The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

[Zarel]

The trouble is I was never able to get it from blender to PIE (or is it WZM now?). Can you do anything with the blend file?

No. I simply don't have the free time to learn Warzone's modeling aspects these days.

Says who though? This is a rebalance, who cares what pumpkin intended for one odd-ball weapon back in 1.10. Plus these are an indirect fire missile weapon, they deserve at least as much range as a pepperpot. Rocket artillery has better range than cannon artillery in every other comparison, this weapon system just makes no sense the way it is.

I care: I like having a short-range indirect rocket that can only barely outrange structures. It makes sense, too: "Okay, so this is going to be used to destroy structures, so we really only need to be slightly outside their range, so let's weigh our rockets down with explosives until they're right outside structure range."

That was a HORRIBLE game design spill-over from Command & Conquer.

With CnC, you had to build a sat uplink building to get a mini map, which is purely a UI convenience! That's right, you had to build something in game just to get the UI to work right and be easy to use. You couldn't actually see anything that you couldn't without it, you just got a mini-map so that you didn't have to glance around the map as much.

Warzone was made right near the end of the CnC clone era, before people started making their own improvements to RTS, instead of just copying CnC. And so Warzone absorbed the insane "a good UI is a privilege that must be defended in-game" thing by making your mini-map dependent on the Command Center.

I agree; UI should not be based on anything in-game. We're planning on making the mini-map always-on at some point, but first we still need enough other things the Command Center should do.

And then they decided to take it another leap further and made the design interface dependent on the god damned Command Center. So you have to do all your designing ASAP and clutter up your vehicle build menus so that you don't lose access to your options when the CC get's bombed.

The Command Center should just be an "operations booster" that when intact gives a 20% boost to research, production and power generation. Instead it is a horseshit nuisance and game design abomination.

Well, prerequiring the Command Center for some research isn't nearly as bad. And I'm not going to make the Command Center a generic operations booster; that's just completely ridiculous.

Yeah well, that is why I said make mini-pod rockets anti-cyborg. Problem solved. "Lancer players" shouldn't exist, they should be assorted missile players that have to use more than one weapon system for their skirmishing. You said you made lancers and their derivs almost useless against cyborgs, so now there is a real place for an anti-cyborg missile system.

No, there isn't. We already have an anti-cyborg missile system; it's called a machinegun. "Lancer players" already don't exist since they're already useless against everything except tanks.

We've gone over this, and I do not want to press the issue further.

Heavy Truck.

It's lighter than the normal truck.

Ripple Rockets are basically the old Angel, so why not just rename them Angels and give them the angel model and texture? The new Short Range Rockets could take the Ripples' texture because that texture looks like a bigger MRL anyways.

On the contrary: Ripples and Archies both have long launchers, suggesting their long range. On the other hand, MRA and SRMA both have short launcher, suggesting their short range. The only thing Ripple/MRA have in common, and the only thing Archie/SRMA have in common, are their color schemes, which make sense, since Ripple/MRA are rockets, and Archie/SRMA are missiles.

Seriously, everything about how the Angel Missile model looks suggests that it's a missile equivalent of the MRA. I had the feeling that's what Pumpkin intended when the first designed it, and they only changed it to long-range later (maybe because Nexus needed an early long-range artillery?)

Per is right. As much as I like the name "Angel Missile", I really don't want more bug reports about it.

There's no point in using Archangel over Groundshaker or Hellstorm or even Scourge, these three are much more effective against units than a single indirect-homing volley.

The niche that Archangel filled was CB against howitzers, or as an endgame strategic anti-base weapon.

Um... was there a suggestion in here? I agree with everything you say here, but I'm not sure what your point is.

None of the artillery in the Warzone has viable target prediction, a hover tank in motion is nearly invulnerable, but it's still not a heavy weapons platform.

When you're shooting at enemies, you're generally not "in motion." I don't really think it's necessary to micro dodging and shooting at the same time.

Tracks deserves being artillery resistant more than Hover, then you could choose to either resist heavy artillery fire with tracks in order to bring heavy weapons up to bear, or simply avoid it with hover while mounting lightweight missiles.

This was my original reasoning, too, but Per thought it might be better to make hover arty-resistant as well. I agree with his reasoning, which is what lead to the current situation.

It's 3 times greater than 20%, this makes bunker-buster VTOLs considerable for use against hover tanks, when they should be useless.

No, it doesn't. Fine, I'll make it 20% again.

It would tie in with the Command Centre as a prerequisite for defences, and make Nexus' thermite bombing on the command centre in Gamma 1 logical.

Regardless, I don't want people to LasSat a Command Center right before invading, and getting a huge advantage.

The difference is that weapon upgrades are flat-rate, while upgraded turrets cost more than the original.

The point is that both can coexist, so two truck turrets should be able to coexist.

There is no limit on repair turrets or sensors, and recycling tanks is for experience in Campaign, and energy in MP.

However, construction units neither have experience nor significant energy cost, explain if you would, what an upgraded construction turret would have over regular construction upgrades.

...so?

I still don't see how adding another truck turret is a bad idea. Sensors and repair turrets don't have experience or significant energy cost, either. Anyway, I eventually switch from regular trucks to hover trucks, so I'll have to recycle all my trucks, anyway.

Instead of 'flying trucks', simply airlift the prefabs & a truck on to the landing zone.

Hmm. Interesting idea. Now it gets into "too hard to implement" territory...

[Tenoh]

Airlift?..hmm.. one unit chopper transport? just random idea.

[winsrp]

how is a chopper a rebalance, if we don't even have choppers? but a chopper would be cool... but it should take like 10, and air transport like 25... and we should have a teleporter for 5... there...

[lav_coyote25]

your starting to sound like speedy - and his ai boost. that was one hard beast to beat. teleporters and a whole bunch more.... is too bad he is not here to redo that mean s.o.b AI. xD

[TVR]

Um... was there a suggestion in here? I agree with everything you say here, but I'm not sure what your point is.

Why bother using SRMA when you could use Scourge, Hellstorm, or Groundshaker? Maybe even the incendiary mortar...

... When you're shooting at enemies, you're generally not "in motion." ...

If those hover tanks are being pounded by the same artillery battery they are shooting at, they are too far away, and should have instead closed minimum distance with the velocity advantage, before stopping to fire.

This was my original reasoning, too, but Per thought it might be better to make hover arty-resistant as well. I agree with his reasoning, which is what lead to the current situation.

Perhaps every propulsion should take 1/5th HE artillery damage as well, then folks wouldn't start complaining that Heavy Cannon-Python-Tracks are being decimated in comparison to the hover variant.

Regardless, I don't want people to LasSat a Command Center right before invading, and getting a huge advantage.

I was thinking the destruction of the Command Centre would prevent defences from targeting anything out of local LOS range.

Command Centre is cheap & quick to replace, but a minute of disabled artillery batteries could grant enough time for a successful destruction of any firebase protected solely with fixed artillery.

The point is that both can coexist, so two truck turrets should be able to coexist.

The upgraded construction turret completely obsoletes the regular construction turret, because there is a hard limit on the total number of construction units, therefore no one would ever use regular turret after they've researched the newer one.

Sensors and repair turrets don't have experience or significant energy cost, either.

Nor a limit, any remaining turrets can continue to be used without affecting production of the upgraded turret.

... Anyway, I eventually switch from regular trucks to hover trucks, so I'll have to recycle all my trucks, anyway ...

Unit design is a personal preference, hover is not a superset of wheeled propulsion, unlike this upgraded construction turret to the regular turret.

Airlift?..hmm.. one unit chopper transport? just random idea

A Skycrane multipurpose airlift turret, tank mass is added to the VTOL, if velocity of the VTOL is 0, it cannot take-off and airlift the tank.

[javierkaiser]

I would really like to see the Angels missiles useful :-S
Maybe a few post late, but the idea of lancer/scourge hitting vtols was nice.

Why don't combine those two and make Angels hit vtols too?

[Zarel]

Why bother using SRMA when you could use Scourge, Hellstorm, or Groundshaker? Maybe even the incendiary mortar...

SRMA has far higher DPS. It's also lighter, making hit-and-run a lot easier.

If those hover tanks are being pounded by the same artillery battery they are shooting at, they are too far away, and should have instead closed minimum distance with the velocity advantage, before stopping to fire.

1. They're generally shooting at the hardpoints and walls defending the artillery batteries, not the artillery batteries themselves.

2. Undefended artillery batteries go down really quickly, and are not the subject of my balancing.

3. There's no such thing as minimum distance when talking about artillery: They'll just shoot straight up and take the splash damage (I think there's an accuracy penalty, too, but regardless).

4. Even if there were such thing as minimum distance, I'm talking about late-game artillery batteries of 200+ emplacements, and if you're in the minimum distance of one, you're probably well outside the minimum distance of many others.

Perhaps every propulsion should take 1/5th HE artillery damage as well, then folks wouldn't start complaining that Heavy Cannon-Python-Tracks are being decimated in comparison to the hover variant.

Well, it makes sense that slower propulsions are less good at dodging out of the way, and so receive more damage.

I was thinking the destruction of the Command Centre would prevent defences from targeting anything out of local LOS range.

Command Centre is cheap & quick to replace, but a minute of disabled artillery batteries could grant enough time for a successful destruction of any firebase protected solely with fixed artillery.

The point is to prevent destruction of a Command Center from being an easy way to significantly weaken another player (at least in the short term).

The upgraded construction turret completely obsoletes the regular construction turret, because there is a hard limit on the total number of construction units, therefore no one would ever use regular turret after they've researched the newer one.

...

Unit design is a personal preference, hover is not a superset of wheeled propulsion, unlike this upgraded construction turret to the regular turret.

Regardless, my point is that people are going to need to upgrade trucks out of personal preference anyway.

[Kacen]

SRMA has far higher DPS. It's also lighter, making hit-and-run a lot easier.

Not to mention it can fire while moving and the turret can turn.

Essentially it should be used like a far better Mini Rocket Artillery. Don't assign it to a sensor, put it with your attack groups to support main battle tanks and other attack vehicles.

[TVR]

SRMA has far higher DPS. It's also lighter, making hit-and-run a lot easier.

That's pretty much the purpose of the incendiary mortar for soft-structures, and the Scourge for units.

Ignite a structure and run, or destroy a unit and run.

1. They're generally shooting at the hardpoints and walls defending the artillery batteries, not the artillery batteries themselves.

I suggest using a bunker-buster airstrike.

Unless of course, there is another massive battery of AA in front of the artillery... then it's Archangel or LasSat.

3. There's no such thing as minimum distance when talking about artillery: They'll just shoot straight up and take the splash damage (I think there's an accuracy penalty, too, but regardless).

4. Even if there were such thing as minimum distance, I'm talking about late-game artillery batteries of 200+ emplacements, and if you're in the minimum distance of one, you're probably well outside the minimum distance of many others.

Using FF to your advantage is the point of assaulting in close proximity, massive artillery batteries tend to undo themselves.

Well, it makes sense that slower propulsions are less good at dodging out of the way, and so receive more damage.

Imagine someone replacing all fixed and tracked with hover artillery, it would be IMMUNE to Counter Battery fire.

Notwithstanding, the unit rotary acceleration for hover is higher than tracks or even turrets.

... my point is that people are going to need to upgrade trucks out of personal preference anyway ...

Changing propulsion is not an upgrade, it is merely a sidegrade that may suit a particular play-style.

The upgraded turret, however, is a complete upgrade, no aspect of the regular truck is better, I believe even the energy/BP ratio is better for the upgraded turret.

[Kacen]

That's pretty much the purpose of the incendiary mortar for soft-structures, and the Scourge for units.

See my above quote.

[Zarel]

That's pretty much the purpose of the incendiary mortar for soft-structures, and the Scourge for units.

Ignite a structure and run, or destroy a unit and run.

We're talking about hard structures here, and incendiary mortar has less than half the DPS of Angel Missile, and it's not nearly as suited for hit-and-run, and it's heavier.

I suggest using a bunker-buster airstrike.

Unless of course, there is another massive battery of AA in front of the artillery... then it's Archangel or LasSat.

Of course there's a massive battery of AA. Archie has half the DPS of Angel Missile, and takes forever to reload, and is really heavy and thus unsuitable for hit-and-run. LasSat will only destroy a bit of an artillery battery.

Using FF to your advantage is the point of assaulting in close proximity, massive artillery batteries tend to undo themselves.

They tend to undo your entire 200-unit army before they undo themselves, especially if they're protected by hardpoints and AA.

Imagine someone replacing all fixed and tracked with hover artillery, it would be IMMUNE to Counter Battery fire.

And it would be weak against everything else (except BB), including all three endgame weapons (pulse, scourge, gauss). Just send in any unit at all, and your hover artillery is pretty much dead. Now that's what I call balance.

Changing propulsion is not an upgrade, it is merely a sidegrade that may suit a particular play-style.

The upgraded turret, however, is a complete upgrade, no aspect of the regular truck is better, I believe even the energy/BP ratio is better for the upgraded turret.

Changing body, then? That's an upgrade.

People are going to upgrade/sidegrade anyway, they may as well upgrade the turret along with it.

[TVR]

... We're talking about hard structures here ...

Bunker-buster is never obsoleted, ~1 missile per hardpoint, ~2 per bunker.

... Of course there's a massive battery of AA. Archie has half the DPS of Angel Missile, and takes forever to reload, and is really heavy and thus unsuitable for hit-and-run.

Archangel isn't supposed to be used for hit-and-run, it's an endgame base-to-base anti-structure weapon.

I'd recommend targeting the sensors, unless of course, there's yet another equally massive array of redundant sensors some how mixed in.

They tend to undo your entire 200-unit army before they undo themselves, especially if they're protected by hardpoints and AA.

Yes, that happens if you send your entire direct-fire army in before softening up the hardpoints/AA it with your own [long-range] artillery.

And it would be weak against everything else (except BB), including all three endgame weapons (pulse, scourge, gauss). Just send in any unit at all, and your hover artillery is pretty much dead.

I don't think you realize I was talking about replacing that massive battery of fixed artillery with a massive battery of hover artillery.

Then the aforementioned already invincible battery would be invulnerable to even Archangel CB, plus hover tanks can take more direct-fire than emplacements.

I believe you'll suggest to send in hover tanks, but of course, they would be dealt with by the hardpoints...

Changing body, then? That's an upgrade.

Recycling to change chassis is not worth the loss in production time/building time, because the trucks will still move at the same speed, construct at the same rate, but blow up maybe a few seconds later, and still not be durable enough to construct under fire.

Therefore players use viper trucks until they explode, then manufacture replacements.

[Mabsterone]

@rebalance:

AA beef up is very welcome, its too weak in the begining
Angel missile range upgrade is good too

I see a lot people ( including me ) playing with HMG, Assault Canon and then TWACs, wich are very punchy against defences and for a long time best weapon in the field.

For balancing issues..maybe there should some things be discussed.
A.
I tried to go for cannons and failed epic against Assault Cannons.
What made me concerned a bit is one thing..if i go for TWACS i do way less research then i need for big cannon with some decent upgrades, so TWACs let me room for other research on high oil maps like which provide 5 researchers running.
In comparison ( cannon to twac ) the cannon is very uninteresting except the part it leads to rail/gauss) but you are for sure dead until you get there cause you leck range for defence, borg defence is bad and cannons have no AA capability.
Maybe to make cannons and there huge reserch tree interesting, there should be a change. ( in the old days they were weapon of choice, so i thnk the downgrade they faced is too hard for the research / production cost they have.

B.
What i really hate these days are vtols..it quite impossible to defend against them when a skilled player attacks.
I dont want to complain and looking forward to test the rebalance before i quote on this.
But there is one thing i need to mention: Why do transports have MG ?. Just research transports while you are digging yourself in..make 10 of them and kill the enemy base. If he hasnt done major AA research and building he is dead meat.
( Happened to me some times too, though i had some AA researched.

C.
Not a rebalance thing, but a generic one.
Hacks.... obviously seem the old day hacks still work like speedhack ( i faced some people with tremendous production and research speed the last weeks ) and memmory hacks ( for cheap unit production ).
And on the other hand, skilled players are blamed to hack by childish noobs..which is the same then in the old days and will never change i guess.
There is a solution... NF-Clan had a server running some years ago, which caught every known cheat that days...we made all our ladder matches there and some gamespyarcade wizzkids never showed up in that lobby...guess why.
The main programming was done by NF-Cowboy, which i lost contact to some years ago.
Maybe its possible to get in contact with him and implement his code ( or parts of it ) into warzone ?

Basically the server checked follwing things:
Game time... just compared the ingame time ( which is avail in the diplomacy screen ) while game was running. Every speedhacker was caught for sure with it
Energy output... does the server time and the energy output ( you know his tech and his number of rigs ) compare common stats ( prevents energy memmory hacks )
Energy consumption..same as energy output..server just checks if the things are built cost what they should, prevents memmory hacks too.

Would be great to have something like that in the future....if you ( Zarel) are interested in the server sources, i can try to get in contact with NF-Cowboy to ask if he is willing to share them.

[Zarel]

Bunker-buster is never obsoleted, ~1 missile per hardpoint, ~2 per bunker.

BB is also an option, yes. But as a T2 weapon, it's pretty low range. Angel can outrange all T2 weapons (and soon all T3 structures except towers).

Archangel isn't supposed to be used for hit-and-run, it's an endgame base-to-base anti-structure weapon.

So don't use Archie, then.

I'd recommend targeting the sensors, unless of course, there's yet another equally massive array of redundant sensors some how mixed in.

It's not nearly as massive, but it's usually enough that your army is dead before you can kill off all the sensors and CB towers.

Yes, that happens if you send your entire direct-fire army in before softening up the hardpoints/AA it with your own [long-range] artillery.

They have a few CB towers and 200 Archies just to prevent the "soften them up with some of our own artillery" strategy.

I don't think you realize I was talking about replacing that massive battery of fixed artillery with a massive battery of hover artillery.

Then the aforementioned already invincible battery would be invulnerable to even Archangel CB, plus hover tanks can take more direct-fire than emplacements.

I believe you'll suggest to send in hover tanks, but of course, they would be dealt with by the hardpoints...

Sorry, didn't realize that's what you meant.

Nonetheless, it's not nearly so bad since there's a 200-unit limit. The biggest reason why endgame artillery batteries are so deadly is because there are far more than 200 structures there.

And, plus, as above, they were already invulnerable to Archies in the first place.

Recycling to change chassis is not worth the loss in production time/building time, because the trucks will still move at the same speed, construct at the same rate, but blow up maybe a few seconds later, and still not be durable enough to construct under fire.

Therefore players use viper trucks until they explode, then manufacture replacements.

Well, good time to upgrade to the new truck turret, then!

[TVR]

BB is also an option, yes. But as a T2 weapon, it's pretty low range. Angel can outrange all T2 weapons (and soon all T3 structures except towers).

For purposes of reference, call the proposed revisions the SRMA, the old settings the Angel.

If this SRMA can out-range all direct-fire, I really do not see the purpose of hit-and-run, when it could stay there and pound everything with impunity...

So don't use Archie, then.

Archangel is required to break hard-shell turtles, the trick is to mount Archangels on a mobile chassis to avoid CB.

It's not nearly as massive, but it's usually enough that your army is dead before you can kill off all the sensors and CB towers ...

... They have a few CB towers and 200 Archies just to prevent the "soften them up with some of our own artillery" strategy.

Mobile Archangels are perfect for avoiding fixed Archangel CB, those mobile Archangels will inevitably destroy the thousand structures in the follow sequence:

1. 200 fixed Archangels via CB
2. 200 fixed sensors by regular sensors
3. 200 hardpoints by regular sensors
4. 200 fixed AA by regular sensors
5. 200 fixed howitzers via sensors, or CB if the sensors are destroyed.

Coincidentally, these happen to be the same order in which we added them in.

The biggest reason why endgame artillery batteries are so deadly is because there are far more than 200 structures there.

If you invest that much in defences, you've already lost because you can't get out of your base.

... And, plus, as above, they were already invulnerable to Archies in the first place ...

Only while moving, NOT while firing artillery

This is meant to discourage the player from placing heavy artillery on a light hover, over the more durable tracks, which is designed to stay in the base.

Well, good time to upgrade to the new truck turret, then!

This is a forced upgrade cycle, no one recycles trucks, but this will force them to, as part of a obvious step to a perfect build order.