles have both long range and high damage, and are hit-and-run weapons. It's pretty overkill since it means you can hit any lower-ranged structure and escape unscathed. It also means you can hit any long-ranged structure and escape relatively unscathed, by generic hit-and-run tactics. They're far less overpowered as they currently are, as AT instead of AS.

You also have to keep in mind: They're homing. Making the only homing weapon do negligible damage against anything that moves is just... cruel.

You also have to keep in mind: The rocket-cannon-MG balance is pretty well-established in T2, and smoothly transitions to the missile-rail-laser balance in T3. Removing the "missile" part just isn't a good idea.

You also have to keep in mind: We only have one AT missile weapon in the first place (Scourge - AA doesn't count). So if we have an upgraded bunker buster, we should be able to leave Scourge alone.

[Per]

I mistakenly thought angel and archangel missiles were anti-tank too, but they are apparently classified as "artillery", and that scourge was a rocket. Anyway, if you research rockets/missiles, you will get access to both anti-tank and anti-building weapons on the same upgrade path. Bunker Buster and Ripples for rockets, and Angel and Archangel for missiles. Cannons, on the other hand, are stuck being with only anti-tank. Worse as anti-tank, apparently, than rockets/missiles due to slower speed and lower range. The only saving grace for cannons is the HPV, especially when mounted on a VTOL, when it is a real killer. If you "fix" that without doing anything else, the cannon tree will suck.

Another thing, I took a look at the Warzone Guide, and surely those numbers for turret hitpoints cannot be correct? They do not seem to match with what is reported in the stats file.

[Zarel]

I mistakenly thought angel and archangel missiles were anti-tank too, but they are apparently classified as "artillery", and that scourge was a rocket.

Actually, Scourge is a missile. The only three true rockets are Lancer, Bunker Buster, and Ripple Rockets. Although I suspect you mean a different thing by ''rocket", in which case - what do you mean?

Anyway, if you research rockets/missiles, you will get access to both anti-tank and anti-building weapons on the same upgrade path. Bunker Buster and Ripples for rockets, and Angel and Archangel for missiles. Cannons, on the other hand, are stuck being with only anti-tank. Worse as anti-tank, apparently, than rockets/missiles due to slower speed and lower range. The only saving grace for cannons is the HPV, especially when mounted on a VTOL, when it is a real killer. If you "fix" that without doing anything else, the cannon tree will suck.

Actually, cannons get anti-tank and anti-building weapons on the same upgrade path - since they're the same weapon! That's what "all-rounder" means - it's effective at both attacking tanks, and attacking structures. Plus, it has tons more HP. Roll a bunch of them into an enemy base, and poof! No base.

Also remember that HC is only one tile less range than lancer, and HPV is on par with TK. The ranges aren't that dramatically different.

Proposal: Reduce the HPV range back to 9, and its damage down a bit to a bit less than HC, and pull it down a step - level with HC on the research tree (Maybe even pull HC back down a step, too). This puts it as an alternative to instead of a direct upgrade to HC. Of course, then even less people would use MC, and skip directly to HC... Maybe just keep HC and HPV directly level, so HPV is slightly easier to get without the CA3 requirement. Augh, that still seems too low for HPV. Maybe do what Troman did and give HPV less HP than MC. No, HPV is intended to be a direct upgrade... Make it require SLDA3?

I can overall up cannon damage and HP a bit more, but they're plenty high right now... Remember to get the later cannon rate upgrades - they're a bit more hidden than most other upgrades.

Another thing, I took a look at the Warzone Guide, and surely those numbers for turret hitpoints cannot be correct? They do not seem to match with what is reported in the stats file.

Warzone Guide's root still has 2.1 statistics. The Rebalance section still has Rebalance 0.4.1.1, I believe. These represent the state of Warzone balance the last time I had a stable enough Internet connection to update the website.

In any case, for 2.2 weapon stats, see: http://guide.wz2100.net/new/w/

[Samowar]

Keep in mind that we meet NP's hardcrete walls early in the campaign, when the only weapons we have are HMG and Flamer (maybe mortar?). Making them both extremely weak against walls seems excessive.

When we first meet NP, we already have mortars (I never tried, but I think beating this mission without them would make for quite some challenge even with the current balance). Plus we get Light Cannon in that mission. Making cannons the only direct-fire weapon suitable for destroying hardpoints and walls would add an incentive to actually deploy some of them before they get superseded by Medium Cannon.

Currently only MP. We're planning on eventually applying it to the campaign, though.

I take it you also mean Skirmish when talking about MP?

[Per]

I was just confused about the rocket/missile distinction.

Perhaps what cannons need is a specialized version, similar to Bunker Buster, that is anti-building. Call it a "Siege Cannon" or something. It would have very low RoF, very high damage vs buildings, tons of hitpoints, and very heavy. In general, cannons should also be really good against wheels and hover. Wheels and hover, on the other hand, should probably fare a little better against rockets/missiles/artillery, to set them and cannons apart a bit.

And I think Inferno deserves a little bit more hitpoints. Poor thing.

[Zarel]

When we first meet NP, we already have mortars (I never tried, but I think beating this mission without them would make for quite some challenge even with the current balance). Plus we get Light Cannon in that mission. Making cannons the only direct-fire weapon suitable for destroying hardpoints and walls would add an incentive to actually deploy some of them before they get superseded by Medium Cannon.

Makes that mission a lot harder, though - it's only the third away mission. I'm used to winning by spamming HMG. I mean, the 8 you start with is usually enough to take the base with no casualties. And at that point, the mortars are pretty useless and low damage.

I take it you also mean Skirmish when talking about MP?

Yeah.

Perhaps what cannons need is a specialized version, similar to Bunker Buster, that is anti-building. Call it a "Siege Cannon" or something. It would have very low RoF, very high damage vs buildings, tons of hitpoints, and very heavy. In general, cannons should also be really good against wheels and hover. Wheels and hover, on the other hand, should probably fare a little better against rockets/missiles/artillery, to set them and cannons apart a bit.

Yeah, um, mortars? They split off cannon line. Maybe turn HPV into a siege cannon?

Personally, I'd prefer leaving it as is. A thematic difference, you know - rockets have a rocket for each purpose, cannons are already good at every one of those purposes and so don't need a dedicated weapon. I mean, for longrange, you already have HPV.

Currently, wheels and hover already fare better against rockets/missiles than cannons do. I suppose I can make the difference greater, but seriously, a lot of your other proposed suggestions are going to cause: No one's going to use tracks anymore. <_< Remember, the drawbacks of tracks is that they're slow and expensive. If you can do more damage to them with any weapon except cannon, what's the point?

I can see your "cannons are underpowered" angle, but they're still currently much more powerful than they were in 1.10 (and lancers are much less powerful). I suppose I can bring their HP back up to 1.10 levels, but Troman brought them down for a fairly good reason, and weapon damage has been nerfed enough that 1.10 HP is a bit too excessive.

And I think Inferno deserves a little bit more hitpoints. Poor thing.

Ye gods. Inferno hovers are already intimidating enough. They have enough hitpoints. Remember: Just because you can't figure out how to use it doesn't mean it doesn't have a use. If anything, I should be tuning down Inferno damage here.

[psychopompos]

Perhaps what cannons need is a specialized version, similar to Bunker Buster, that is anti-building. Call it a "Siege Cannon" or something. It would have very low RoF, very high damage vs buildings, tons of hitpoints, and very heavy. In general, cannons should also be really good against wheels and hover. Wheels and hover, on the other hand, should probably fare a little better against rockets/missiles/artillery, to set them and cannons apart a bit.

Yeah, um, mortars? They split off cannon line. Maybe turn HPV into a siege cannon?

i think, stream lining the cannon/artillary transition would be a good idea myself.
having them all fire in arcs just seems natural for cannon.

lgt cannon being almost direct fire, with the effective range between the med cannon & the hmg range a sabot round from a 120mm cannon has a much high effective range irl then a 50cal mg.
up to hv can having lower arc/higher round velocity then the howie/arty stuff.
according to a vid linked in another thread here, even a 30mm gun can fire over 2 miles, according to wiki some of the longest range artillery can fire 40 miles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuma_Proving_Ground

the normal cannon being better for vehicles, howie being better for structs.
it would be difficult to really reflect the diversity of tank rounds in any RTS game, having them automatically switch between cannister, sabot & HE depending on target would seriously over-power them imo.

[Zarel]

i think, stream lining the cannon/artillary transition would be a good idea myself.
having them all fire in arcs just seems natural for cannon.

Devu is planning on updating the projectile system, which will make some direct-fire weapons fire in arcs. Directly making cannons into indirect fire will make them CB targets (which really sucks), so this is the best solution.

What do you mean by streamlining the cannon/arty transition?