The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

[Zarel]

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...

It can't outrange artillery, towers, or most T3 units. It's designed to be short-range artillery.

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

...

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.

Yep, you're right. So?

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

Well, it usually ends up as a tie, which is what this is intended to prevent.

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.

Meh. Not important.

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.

Yep, it is! Deal with it.

[icyflames]

Surely weapon (im)balance isn't the underlying cause of stalemates, but excessive resources is? Essentially I think map design should pay more attention to preventing stalemates... I mean with maps where each player has virtually infinite resources and the only ground leading to them a huge and long bottle neck, then yes, winning can be hard.

[whippersnapper]

Surely weapon (im)balance isn't the underlying cause of stalemates, but excessive resources is? Essentially I think map design should pay more attention to preventing stalemates... I mean with maps where each player has virtually infinite resources and the only ground leading to them a huge and long bottle neck, then yes, winning can be hard.

There is much truth in that.

But if you look around in other topics you will see the preference is to put gobs of energy and resources into picking up the shortfall caused by poorly designed legacy maps in every other way but acknowledging the importance of astute map design and simply fixing the legacy maps accordingly.. That's probably due to the fact that none of those folks can make a good map to save their life and at the very same time pay absolutely no mind to those that can and who thoroughly understand the hows and whys of scrupulous and effective WZ map design. Another interesting and ripe dynamic for those delving into and working on interdisciplinary studies laying bare the sociology & psychology of internet "community" interactions along the lines of cognitive dissonance.

Also reminds me of that adage that goes something like:

"When all you have is a hammer in your tool kit then every problem looks like a nail that needs hammering or clawing."

Regards, whip

.

[Per]

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

Have you actually tried that? I mean, with more than one droid.

Good luck getting them all out of harm's way in time.

[TVR]

It can't outrange ... most T3 units

Seems like you're making the SRMA nothing more than a Scourge clone, either way, one of them will be rendered obsolete by the other.

Yep, you're right. So?

It'll be impossible to break through if hover becomes 5 times more resistant to artillery than it is tracks, you heard it here first.

Meh. Not important.

Your balancing changes are like linear algebra, as long as something affects every player equally, it's balanced... but in the case you've lost something that can't be quantified, that something is intuitiveness.

Yep, it is! Deal with it.

Poor arbitrary game design, the majority will complain, some will file bug reports, you heard it from here first.

Have you actually tried that? I mean, with more than one droid.

Obviously, spread your mobile Archangels out, and don't assign all of them to CB at once.

Every fixed Archangel will retaliate at a single spot, except it takes quite a while for the missiles to arrive, and there is no splash.

[Zarel]

Surely weapon (im)balance isn't the underlying cause of stalemates, but excessive resources is? Essentially I think map design should pay more attention to preventing stalemates... I mean with maps where each player has virtually infinite resources and the only ground leading to them a huge and long bottle neck, then yes, winning can be hard.

True, the ridiculously high-oil maps make it far too easy to stalemate, but it's even easy to stalemate on moderately high-oil maps like cockpit/cockate.

As they say, though, "It takes two to tango." I see no reason why I shouldn't balance the game to make stalemates a bit less common, as well. If I can, why not make stalemates rare on any map?

And stalemates occur due more to oil availability than to chokepoints. I've seen stalemates on TeamWar in 1.10, and that's a completely flat map with no chokepoints anywhere.

Seems like you're making the SRMA nothing more than a Scourge clone, either way, one of them will be rendered obsolete by the other.

The difference is that SRMA is good against hard structures and cyborgs, while Scourge is good against tanks.

It'll be impossible to break through if hover becomes 5 times more resistant to artillery than it is tracks, you heard it here first.

I disagree.

Per, thoughts?

Your balancing changes are like linear algebra, as long as something affects every player equally, it's balanced... but in the case you've lost something that can't be quantified, that something is intuitiveness.

Poor arbitrary game design, the majority will complain, some will file bug reports, you heard it from here first.

You're the only one complaining. Does anyone else disagree with the change?

Obviously, spread your mobile Archangels out, and don't assign all of them to CB at once.

Every fixed Archangel will retaliate at a single spot, except it takes quite a while for the missiles to arrive, and there is no splash.

And you consider micromanagement to be more intuitive?

[TVR]

The difference is that SRMA is good against hard structures and cyborgs, while Scourge is good against tanks.

SRMA is still artillery damage type, and ineffective against crete for hit-and-run.

Cyborgs can't be out-paced, and are also too cheap to justify a no-splash unit snipe.

... you consider micromanagement to be more intuitive? ...

Yes, Warzone 2100 is a real-time tactics game, micromanagement is expected by all players.

Micromanagement is also extremely prevalent in almost every single 'RTS' [Starcraft, most famously], every potential player is already aware of how & when to 'micro'.

You also didn't code a brand new hit-detection system in order to abstract away actual hits, correct?

[Zarel]

SRMA is still artillery damage type, and ineffective against crete for hit-and-run.

Cyborgs can't be out-paced, and are also too cheap to justify a no-splash unit snipe.

...artillery is very effective against hardcrete.

SRMA has a (small) splash. (100 radius 0.75)

Yes, Warzone 2100 is a real-time tactics game, micromanagement is expected by all players.

Micromanagement is also extremely prevalent in almost every single 'RTS' [Starcraft, most famously], every potential player is already aware of how & when to 'micro'.

You also didn't code a brand new hit-detection system in order to abstract away actual hits, correct?

Yes, but even StarCraft doesn't go as far as to micromanage dodging (all weapons are homing or instant-hit). Warzone is an RTS/RTT, not a first-person shooter or action game (the only situation in which dodging would be acceptable). Plus, the netcode just doesn't support micromanagement very well in the first place, so I'd like to avoid it where possible.

I never liked the current hit system for precisely that reason, but no, I didn't replace it. :/

[Kacen]

Must I repeat myself that not only is the Angel lighter and possesses a higher rate of fire than an Archangel, but it can also fire on the move and it's turret can turn, making it, like said by Zarel and others, useful for hit and run. Use it as you would use a far better mini-rocket artillery.

People continue to erroneously compare the Angel to the Archangel merely because of similar names and texture. The way each of them are used are -very- different.

Angels should not be assigned to sensors and used from a standoff position, they should support and go with attack groups, going straight into combat accompanying Main Battle Tanks and other attack vehicles (I generally put them on hover with heavy bodies such as Vengeance or Mantis for high-speed), whereas Archangels should be used as upgraded Ripple Rockets; long-range bombardment. If a vehicle is to be made with Archangels it need not be fast; assign it to a sensor and use it to take out key targets from a distance. It's also much heavier than an Angel, keep that in mind.

Use them accordingly.

To summarize, Angels are to be used like Mini-Rocket Artillery, while Archangels are to be used like Ripple Rockets.

[Deus Siddis]

You're the only one complaining. Does anyone else disagree with the change?

To be honest, I do have to agree that the game does lack intuitiveness in many parts of its tech tree.

Like a certain target type of an aforementioned weapon system. . . the one you told me not to bring up again. xD

And while I'm being evil, I'll resurrect as another example, that the mini-rocket artillery's combination of short range and indirect fire with sensor augmentation is really counter intuitive. Both because it has too short of a range for the sensor capability to make any sense and because while every other rocket/missile weapon has superior range to its barreled counterparts, this one stupid weapon has sh*t range.

Another newer example is with unguided rocket pods attacking vtols while guided lancers cannot, unless they are being fired by a cyborg or being fired from a tower. Strange rules and exceptions like that can eat away at intuitiveness. A much cleaner solution would be to just make both these weapon lines hit air regardless of the platform they're on, for example.

In short, bigger strokes and more inspiration from real weapons equals greater intuitiveness.

Yes, but even StarCraft doesn't go as far as to micromanage dodging (all weapons are homing or instant-hit). Warzone is an RTS/RTT, not a first-person shooter or action game (the only situation in which dodging would be acceptable). Plus, the netcode just doesn't support micromanagement very well in the first place, so I'd like to avoid it where possible.

I never liked the current hit system for precisely that reason, but no, I didn't replace it. :/

In the original warzone, you could only have only 40 units. There was also drive mode. So the game is a heavily tactical with at least as much action as strategy in its roots.

What'd be best though is if you could just tell fast movers like hover to micro themselves in a way that avoids fire (artillery especially, because of its long travel delay). I can't remember if there is a command to have selected units move back and forth between too positions indefinitely.

P.S. The current hit system is the best thing to have happened to warzone since being open sourced.

[Zarel]

To be honest, I do have to agree that the game does lack intuitiveness in many parts of its tech tree.

Like a certain target type of an aforementioned weapon system. . . the one you told me not to bring up again. xD

Very well, I'll put up a poll.

And while I'm being evil, I'll resurrect as another example, that the mini-rocket artillery's combination of short range and indirect fire with sensor augmentation is really counter intuitive. Both because it has too short of a range for the sensor capability to make any sense and because while every other rocket/missile weapon has superior range to its barreled counterparts, this one stupid weapon has sh*t range.

Not really. You're not expected to use sensor augmentation with MRA/SRMA.

The T1 MRA has higher range (8.5) than all T1 rockets (8) and all other T1 weapons (3-7.5) except Mortar. It's not much worse than most T2 non-artillery weapons; only AG, Lancer, TK, and HVC beat it, and only slightly (9-10).

The T3 SRMA has equivalent or higher range (14 against structures, 12 against units) than all other non-artillery units, and in fact all non-artillery weapons in all of Warzone, except Pulse Towers (15), Scourge Towers (15), and the fortresses (14-18).

(These range calculations are without sensors - with sensors, SRMA range rises to 14 against units as well as structures - not really worth it, in my opinion)

Another newer example is with unguided rocket pods attacking vtols while guided lancers cannot, unless they are being fired by a cyborg or being fired from a tower. Strange rules and exceptions like that can eat away at intuitiveness. A much cleaner solution would be to just make both these weapon lines hit air regardless of the platform they're on, for example.

Look at the Mini-Rocket Pod:


It's obviously designed to rotate vertically.

Now look at the Lancer and TK:


They obviously aren't. (Oh, and lancers are also unguided - I suggested letting Scourge hit air, but there was a bunch of backlash against that.)

Cyborgs carry lancer launchers, so they can rotate them vertically more easily.

Lancer towers can't hit air, either (I had plans to do so, but they were discontinued).

In the original warzone, you could only have only 40 units. There was also drive mode. So the game is a heavily tactical with at least as much action as strategy in its roots.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're thinking of the PlayStation version. The PC version had a 100 unit limit and no drive mode.

What'd be best though is if you could just tell fast movers like hover to micro themselves in a way that avoids fire (artillery especially, because of its long travel delay). I can't remember if there is a command to have selected units move back and forth between too positions indefinitely.

The problem with this is that no weapon would ever hit, except maybe flamer and homing weapons. Current Warzone weapons really aren't balanced for that kind of thing.

P.S. The current hit system is the best thing to have happened to warzone since being open sourced.

See above for why it isn't.

Warzone isn't an FPS, and more importantly, its netcode doesn't sync fast enough for it to become one.

[TVR]

... SRMA has a (small) splash. (100 radius 0.75) ...

It's not possible to even order to cyborgs to share a square due to UI limitations, the move cursor will turn into a selection cursor...

... artillery is very effective against hardcrete.

Then use Pepperpot, it has all the qualities of SRMA with greater range.

Either way, one of them is obsoleted because they now share the same niche.

but even StarCraft doesn't go as far as to micromanage dodging (all weapons are homing or instant-hit)

It does, you forgot about the Zerg with their melee and reliance on micro to avoid splash damage from non-homing projectiles.

... action game (the only situation in which dodging would be acceptable) ...

Drive mode from the PSX comes to mind... I believe it's also on the roadmap.

Edit:

... The problem with this is that no weapon would ever hit ... Current Warzone weapons really aren't balanced for that kind of thing ...

Well, since you're rebalancing, it's the perfect time to increase muzzle velocities for all direct-fire...

[Zarel]

It's not possible to even order to cyborgs to share a square due to UI limitations, the move cursor will turn into a selection cursor...

...that's irrelevant. You can still hit more than one cyborg, and because of its high DPS, SRMA still does decently well even if it only hits one cyborg, which it has a decent chance of given its splash and low range.

Then use Pepperpot, it has all the qualities of SRMA with greater range.

Either way, one of them is obsoleted because they now share the same niche.

Against half-upgraded wall, a fully-upgraded Pepperpot has a DPS of 43. A fully-upgraded SRMA has a DPS of 158. And SRMA has longer reload, making it easier to hit-and-run. Seriously, have you even done any of the things you're complaining about?

So no, not the same niche at all.

And what's wrong with weapons from different lines sharing the same niche? Stormy and Whirlwind actually do share the same niche, and no one complains.

It does, you forgot about the Zerg with their melee and reliance on micro to avoid splash damage from non-homing projectiles.

Ah, forgot about that. But that still feels easier to do (and more importantly, more dependent on skill than luck) than dodging projectiles in Warzone.

Drive mode from the PSX comes to mind... I believe it's also on the roadmap.

Yes, I'd like to see you drive 5 hovercrafts at the same time as the try to dodge artillery fire.

[TVR]

... and because of its high DPS, SRMA still does decently well even if it only hits one cyborg ...

...

... Against half-upgraded wall, a fully-upgraded Pepperpot has a DPS of 43. A fully-upgraded SRMA has a DPS of 158. And SRMA has longer reload ...

There's no kill like overkill.

Effective DPS is lowered on all volley weapons, and a Pepperpot must be fully upgraded before base SRMA becomes available.

And what's wrong with weapons from different lines sharing the same niche? Stormy and Whirlwind actually do share the same niche, and no one complains.

The Stormbringer and Whirlwind aren't suppose to be built concurrently, because Stormbringer obsoletes it, in fact, it obsoletes all other AA as well.

Yes, I'd like to see you drive 5 hovercrafts at the same time as the try to dodge artillery fire.

Is it really that difficult to issue a Total Annihilation-style patrol/multiple-move order?

[Zarel]

There's no kill like overkill.

Effective DPS is lowered on all volley weapons, and a Pepperpot must be fully upgraded before base SRMA becomes available.

Effective DPS is even lower on rotary weapons (and Pepperpot is a rotary weapon). Regardless, my DPS calculations already take that into account (this is specific DPS, not base DPS).

You don't even need to research Mortar to get SRMA, let alone fully upgrade a Pepperpot. See the Guide: http://guide.wz2100.net/r/angelmissile

I mean, seriously, can it get any more obvious that you haven't tried most of the things you're talking about?

The Stormbringer and Whirlwind aren't suppose to be built concurrently, because Stormbringer obsoletes it, in fact, it obsoletes all other AA as well.

Neither are Pepperpot and SRMA, for that matter.

Is it really that difficult to issue a Total Annihilation-style patrol/multiple-move order?

In drive mode? Yes. And it won't throw off enemy artillery, either - Warzone artillery have target prediction.