Rename the Tank Killer?

[Dalton]

Perhaps if I further reduce the time it takes to get Tank Killer... How's having it just require HEAT Mk2? And maybe reducing the price to 250?

Yes, I would like this much more and would likely use TK if I needed to build units before I got to scourge.

[KenAlcock]

Heh. I can change your username for you now. Would you prefer "KenAlcock" or "Ken Alcock"? (Most username systems support spaces, at this point.)

Hey that would be helpful, thank you! Better to use "KenAlcock", otherwise I might forget my own signon! O_O Besides, I already have that ID all over the internet at various forums and web sites. If you see a KenAlcock (who writes really short terse posts), then you'll know it's me.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons why I made Lancer more expensive. Maybe I should also make TK cheaper?

Perhaps if I further reduce the time it takes to get Tank Killer... How's having it just require HEAT Mk2? And maybe reducing the price to 250?

Okay moving Tank Killer AT Rocket between HEAT Mk2 and HEAT Mk3 sounds good. It gives the Tank Killer AT Rocket another upgrade for it, which as Daltx suggested should keep it around longer and keep it more relevant to be produced.

Reducing the price might also help. But it's hard to speak to this idea without having an updated side-by-side comparison of the three weapon systems and their statistics. Speaking only from the data I see in the v2.2.4 Guide (which I know you've rebalanced many things since then, so please correct the data in the table below when you reply), I see another concern with Tank Killer AT Rocket weapon system.

Warzone Version 2.2.4 Balancing

Code: Select all

Weapon System Base     Cost  Wt.   HP  Dmg (DPS/A0)  ROF  Acc(C-L)  Rng(C-L)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lancer AT Rocket       $125  250   20  160  (11.9)   7.4  50-60%     4–9
Tank Killer AT Rocket  $200  300   40  240  (14.3)   5.9  50-60%     4–10
Scourge AT Missile     $300  400   20  360  (55.4)  11.5  70-80%     5–16

Weapon System Upgrade  Cost  Wt.   HP  Dmg (DPS/A0)  ROF  Acc(C-L)  Rng(C-L)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lancer AT Rocket       $125  250   20  400  (11.9)  13.5  65-78%     4–9
Tank Killer AT Rocket  $200  300   40  600  (84.5)  10.7  65-78%     4–10
Scourge AT Missile     $300  400   20  630 (211.5)  20.9  84-96%     5–16

NOTE: Scourge missiles also having homing capability for moving targets.

Okay at first glance, it looks to me like the Tank Killer's ROF just doesn't fit well within the rest of his weapon family tree branch. That is, until I think of the Tank Killer as a real life Dragon or TOW weapons system when the rate of fire starts to make much more sense. First, the Scourge rightfully has a much higher ROF because it is a guided missile and therefore a fire-and-forget weapon system. And at the lower end, the Lancer has a higher ROF higher because it is neither wire guided, nor Laser Designated. But herein lies the huge problem with the Tank Killer AT Weapon system. Why would a wire guided and laser designated weapon have the exact same accuracy as a more simple rocket like the Lancer? There is no way it should. No one is going to spend money developing a weapon system that costs more (even if you do lower the price a little) for a slower rate of fire and the exact same accuracy as a weapon system they already own. And the range is only one tile better than the Lancer at the long end. The only noticable advantage is extra HP and damage.

This is part of the reason why it seemed to me like these two weapons systems should just be merged into one, there wasn't enough distinction between them. Now I wouldn't say punish the Lancer at make it weaker, but I think rather that the Tank Killer needs to land comfortably between the capabilities of the Lancer and the Scourge.

Again, I point out that I can only see v2.2.4 balancing data side-by side. But given that data, it seems to me that the Tank Killer AT Rocket should also be rebalanced to 60-70% accuracy without upgrades and to whatever appropriate accuracy those numbers become after upgrades are applied. Okay moving the Tank Killer AT Rocket so it appears after HEAT Mk2 and before HEAT Mk3 sounds good too. Then, I think its price should still fall between that of a Lancer and a Scourge, but perhaps a little closer to the Lancer end of the price scale.

New Tank Killer Cost = New Lancer Cost + (New Scourge Cost - New Lancer Cost) * 35%

[Zarel]

Here's 2.3 beta 8 balancing:

Code: Select all

Weapon System Base     Cost  Wt.   HP  Dmg (DPS/A0)  ROF  Acc(C-L)  Rng(C-L)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lancer AT Rocket       $150  250   20  160  (11.9)   7.4  30-60%     4–9
Tank Killer AT Rocket  $200  300   40  240  (14.3)   5.9  30-60%     4–10
Scourge AT Missile     $300  400   20  360  (55.4)  11.5  50-80%     5–14

NOTE: Scourge missiles also having homing capability for moving targets.

Main changes are that lancer's a bit more expensive, and they all have lower short-range accuracy.

I suppose a proposed change would be:

Code: Select all

Weapon System Base     Cost  Wt.   HP  Dmg (DPS/A0)  ROF  Acc(C-L)  Rng(C-L)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lancer AT Rocket       $150  250   20  150  (11.1)   7.4  30-60%     4–9
Tank Killer Rocket     $200  300   40  240  (14.3)   5.9  30-60%     4–10
Scourge Missile        $300  400   20  350  (53.7)  11.5  50-80%     5–14

NOTE: Scourge missiles also having homing capability for moving targets.

Okay at first glance, it looks to me like the Tank Killer's ROF just doesn't fit well within the rest of his weapon family tree branch. That is, until I think of the Tank Killer as a real life Dragon or TOW weapons system when the rate of fire starts to make much more sense. First, the Scourge rightfully has a much higher ROF because it is a guided missile and therefore a fire-and-forget weapon system. And at the lower end, the Lancer has a higher ROF higher because it is neither wire guided, nor Laser Designated. But herein lies the huge problem with the Tank Killer AT Weapon system. Why would a wire guided and laser designated weapon have the exact same accuracy as a more simple rocket like the Lancer? There is no way it should. No one is going to spend money developing a weapon system that costs more (even if you do lower the price a little) for a slower rate of fire and the exact same accuracy as a weapon system they already own. And the range is only one tile better than the Lancer at the long end. The only noticable advantage is extra HP and damage.

Hey, it's not necessarily wire-guided and laser designated. If you're going by upgrades, by the time you get TK, both TK and Lancer would have wire guidance and laser designation. TK is one of those "pure damage" weapons. Plus, its range is pretty good for T2.

This is part of the reason why it seemed to me like these two weapons systems should just be merged into one, there wasn't enough distinction between them. Now I wouldn't say punish the Lancer at make it weaker, but I think rather that the Tank Killer needs to land comfortably between the capabilities of the Lancer and the Scourge.

"Right in the middle" is quite boring. I'd prefer something more interesting. Currently, it's high damage, low rof, low accuracy. I think it works well that way.

[DFStormbringer]

i dont know if a fix is even possible.. seriously.. the light cannon is nearly in the same fault.. only a couple fast researches till the medium is out only making the medium viable int he first 5 min or so of the game.. and even the medium canon is put in check as soon as the lancer comes into play.

seriously the only way to really.. perfectly balance everything is to smack it with a rock paper sciscors effect where cannons are best for one thing.. and missiles are best for another..
then make sure that they have the same number of upgrades.. and even number spacing the 3 tiers out.

the problem here is the number of weapon types vs the number of targets available.
Hard structures. ie. hardpoints and bunkers
Soft structures.. ie emplacements and base buildings
VTOL..
Cyborgs
Vehicles

for weapons.. theres..
Machiene guns.. not REALLY a weapons line in sense of the cannons and lancer but most the AA branches off of it and its the best vs cyborgs.

Flamers.. not really good vs anything with its short range so cant be a viable counter to anything. not cost for cost on a vs scale.

Rockets.. like the MGs.. not really a viable weapon tree even though the missiles and the rocket artillery spawn off of it.

Lasers.. come very late in the game.. and do average damage vs everything.. but being so late in the game theres not much room for improvement.

Cannons.. next to missiles.. one of the only real fully flushed out weapon branches.

Missiles.. we all love our lancers.. and all get worried when the AI gets them before we do. like cannons.. not ballanced but still very well flushed out.

Gauss... like lasers.. they come incredibly late in the game to be of much use as you would have to hit that tech tree HARD to get it to be able to out do your current heavy cannons.

EMP... yeah.. right.. NEVER a viable use in ANY game.
----------------------------

now if ALL of these weapon lines.. save emp.. were available from the get go.. and didnt require each other to appear on the tech tree.. THEN.. you can properly spread out thier usefullness between techs 1..2 and 3.
but seriously.. this is never going to happen.. too much work.. and as stated.. it would leave alot of the weapons in a void of uselessness.. causing weapons to basically be the same as all the other weapons.. just a different graphic as there isent enough target variants to give each weapon class a specific specilaziation and use..

this on top of the countless recoding needed to drastically alter the tech tree.. this level of balance just is not going to happen.

well.. taking out the MG.. the flamer.. and the emp.. it is.. 5 for 5..
and this new layer of depth would really add a much needed layer of strategy to this game as well as give everything in the tech line some purposefull use.. but then i fear WZ2100 would be drastically changed to the point he purists would cry out in thier dreams.

so we all have to decide.. just what limits are we really going to go for.. fair balancing for all the weapons and their use?