The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Discuss the future of Warzone 2100 with us.
TVR
Trained
Trained
Posts: 216
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 22:59

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by TVR »

Zarel wrote:... Scourge has a weapon range of 16, but unless it's mounted on a tower, it's restrained by sensor range ...
Hardpoints are towers, and wide-spectrum sensor towers are a staple of any defencive line.
Kacen wrote:The SRMA also fires more shots per volley than a scourge, which only fires two.
It is a disadvantage, the armour deduction is applied on each shot individually.

But of course, the statistics listed in the guide reflect full volley damage, and the Scourge still does ~400 damage more per volley.
Kacen wrote:... They'd be more like repulsorlifts, just hovering above the battlefield. They'd have low-medium body points, be faster than hover, have the worst weight support of all propulsion systems (besides VTOLS), be amphibious (obviously), and completely unaffected by terrain.

I can sorta see something like that filling a gaming niche, actually ...
You've discovered the purpose of the rotary-wing gunship, AKA the attack helicopter.
Kacen wrote:... What advantage would articulated wheels have over regular wheels that could have a noticeable, useful effect on gameplay? ...
Better cornering.
Kacen wrote:... all-terrain propulsion ... medium weight support. ...
Mechanized articulation is neither all terrain, nor comparable in weight support, as it would have the highest ground pressure of any propulsion.

Caterpillar track is used on heavy vehicles as it has the greatest surface area, and thus dissipates the weight most uniformly.

The most common loss for heavy AFVs is being stuck in mud, if even tracks cannot cross such soft-ground, Mechanized articulation would literally sink as if in quicksand.
Kacen
Trained
Trained
Posts: 294
Joined: 19 Feb 2007, 19:28

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Kacen »

TVR wrote:It is a disadvantage, the armour deduction is applied on each shot individually.

But of course, the statistics listed in the guide reflect full volley damage, and the Scourge still does ~400 damage more per volley.
If that is the case some re-balancing is needed?
TVR wrote:You've discovered the purpose of the rotary-wing gunship, AKA the attack helicopter.
Funny I've had the concept of a helicopter propulsion in my head. Like a VTOL that can strafe, hover in place, and continuously press the attack; like a gunship. Has low weight support and is relatively slower than VTOLS and has low body points, therefore more vulnerable to AA, but doesn't need to go back and rearm.
TVR wrote: Mechanized articulation is neither all terrain, nor comparable in weight support, as it would have the highest ground pressure of any propulsion.

Caterpillar track is used on heavy vehicles as it has the greatest surface area, and thus dissipates the weight most uniformly.

The most common loss for heavy AFVs is being stuck in mud, if even tracks cannot cross such soft-ground, Mechanized articulation would literally sink as if in quicksand.
I was thinking more along the lines of bumpy ground and mountainous terrain, and in regards to mechanized articulation like splayed spider legs.
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Zarel »

Deus Siddis wrote:So wheels are the only propulsion system that becomes obsolete? Wouldn't that require that they have no advantage versus hover in going up hills?
Well, wheels have some minor advantages, but in general, yes, they're the only one that becomes obsolete. I think that's fair, because they're the first propulsion you get, and the least expensive (by a fairly large margin - hover costs twice as much).
TVR wrote:Hardpoints are towers, and wide-spectrum sensor towers are a staple of any defencive line.
Hardpoints are not towers. They only have 8-12 range. Considering I was the one who made them the way they are, I would know.
TVR wrote:But of course, the statistics listed in the guide reflect full volley damage, and the Scourge still does ~400 damage more per volley.
No, the statistics are per-shot.

Scourge does 720*upgrades - 2*armor per volley.

SRMA does 960*upgrades - 8*armor per volley.

Overall, Scourge has a higher average damage rate, but it does pretty much nothing against anything other than tanks. The advantage of SRMA is that it does better damage against everything except tanks and bunkers.
Kacen wrote:Funny I've had the concept of a helicopter propulsion in my head. Like a VTOL that can strafe, hover in place, and continuously press the attack; like a gunship. Has low weight support and is relatively slower than VTOLS and has low body points, therefore more vulnerable to AA, but doesn't need to go back and rearm.
Warzone, unfortunately, isn't balanced for this.
TVR
Trained
Trained
Posts: 216
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 22:59

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by TVR »

Zarel wrote:... Hardpoints are not towers. They only have 8-12 range. Considering I was the one who made them the way they are, I would know ...
Interesting, considering that the hardpoint is the same height as the tower...
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Zarel »

TVR wrote:Interesting, considering that the hardpoint is the same height as the tower...
Hardpoints use Default Internal Sensor, which is range 8-12. Towers use Tower Sensor, which is range 12-18. It has nothing to do with Height, which means absolutely nothing, other than that Height 1 structures can't fire over Height 2+ structures.
Deus Siddis
Trained
Trained
Posts: 235
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 06:58

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Deus Siddis »

Kacen wrote: What advantage would articulated wheels have over regular wheels that could have a noticeable, useful effect on gameplay?
They'd improve rough terrain performance.
Erm, maglev tracks are for trains. You'd have to put magnets all over the battlefield for that to work...and I wouldn't consider that an equivalent replacement for tracks.
The "treads" are suspended in magnetic track bands which reduces friction which equals a speed boost.
Like the former, I don't see legs as a replacement for half-tracks, if they were to be added I would think they'd be a complementary propulsion not a replacement. The attributes of legs, I would think, would be being unaffected by uneven terrain (like cyborgs), essentially making them the best all-terrain propulsion, low-medium body points, low-medium speed (especially for heavy bodies), and medium weight support. Should perhaps have the same weakness to AP weapons as wheels and hover.

Somehow, though, I think with these considered, the only advantage they'd have would be all-terrain, and weighing that minor advantage along with the average to low stats legs would hypothetically have, they'd be overly impractical.

The advantage is outweighed by everything else. Tracks would be more practical because the legs would only be slightly more advantageous in the terrain department and perhaps slightly faster, speed being effected by whether it's bipedal or quadrupedal (I see light and medium bodies as being bipedal and heavy ones as being quadrupedal; the latter being slower by a wide margin.), while tracks would have far more armor, better weight support, etc. They'd be better weighing the advantages and disadvantages.

I'd imagine legs would be fairly expensive, too.

The only way I see leg propulsion being useful in the game is if we made uneven terrain a more extensive gameplay element...that or perhaps having some sort of more splayed spider-leg like propulsion that could climb up hills. That would be a turtler's nightmare if they used the terrain to their advantage; if that were done only then could I see legged propulsion as being practical.
I misspoke, I meant for mag tracks and legs to replace tracks and half tracks. Mag tracks would be as fast as half tracks or wheels but as strong and rough terrain capable as ordinary tracks. Legs would have superior rough terrain capability to everything else, but only be as strong as half tracks and/or be slower on even terrain than mag tracks.
On top of that, if I recall the main issue with adding legs is, to put it simply, the animation looks horrible. I mean let's be honest even the cyborgs look fairly lame when they walk.
They are going to have to fix this eventually, otherwise cyborgs will continue to have this issue.
Like the legs, I see this as a complementary replacement, and more feasible than the legs even.

They'd be more like repulsorlifts, just hovering above the battlefield. They'd have low-medium body points, be faster than hover, have the worst weight support of all propulsion systems (besides VTOLS), be amphibious (obviously), and completely unaffected by terrain.
They'd be stronger and have better weight carrying capacity than ordinary hover.
You know, side commentary, that's something I never liked. I always liked the idea of all bodies having strengths and weaknesses but the NEXUS bodies just throw that off.

In campaign it doesn't matter much but in skirmish it sure does. If you're at tech 3 and you have the money all you'll find yourself using are New Paradigm and Nexus bodies; New Paradigm for any non-combat vehicle (trucks, sensors, scouts) due to their low cost and speed of production, and NEXUS for any combat vehicles, tanks, etc. Maybe New Paradigm bodies for long-range artillery.
That would be something to consider.
Then there's the super heavy bodies, which I rarely use. Their horrendously slow speed and high production costs just makes them less cost effective overall. That's just me, though.
They simply don't have enough firepower for their cost/production and painfully slow speed. Maybe if plasma weapons were made into their own line and were too heavy for vengeance bodies to really carry, so that you needed the super heavy bodies to field these weapons.
Kacen
Trained
Trained
Posts: 294
Joined: 19 Feb 2007, 19:28

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Kacen »

Deus Siddis wrote:I misspoke, I meant for mag tracks and legs to replace tracks and half tracks. Mag tracks would be as fast as half tracks or wheels but as strong and rough terrain capable as ordinary tracks. Legs would have superior rough terrain capability to everything else, but only be as strong as half tracks and/or be slower on even terrain than mag tracks.
No, I understood you completely, I just don't think legs are an "upgrade" to half-tracks. Too radically different.
Deus Siddis wrote:They simply don't have enough firepower for their cost/production and painfully slow speed. Maybe if plasma weapons were made into their own line and were too heavy for vengeance bodies to really carry, so that you needed the super heavy bodies to field these weapons.
What's interesting is that even now currently the Plasma Cannon is technically too heavy for ANY body.

It weighs more than any body/propulsion combo. Even the Dragon/Tracks can't support it, moving horrendously slow with it on top.
TVR
Trained
Trained
Posts: 216
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 22:59

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by TVR »

Zarel wrote:Hardpoints use Default Internal Sensor, which is range 8-12. Towers use Tower Sensor, which is range 12-18. It has nothing to do with Height, which means absolutely nothing, other than that Height 1 structures can't fire over Height 2+ structures.
Excellent, now that has been identified as a inconsistency that will be fixed along the roadmap to defencive structure design.
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Zarel »

TVR wrote:Excellent, now that has been identified as a inconsistency that will be fixed along the roadmap to defencive structure design.
Meh, how's about I just change all towers' height to 3?
User avatar
lav_coyote25
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3434
Joined: 08 Aug 2006, 23:18

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by lav_coyote25 »

actually if your going to change height - go to 5 or more... higher than the the damn walls.. xD
TVR
Trained
Trained
Posts: 216
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 22:59

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by TVR »

Zarel wrote:Meh, how's about I just change all towers' height to 3?
But then Scourge missiles would still be artificially limited by hardpoint sensor range.

Direct-fire defences truly should be able to use sensor net data.
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Zarel »

TVR wrote:But then Scourge missiles would still be artificially limited by hardpoint sensor range.

Direct-fire defences truly should be able to use sensor net data.
Blame Pumpkin. Scourge has always been artificially limited by hardpoint sensor range.
Mabsterone
Trained
Trained
Posts: 38
Joined: 13 Apr 2009, 12:33

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Mabsterone »

@zarel: one issue came up in the last days.

extrem cyborg transport attacks

since the vtol weapons are allrounder, 5-10 cyborg transports can kill a base fast and easy ( unlimited ammo ) and really no AA helps against that huge amount of hitpoints at that state of the game

i would suggest to remove the weapon from the transports to fix this issue
Last edited by Mabsterone on 07 Sep 2009, 12:25, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Zarel »

Yeah, okay, I'll deal with VTOL weapon balance.
Mabsterone
Trained
Trained
Posts: 38
Joined: 13 Apr 2009, 12:33

Re: The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

Post by Mabsterone »

Zarel wrote:Yeah, okay, I'll deal with VTOL weapon balance.
the allrounder capability overall is fine makes vtol more interesting wih mg type weapons and a usefull basedefence against tracked vehicle attacks

Only the combination of HMG, unlimited ammo and tons of armor like the transport has is a problem that early in the game.

If removing the weapon is a nogo, what about limiting the max number of transports to 4 or 5 ( i think the moving capacity of 40-50 units is sufficent ? )