Rocket balance proposals

[Zarel]

So, there've been several ideas for nerfing lancers.

My current plans are to simply merge the mini-pod/lancer upgrade paths, so they're all affected by a single upgrade tree, and increase the number of upgrades from 6 to 9.

These will be:

HE Rocket Warhead (Mk1-Mk3)
HEAT Rocket Warhead (Mk1-Mk3)
HESH Rocket Warhead (Mk1-Mk3)

Now, you may ask, "Won't this just make them stronger?" But see, since lancers will already have 3 upgrades when you get them, they'll have a slower upgrade progression!

Currently, lancers do 160 damage when you get them, and 400 fully upgraded.

With the new system, lancers will do 160 damage when you get them, and only 297 fully upgraded.

This won't give an advantage to people because of the smaller number of upgrades, either, since the best players don't research anything but the first 3 minipod upgrades, anyway, making the point moot.

[Olrox]

So, there've been several ideas for nerfing lancers.

My current plans are to simply merge the mini-pod/lancer upgrade paths, so they're all affected by a single upgrade tree, and increase the number of upgrades from 6 to 9.

These will be:

HE Rocket Warhead (Mk1-Mk3)
HEAT Rocket Warhead (Mk1-Mk3)
HESH Rocket Warhead (Mk1-Mk3)

Now, you may ask, "Won't this just make them stronger?" But see, since lancers will already have 3 upgrades when you get them, they'll have a slower upgrade progression!

Currently, lancers do 160 damage when you get them, and 400 fully upgraded.

With the new system, lancers will do 160 damage when you get them, and only 297 fully upgraded.

This won't give an advantage to people because of the smaller number of upgrades, either, since the best players don't research anything but the first 3 minipod upgrades, anyway, making the point moot.

I think it's a good idea, but maybe lancers could be a little stronger than 297 damage when fully upgraded (a reduction from 400 to 297 is a great reduction, more than 25%, I think we should keep reductions at barely 15%).

IMO, a good choice to nerf rockets would be to make prereqs wider but yet, specific (perhaps create Rocket artillery Targeting Computer upgrades as prereqs to RR and Archie, and High-Speed Missile Targeting as prereqs for SAMs?). This is because really, the rockets tree is very large, and different branches should be kept a bit more separated.

Is that a good idea?

[Zarel]

I think it's a good idea, but maybe lancers could be a little stronger than 297 damage when fully upgraded (a reduction from 400 to 297 is a great reduction, more than 25%, I think we should keep reductions at barely 15%).

It's exactly 25%, and that's only when fully upgraded. People should be using Tank Killers by then, anyway.

[3drts]

I remember when the lancers were used, and they did 160 damage, then with the upgrades starting to work, they did something like 256, and I was like "whoah, lancers R0x0r5",
Look at the old cannon vs lancer stats, then compare to current.... cannons suck so much relative to lancers now.
Lancers could definitely use a nerf.
I seem to recall you were going to boost cannon damage too, just make sure not to overdo it by simultaneously nerfing lancers and buffing cannons.

As a side note, this may make flamers OP again, as lancers were the only real way I knew of to fight flamer tanks.
but the tactics shoulds still work: lancer vs flamer tank of same propulsion = lancer win if the player keeps distance (same or faster propulsion is needed for this).

NP bodies+ tracks also were OK vs flamer tanks, because lancers were powerful enough, that it wasn't a complete slaughter if distance couldn't be kept (such as encountering flamer hovers).
but flamers were starting to fall into disuse again, at least that was my impression...

2 birds with 1 stone?
(though this will have almost no impact on the flamer borg dynamics)

Remember to nerf Cyborg lancer base stats, in addition to the other rocket weapons as well, so that lancer borgs don't become Over Powered with 3 more upgrades...

[dmkp]

Lancers in v1.10 were perfect. I've just been playing through on the 2. something version and they're ripping things apart in one shot 0.o

[3drts]

We should go to some sort of rock paper scissors balance:
Lancer hovers beat flamer hovers.
Lancer tracks beat lancer hovers,
Flamer hovers (or half tracks) beat lancer tracks.

On top of this we could do something like:
Cannon hovers beat flamer hovers, cannon tracks beat flamer hovers (due to 100% vs 90% damage modifiers for the respective propulsion differences, and the HP advantage of cannons and tracks).
Cannons should have more sustained firepower than lancers (after all, its easier to carry enough ammo for a gun to last a whole fight, than for a rocket launcher).
Salvo fire weapons should require withdrawing from combat during the reloads, to win, thus when flamers close the distance, cannons should do better than lancers against flamers (due to higher sustained DPS and Hit points).

Lancer hover > all other T-1 weapon types, except lancer tracks.
Lancer tracks < flamer half tracks, hover (maybe even wheels on a cost basis 0.o? ), Cannon Half tracks?
Flamer Hover < Cannon tracks, cannon hover (if it has enough speed, or enough speed to do enough damage to the flamers before they close the distance?), HMG hover

Lancers would still be a main weapon line, but they wouldn't be *the only* weapon line you'd consider.
Though now, there is use for HMGs and such, due to lancer borgs (as a side note, twin AG has an awesome DPS, and AG doesn't take all that long to get, I'm thinking AG may be an over looked OP weapon now that ROF isnt capped at 240 - or was that just a display limitation?).

Moving HPV cannon earlier, gives cannons the range to engage lancers, so its a good idea me thinks. If we say cannons have higher sustained DPS, then HPV cannon hovers could beat lancer hovers (assuming equal speeds?), HPV tracks would beat hpv hovers, but lancer HfTx/hover could beat cannon tracks by firing a salvo and retreating, reload, repeat.
But HPV cannon DPS is getting nerfed isn't it?
Maybe HPV cannon can be a lancer counter (give it an AT damage type?), and take away its ability to hit air?
HPV cannons were originally fielded to take out other heavily armored tanks after all, not for AA defense.
(I'm still a proponent of assault cannon targeting air)

By the way, the guide lists Anti-Air as a damage type again, instead of all-rounder

[Zarel]

We should go to some sort of rock paper scissors balance:
Lancer hovers beat flamer hovers.
Lancer tracks beat lancer hovers,
Flamer hovers (or half tracks) beat lancer tracks.

The problem with this is that the only counter for lancer hovers is more lancers. This locks everyone into a rocket research path, which is undesirable.

On top of this we could do something like:
Cannon hovers beat flamer hovers, cannon tracks beat flamer hovers (due to 100% vs 90% damage modifiers for the respective propulsion differences, and the HP advantage of cannons and tracks).
Cannons should have more sustained firepower than lancers (after all, its easier to carry enough ammo for a gun to last a whole fight, than for a rocket launcher).
Salvo fire weapons should require withdrawing from combat during the reloads, to win, thus when flamers close the distance, cannons should do better than lancers against flamers (due to higher sustained DPS and Hit points).

Well, actually, cannons do 120% to hovers now (hovers have gotten rebalanced several times). I think I might increase that to 125% or 130%.

Cannons are indeed intended to be a hard counter for flamer hovers.

Lancers would still be a main weapon line, but they wouldn't be *the only* weapon line you'd consider.
Though now, there is use for HMGs and such, due to lancer borgs (as a side note, twin AG has an awesome DPS, and AG doesn't take all that long to get, I'm thinking AG may be an over looked OP weapon now that ROF isnt capped at 240 - or was that just a display limitation?).

...? Max ROF for any weapon has always been 600.

Moving HPV cannon earlier, gives cannons the range to engage lancers, so its a good idea me thinks. If we say cannons have higher sustained DPS, then HPV cannon hovers could beat lancer hovers (assuming equal speeds?), HPV tracks would beat hpv hovers, but lancer HfTx/hover could beat cannon tracks by firing a salvo and retreating, reload, repeat.
But HPV cannon DPS is getting nerfed isn't it?
Maybe HPV cannon can be a lancer counter (give it an AT damage type?), and take away its ability to hit air?
HPV cannons were originally fielded to take out other heavily armored tanks after all, not for AA defense.
(I'm still a proponent of assault cannon targeting air)

Hmm, well, I suppose I can give it more sustained DPS.

By the way, the guide lists Anti-Air as a damage type again, instead of all-rounder

Fixed.

[zimboptoo]

This change, if carried over to campaign, will probably have a bigger effect there than in skirmish, since you don't get Tank Killers for quite a while. Then again, maybe that's a good thing. The fact that a small bunch of Lancers can tapdance over pretty much anything up until the middle of Beta campaign is probably not a sign of good balance.

[Zarel]

This change, if carried over to campaign, will probably have a bigger effect there than in skirmish, since you don't get Tank Killers for quite a while.

You forget that there's a bug that makes lancer upgrades do absolutely nothing in campaign, so this change would be an improvement.

[zimboptoo]

But that bug has been fixed in 2.3, right? See, I just assume that everyone else is also playing from a build on the bleeding edge. Recompiling from the trunk every night means things get fixed quicker, right?

[Zarel]

But that bug has been fixed in 2.3, right?

I believe it was never fixed in campaign, since it would change balance too much (it would make lancer ~2.5x more powerful that it would otherwise be...)

[3drts]

As long as lancers are the longest range weapon of their tech level (and will be for a while), and are low weight, nothing will beat them on a wide open battlefield.

They will use their low weight(ie speed) to stay out of range, and win.
The only solution, is to make it so that something else can catch them (ie increase weight), or something else can match their range.
So we can move HPV cannon down the tech tree, so that you can get it when you get lancers, or you can increase the other cannon range.
IMO, I think a good solution is to increase medium cannon range to 1024, so that the range at which lancers can attack safely is very small, and staying out of range is impractical in large battles (but not small skirmishes).
Heavy cannons should then be increase in range to 1152, or even 1280.
If the 88mm HPV is an analog to the high velocity german 88mm of WW2, then the 120mm heavy cannon should be like modern heavy cannons - 5,000 fps, meeting the HPV definition of WW2.
In a sense the heavy cannon could be called the Heavy Hyper Velocity Cannon.
Large caliber Hyper velocity Cannons are now standard on Main Battle tanks.

Cannons should have the range to engage rocket tanks- as is the case in modern MBTs (vehicle launched hellfires or TOWs are actually relatively short ranged relative to main tank cannons, and the twin TOWs on a M2 Bradley are very analogous to lancers - as is the AT-6? on a BMP-1 or 2 being wire guided rockets initially).

Cannons: sustained regular fire, superior DPS, slow speed.
Rockets: Damaging salvos but inferior DPS, hit-run-reload,
not much range difference.
On the attack, where rockets have no where to retreat to, cannons should smash rockets.
I would rather nerf rocket ROF than damage, to emphasize the salvo vs regular interval modes of fire.

[3drts]

...? Max ROF for any weapon has always been 600.

The highest the design screen used to show was 240, I think the design screen also didn't show HPs above 8,400.
I was never sure if these were hard caps, or design screen limits.
For the ROF, I thought it might be a hard cap (4x shots per second), as maybe the game didn't support more than 4 "actions" per second.

I believe it was never fixed in campaign, since it would change balance too much (it would make lancer ~2.5x more powerful that it would otherwise be...)

Umm, the campaign I'm playing now has that bug fixed- lancer and TK vtols are brutal, sacrificial units are needed..
Now that ROF and damage upgrades work, lancers are way more potent in campaign

[Zarel]

The highest the design screen used to show was 240, I think the design screen also didn't show HPs above 8,400.
I was never sure if these were hard caps, or design screen limits.
For the ROF, I thought it might be a hard cap (4x shots per second), as maybe the game didn't support more than 4 "actions" per second.

Nah. Actions per second is dependent on framerate, except for timed actions which are capped at 10 per second.

Umm, the campaign I'm playing now has that bug fixed- lancer and TK vtols are brutal, sacrificial units are needed..
Now that ROF and damage upgrades work, lancers are way more potent in campaign

That's... a problem.

Isn't the upgrade progression still like 10-20-30-40-50-60, though? Instead of 30-60-90-120-150-180, like for every other weapon?

[3drts]

Just checked, as of Gamma 2, lancers did 448 damage, 25 ROF, TK's did 700 damage, 18 ROF.
Cannons just don't compare.

Something does seem wrong though, as I only seem to remember scourge topping out at 570 ish...