The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

[zeland]

In the name of balance, why aren't we looking at the weapons problem from the perspective of projectile + launcher? While I believe that the game engine doesn't support the distinction between projectiles & their launchers, we could at least use this information as a guideline for balance. About a page and a half was spent debating (wasted arguing?) between rockets & missiles. Why not start by coming to a consensus about the properties of each for a given calibre/weight/size?

i.e. Rocket -> less electronics/technology (no homing/guidance/targeting), less fuel (short range, slow), bigger warhead (more damage), etc.

This would/should give us some consistency when deciding the capabilities of weapons as a whole. This will settle debates like "why mini-pods (rockets) should have AA capabilities while Lancers (also rockets) don't". With this in mind, we can also diversify the rocket line into HEAT (better against armor) & HESH (better againts structures) lines. The way Warzone has it now, this seems to be a conflict based on my limited understanding.

In the long run, this may also allow us to reduce the length of the research chain. For example, researching "Rotary Fire" will immediately give us access to Rotary Machine Gun, Pepper Pot, Hellstorm. Researching "Chain/Belt Feed" instantly gives all bullet based weapons like Machine Guns & Assault Guns better ROF.

[icyflames]

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.

I must say, so far the only map I've played online on 2.2.2 was cockpit. So I thought that had too many resources. That might be because my enemies didn't go out to capture any at all, but still... I think a well oil-balanced map should have each player maintaining roughly (depending on size and terrain) no more than 2 power stations, unless they are very successful at capturing 'public' or enemy resources.

I understand that unfortunately cockpit and such maps are far more popular than something like mountain so I guess I'm in the minority. But these balancing changes seem to diverge a LOT from 1.10, and seem more suitable for a mod, because even if currently the majority agrees with the changes, they only represent the people currently on 2.~ and might change the original game too much that some people (me ;o) find it unrecognisable.

More importantly, excessive balancing leads to the idea of "rock-paper-scissors" type of balancing, with "A effective against B, B against C, C against A" etc. Personally I don't think this game was or should be about that. Nor can it solve any problems of stalemating. Additionally, it's also a bit silly seeing as there are no factions and therefore everyone has the same possibilities.

[Zarel]

In the name of balance, why aren't we looking at the weapons problem from the perspective of projectile + launcher? While I believe that the game engine doesn't support the distinction between projectiles & their launchers, we could at least use this information as a guideline for balance. About a page and a half was spent debating (wasted arguing?) between rockets & missiles. Why not start by coming to a consensus about the properties of each for a given calibre/weight/size?

i.e. Rocket -> less electronics/technology (no homing/guidance/targeting), less fuel (short range, slow), bigger warhead (more damage), etc.

This would/should give us some consistency when deciding the capabilities of weapons as a whole. This will settle debates like "why mini-pods (rockets) should have AA capabilities while Lancers (also rockets) don't". With this in mind, we can also diversify the rocket line into HEAT (better against armor) & HESH (better againts structures) lines. The way Warzone has it now, this seems to be a conflict based on my limited understanding.

In the long run, this may also allow us to reduce the length of the research chain. For example, researching "Rotary Fire" will immediately give us access to Rotary Machine Gun, Pepper Pot, Hellstorm. Researching "Chain/Belt Feed" instantly gives all bullet based weapons like Machine Guns & Assault Guns better ROF.

Well, there was barely any debate on the difference between rockets and missiles. Someone thought rockets were homing, which was quickly corrected. Someone didn't notice that mini-pod can be rotated vertically and lancer can't, and was quickly corrected. They're pretty minor, overall.

Your other suggestions, such as splitting rockets into HEAT and HESH, or rearranging the research tree, are far too drastic of changes. Please suggest them in a new thread. This thread is mainly to have a list of the changes between 2.2 and 2.3, and to comment on them and suggest minor tweaks. The whole argument on the hover multiplier should have been split into a new thread, and I'm creating a poll thread soon for that reason.

I must say, so far the only map I've played online on 2.2.2 was cockpit. So I thought that had too many resources. That might be because my enemies didn't go out to capture any at all, but still... I think a well oil-balanced map should have each player maintaining roughly (depending on size and terrain) no more than 2 power stations, unless they are very successful at capturing 'public' or enemy resources.

Oh man, you'd hate Squared, TeamWar, or pretty much every other non-Pumpkin map in play, then.

Anyway, people capture enemy resources often enough that people shouldn't be allowed to stalemate just because they do.

I understand that unfortunately cockpit and such maps are far more popular than something like mountain so I guess I'm in the minority. But these balancing changes seem to diverge a LOT from 1.10, and seem more suitable for a mod, because even if currently the majority agrees with the changes, they only represent the people currently on 2.~ and might change the original game too much that some people (me ;o) find it unrecognisable.

They don't diverge that much from 1.10. Biggest change is probably the reduction of artillery-to-hover damage, and I'll be addressing that in a new thread. And all the changes are designed to alleviate the worst parts of 1.10 balance (namely, truck rushes and endgame stalemates), which I believe everyone should enjoy.

In a lot of these balance threads, people often take a minor change and argue it for a while, and it starts to seem like a huge change, but when you step back and really look at it, you'll see: "This is still 1.10." It's very recognizably 1.10. Heck, 1.00 -> 1.10 is a far bigger change than 1.10 -> 2.3. If I remember the changelogs correctly, 1.04 -> 1.10 is still probably bigger.

More importantly, excessive balancing leads to the idea of "rock-paper-scissors" type of balancing, with "A effective against B, B against C, C against A" etc. Personally I don't think this game was or should be about that. Nor can it solve any problems of stalemating. Additionally, it's also a bit silly seeing as there are no factions and therefore everyone has the same possibilities.

What's wrong with RPS balancing? What other balancing is there? Rock-rock-rock balancing? "You can either use MG Viper Wheels, or MG Viper Wheels." That's not very fun at all. Rock-rock-bigger-rock balancing? "You can either use MG Viper Wheels, or you can use Pulse Laser Vengeance Half-Tracks. They're both the same price." That's still not fun, since no one's going to pick the MG Viper Wheels.

The only way to ensure that not everyone does exactly the same thing (which would get old) would be to have rock-paper-scissors style balancing, where a strategy is better against one strategy, but worse against a different one. You don't want it to be "A beats B beats C beats A, but they're otherwise identical", so you make them different in other ways, but at the core you should still have a rock-paper-scissors like cycle of strengths and weaknesses.

[zeland]

Someone didn't notice that mini-pod can be rotated vertically and lancer can't, and was quickly corrected.

By this reasoning, wouldn't Lancer towers/hardpoints located on high ground not be able to fire on anything below it and vice versa. As a matter of fact, if a tank was on the same level ground with a lancer, putting it on anything but a low lying ground emplacement would make it useless.

[icyflames]

Oh man, you'd hate Squared, TeamWar, or pretty much every other non-Pumpkin map in play, then.

Anyway, people capture enemy resources often enough that people shouldn't be allowed to stalemate just because they do.

Well it'd be nice if non-Pumpkin maps didn't go resource overkill.

They don't diverge that much from 1.10. Biggest change is probably the reduction of artillery-to-hover damage, and I'll be addressing that in a new thread. And all the changes are designed to alleviate the worst parts of 1.10 balance (namely, truck rushes and endgame stalemates), which I believe everyone should enjoy.

I think the one I noticed was that artillery-to-hover thing. I'm all for changes to AA I think.

In a lot of these balance threads, people often take a minor change and argue it for a while, and it starts to seem like a huge change, but when you step back and really look at it, you'll see: "This is still 1.10." It's very recognizably 1.10. Heck, 1.00 -> 1.10 is a far bigger change than 1.10 -> 2.3. If I remember the changelogs correctly, 1.04 -> 1.10 is still probably bigger.

I'll take your word for that and hope for the best.

What's wrong with RPS balancing? What other balancing is there? [...]

Nothing in principle. But the idea of solving every problem with RPS balancing isn't ideal. Also, it also worries me that the RPS balancing is done with regard to maps and resource levels I personally dislike, and which I don't think are representative of the whole of warzone.

[Kacen]

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

Can the Pepperpot fire on the move, rotate it's turret, and do as much DPS? No.

Note when I said Angel in my previous posts I was referring to the SRMA.

[Deus Siddis]

"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.

Cool.

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

Then it should be made direct fire, non-sensor using is what I'm saying.

only AG, Lancer, TK, and HVC beat it, and only slightly (9-10).

Those are all direct fire weapons that don't use sensors.


This is all an example of some of what is confusing and counter-intuitive. The short range of these two indirect fire rockets goes against the flow of the rest of the tech tree, where indirect fire weapons have better range than direct fire weapons and rocket/missile weapons have better range than other direct fire weapons types. And the big indirect fire rocket/missile artillery systems have the best range you can get from any weapon in their respective tiers. But then comes along their little brothers who break all of these established game rules and what you'd expect from any knowledge of real life modern weapon systems.

This isn't your fault of course, that's how pumpkin set it up, but it is still very counter-intuitive, and I'm sure even more so for new players, trying to figure out the huge tech tree.

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.

Models can and will be remade eventually. And maybe not everyone is paying that close of attention to what they look like anyhow.

Isn't there a wire guidance upgrade for lancers? Or tank killers? The first air-to-air missiles were wire guided.

Scourge AA is a good idea, maybe you should just try it during a beta and see if anyone even cares. It's limited range should keep it from being too effective, so I don't think it would be a problem.

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.

They must have moved the full changelog when this site was rebuilt, but I believe somewhere between 1.00 and 1.10 they upped it from 40 to 100 (for the PC version). It had a less developed version of drive mode that they changed it to at the last second I believe.

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.

So then if I just hand-microed hover craft in a random pattern, they'd be untouchable?

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.

SImulation is about realism, graphics, intuitiveness and (eventually) fairness. It is not just something for FPS games.

I'm sure the netcode will probably get improvements over time and the game also has skirmish and campaigns.


Either way though, I think maybe an important focus of a future rebalance should be increasing round travel speeds, to help patch these issues that you mention. Plus look at gauss, a weapon that supposedly relies entirely on kinetic energy to inflict damage and it has one of the slowest rounds in the game, as opposed to something near equivalent to the lasers.

[Per]

At least nobody is arguing that tracks make good anti-artillery units. For a while they can hold up against mortars, but eventually it becomes pointless unless the map is completely flat.

I don't think one should be able to put heavy weapons like artillery on hovers. It is a fast attack propulsion, and should have some upper weapon weight limit or something. That would solve the possible "invincible artillery" issue.

As regards projectile speed - it is not fun if they are too fast and you can't see them.

[Zarel]

By this reasoning, wouldn't Lancer towers/hardpoints located on high ground not be able to fire on anything below it and vice versa. As a matter of fact, if a tank was on the same level ground with a lancer, putting it on anything but a low lying ground emplacement would make it useless.

Well, to be exact, they have a bit of vertical rotation; enough to fire at most things on the ground that aren't right next to it, but not as much as minipods do.

Well it'd be nice if non-Pumpkin maps didn't go resource overkill.

I agree. I've been trying to tell people to use Pumpkin-style resource levels, but pretty much every non-Pumpkin map I've seen has at least 8 oil resources in base, and most of them have around 30.

Nothing in principle. But the idea of solving every problem with RPS balancing isn't ideal. Also, it also worries me that the RPS balancing is done with regard to maps and resource levels I personally dislike, and which I don't think are representative of the whole of warzone.

Erm, maps/resource levels usually use rock-rock-rock balancing.

Then it should be made direct fire, non-sensor using is what I'm saying.

Well, the indirect fire helps it shoot over walls. I guess I could hardcodedly force them to be unable to be assigned to sensors (like grenadier), but I don't see what's wrong with just refraining from assigning them to sensors.

Those are all direct fire weapons that don't use sensors.

Stop quoting my messages out of context. Those are specifically long-range direct fire weapons, and they're a higher tech level than MRA. MRA has higher range than any direct-fire weapon in its tech level.

This is all an example of some of what is confusing and counter-intuitive. The short range of these two indirect fire rockets goes against the flow of the rest of the tech tree, where indirect fire weapons have better range than direct fire weapons and rocket/missile weapons have better range than other direct fire weapons types. And the big indirect fire rocket/missile artillery systems have the best range you can get from any weapon in their respective tiers. But then comes along their little brothers who break all of these established game rules and what you'd expect from any knowledge of real life modern weapon systems.

This isn't your fault of course, that's how pumpkin set it up, but it is still very counter-intuitive, and I'm sure even more so for new players, trying to figure out the huge tech tree.

This all works out the minute you stop thinking of MRA as an indirect fire weapon. Its range should tip you off...

Models can and will be remade eventually. And maybe not everyone is paying that close of attention to what they look like anyhow.

Isn't there a wire guidance upgrade for lancers? Or tank killers? The first air-to-air missiles were wire guided.

Scourge AA is a good idea, maybe you should just try it during a beta and see if anyone even cares. It's limited range should keep it from being too effective, so I don't think it would be a problem.

It simply makes sense that a tank-mounted rocket pod would be able to vertically rotated more easily than a tank-mounted anti-tank rocket launcher.

They must have moved the full changelog when this site was rebuilt, but I believe somewhere between 1.00 and 1.10 they upped it from 40 to 100 (for the PC version). It had a less developed version of drive mode that they changed it to at the last second I believe.

If by "at the last second" you mean "before 1.00", then maybe. But I remember playing 1.00, and I remember unit limit being higher than 40 (and there being no drive mode at all). I'm not at home right now, so I can't go dig out my copy of the changelog to check, though. I'll post it when I get home.

So then if I just hand-microed hover craft in a random pattern, they'd be untouchable?

Well, at long range (i.e. 8+ tiles) be untouchable by most non-homing weapons. The faster weapons might still be able to hit, but you should be able to dodge at least all artillery, rockets, plasma cannon...

See why I don't like the projectile system? If it weren't for all the people in love with it, I'd just make all weapons homing.

SImulation is about realism, graphics, intuitiveness and (eventually) fairness. It is not just something for FPS games.

I'm sure the netcode will probably get improvements over time and the game also has skirmish and campaigns.

It's not very fair that whether or not something hits your hovercraft depends on how lucky you are.

Either way though, I think maybe an important focus of a future rebalance should be increasing round travel speeds, to help patch these issues that you mention. Plus look at gauss, a weapon that supposedly relies entirely on kinetic energy to inflict damage and it has one of the slowest rounds in the game, as opposed to something near equivalent to the lasers.

Yes, I'm planning on increasing projectile speeds. A problem is that the current projectile system isn't designed to handle uber-fast projectiles, which is why I've been steadily decreasing laser speeds (they're only 25 tiles/sec now, and they still go fast enough to go past their target without damaging it sometimes - compare this to 15 tiles/sec for some projectile weapons, and we must conclude that the speed of light is apparently very slow in Warzone).

What I find amusing is that currently, an experienced VTOL can travel faster than most non-laser projectiles, and about twice as fast as a SAM (which, iirc, are tied with Plasma Cannon for the slowest weapon in the game). The only reason anything can hit them is because all AA are homing.

[TVR]

Effective DPS is even lower on rotary weapons (and Pepperpot is a rotary weapon)

Why would effective DPS be lower on rapid-fire weapons? They don't suffer from overkill, and the accuracy roll applied multiple times averages to the median.

You don't even need to research Mortar to get SRMA, let alone fully upgrade a Pepperpot

Yes, but if you skip researching mortar from T1, it's pretty much a guaranteed loss.

Neither are Pepperpot and SRMA, for that matter.

Pepperpot remains useful through T3 was a way to destroy hardpoints from range for cheaper than Hellstorm, SRMA doesn't share this entire quality.

... And it won't throw off enemy artillery, either - Warzone artillery have target prediction.

Artillery in TA also has target prediction, but that's not an issue, patrolling in two dimensions still works.

At least nobody is arguing that tracks make good anti-artillery units. For a while they can hold up against mortars, but eventually it becomes pointless ...

Tracks is supposed to be a heavy assault propulsion, what if they received this 80% damage reduction instead of hover?

Combo it with ECM, and any artillery turtle will not be able to fire upon them until it's too late.

As regards projectile speed - it is not fun if they are too fast and you can't see them.

In my opinion, the direct-fire projectiles aren't meant to be examined, the bullets and shells appear as tiny slivers when zoomed in, rockets and missiles appear as a smokeless fire bolt, and LASERs are ludicrously slow globs.

[Zarel]

Why would effective DPS be lower on rapid-fire weapons? They don't suffer from overkill, and the accuracy roll applied multiple times averages to the median.

Sorry, I meant DPS after armor.

Regardless, any disadvantage from overkill is far offset by the ability to hit-and-run. Plus, you can micro to prevent overkill - you don't need even to split up the group; you just switch targets in the middle of the salvo. Plus, we'll eventually implement automatic overkill prevention (unfortunately, this will just make artillery even more powerful).

Yes, but if you skip researching mortar from T1, it's pretty much a guaranteed loss.

Nonsense; I do it all the time.

Artillery in TA also has target prediction, but that's not an issue, patrolling in two dimensions still works.

Regardless, you can't patrol and shoot at the same time.

Tracks is supposed to be a heavy assault propulsion, what if they received this 80% damage reduction instead of hover?

Combo it with ECM, and any artillery turtle will not be able to fire upon them until it's too late.

A good idea; I'm considering that myself.

I mostly dislike it because I don't want people to go around and micro their hovercraft.

I don't think one should be able to put heavy weapons like artillery on hovers. It is a fast attack propulsion, and should have some upper weapon weight limit or something. That would solve the possible "invincible artillery" issue.

Good idea.

As regards projectile speed - it is not fun if they are too fast and you can't see them.

They don't need to be that fast. Plus, it's already impossible to see single machinegun and cannon bullets, anyway.

[TVR]

Sorry, I meant DPS after armor.

SRMA fires a volley of ~6 missiles, yes? The armour deduction would be applied to each missile separately as well.

Regardless, you can't patrol and shoot at the same time.

That would be a Warzone 2100 UI limitation, but since tanks can move and shoot, a queued move order still works.

I mostly dislike it because I don't want people to go around and micro their hovercraft.

Hover can only realistically mount recoilless rockets and missiles, rockets and missiles including SRMA are hit-and-run weapons, hit-and-run requires micro...

Therefore, hovercrafts require micro, Q.E.D.

[Zarel]

That would be a Warzone 2100 UI limitation, but since tanks can move and shoot, a queued move order still works.

Not really. Do you queue the shot after the move? Then the unit will only shoot after it stops moving. Do you queue the move after the shot? Then it doesn't move until after it's destroyed what it's shooting at.

It's a UI limitation, yes, but it's not something I can fix.

Hover can only realistically mount recoilless rockets and missiles, rockets and missiles including SRMA are hit-and-run weapons, hit-and-run requires micro...

Therefore, hovercrafts require micro, Q.E.D.

I'm not opposed to microing in general, I'm opposed to microing dodging. It's especially hard to both dodge, and hit-and-run at the same time.

Before you point out that those are the same thing, I'm going to point out that "dodge" refers to dodging from enemy artillery, while "hit-and-run" refers to dodging from enemy hardpoints.

[TVR]

Not really. Do you queue the shot after the move? Then the unit will only shoot after it stops moving. Do you queue the move after the shot? Then it doesn't move until after it's destroyed what it's shooting at.

Tanks have automatic target acquisition, they will attack all targets within range while following a queued move order.

[Deus Siddis]

Well, the indirect fire helps it shoot over walls. I guess I could hardcodedly force them to be unable to be assigned to sensors (like grenadier), but I don't see what's wrong with just refraining from assigning them to sensors.

We were on the subject of intuitiveness. And as far as that goes, this is a bug. We can usually refrain from triggering a bug as well, but that doesn't mean it should be considered a feature.

Stop quoting my messages out of context. Those are specifically long-range direct fire weapons, and they're a higher tech level than MRA. MRA has higher range than any direct-fire weapon in its tech level.

Well, kind of. The lancer is in about the same tier.

This all works out the minute you stop thinking of MRA as an indirect fire weapon. Its range should tip you off...

It is also a rocket weapon that looks like artillery. Again, this is on the subject of intuitiveness.

It simply makes sense that a tank-mounted rocket pod would be able to vertically rotated more easily than a tank-mounted anti-tank rocket launcher.

Being mounted on the sides of the turret gives them alot of swing room. And AT rockets are much more likely to be guided, which is a real benefit for AA.

If by "at the last second" you mean "before 1.00", then maybe. But I remember playing 1.00, and I remember unit limit being higher than 40 (and there being no drive mode at all). I'm not at home right now, so I can't go dig out my copy of the changelog to check, though. I'll post it when I get home.

Nevermind, found it, the complete changelog ships with the game:

0000-00-00: Version 1.01
* New:
* Support for WZ add-on packs - WZ now has the functionality to support additional maps, units and research technology.
* New maps - Zigurrat, Wheel Of Fortune and The Valley Of Death.
* Unit limit increased to 100 per side in Multiplayer.

With the playstation version, there could be no patches, so it was forever 1.00.

The PC version has drive mode in a very limited "point and click" sort of way.

Well, at long range (i.e. 8+ tiles) be untouchable by most non-homing weapons. The faster weapons might still be able to hit, but you should be able to dodge at least all artillery, rockets, plasma cannon...

See why I don't like the projectile system? If it weren't for all the people in love with it, I'd just make all weapons homing.

No I don't, that seems like a real feature. Hover craft are really weak, they should be able to dodge. If you want to kill them, use homing weapons, cyborgs, vtols or a less predictable firing pattern for you artillery.

It's not very fair that whether or not something hits your hovercraft depends on how lucky you are.

It is plenty fair, you have to deal with risk in war. Many wargmes, via abstract dice rolls or projectile simulation build in a risk element on purpose. Folks who hate chance play chess. But warzone always had a luck factor, it was more abstracted before and now it is simulated in 3D.

Yes, I'm planning on increasing projectile speeds. A problem is that the current projectile system isn't designed to handle uber-fast projectiles, which is why I've been steadily decreasing laser speeds (they're only 25 tiles/sec now, and they still go fast enough to go past their target without damaging it sometimes - compare this to 15 tiles/sec for some projectile weapons, and we must conclude that the speed of light is apparently very slow in Warzone).

What I find amusing is that currently, an experienced VTOL can travel faster than most non-laser projectiles, and about twice as fast as a SAM (which, iirc, are tied with Plasma Cannon for the slowest weapon in the game). The only reason anything can hit them is because all AA are homing.

Is this because of the age of warzone's engine or is it just a matter of how fast your particular CPU is?

And why not use any hitscan weapons? Laser should be hitscan, gauss could be hitscan, give MG's a spread angle and maybe they could be as well, etc.

Hitscan + Spread Angle = Simulation, Chance, No Missed Collisions Between Cycles