Page 2 of 4

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 13 Apr 2012, 17:28
by Reg312
@Iluvalar: if you meant that my patch breaks something, you should first try to play with cannons in 3.1 (medium cannons lose in any fight in 3.1, i've killed medium cannon armies even with MGs)
in 3.1 cannons was nerfed somehow, i think it happened because another weapons was boosted (rockets by accuracy, MGs by <??>, flamers by zzz-delay)
+ defensive structure "balance" was already broken in 3.1 because many invisible things was changed

"years of balance change"? in 3.1 it all should not taken into account because its 3.1
and years passed away and we have new maps/players

defensive strategies does not working in most cases in low oil maps in 3.1, i mean better make more unit than use desenses
only on few maps you can get advangate with some MG bunkers

anyway, i know such discussion useless, every time we getting 1 or 2 dudes who strongly disagreed with current issue and solution.
i just like make mods :) so my apologies for interruption whole game feel :P

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 13 Apr 2012, 21:10
by Iluvalar
increasing the cannon damage is not the same as reducing mra, inferno and mg damage.

You are skewing the HP/dmg ratio in the game. All the battles will be more sudden and brutal. You reduce the amount of time a player have to micro.

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 13 Apr 2012, 21:26
by Reg312
Iluvalar wrote:increasing the cannon damage is not the same as reducing mra, inferno and mg damage.

You are skewing the HP/dmg ratio in the game. All the battles will be more sudden and brutal. You reduce the amount of time a player have to micro.
i did not voted for increasing cannon damage..

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 13 Apr 2012, 21:53
by Iluvalar
you increase the number of them in a squadron, it doesnt change my argument here...

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 13 Apr 2012, 22:11
by Reg312
Iluvalar wrote:you increase the number of them in a squadron, it doesnt change my argument here...
price of medium cannon python half-tracks - 255 -> 225 (price decrease ~11%)
price of medium cannon scorpion htrack - 218 -> 188 (price decrease ~14%)
where you see "squadron"??

assault cannont does in research later than HPV and have less damage (assault cannon do almost same damage as medium cannon)

now compare research points
medium cannon: 16 860
HPV cannon: 22 860
assault cannon: 28 260 (in current balance assault cannon even weaker than medium cannon and total useless, but it have much more research value)
lancer: 23 400

[update] 14% more units will make your army 42% stronger (by Iluvalar's math)
may be better price for medium cannon is 130$

new version of my patch: https://github.com/crabster/warzone2100 ... f0605ca218
some minor changes

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 13 Apr 2012, 23:52
by Giani
aubergine wrote:As I've recently learnt, making machine gun hovercraft is a good way to deal with flamer spam. (thanks to NoQ for the tip!)
The flamers will burn your hovers...
Why nobody uses mantis or tracks anymore?

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 13 Apr 2012, 23:53
by Giani
Iluvalar wrote:That gonna break even more the playability of structures and morever the feel of the whole game.

PLEASE. Ask the dev to first comeback to what it was in 2.3. There is YEARS of balance change to reach that. The only pb in 2.3 was flamers, not rockets, not cannons, not mg.
+1

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 13 Apr 2012, 23:56
by Giani
Reg312 wrote: in 3.1 cannons was nerfed somehow, i think it happened because another weapons was boosted (rockets by accuracy, MGs by <??>, flamers by zzz-delay)
Flamers boosted by zzz-delay? O_o
Seriously?

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 13 Apr 2012, 23:59
by Giani
Reg312 wrote: assault cannon: 28 260 (in current balance assault cannon even weaker than medium cannon and total useless, but it have much more research value)
Assault cannon is NOT useless, it is like a mg, it makes low damage but it shoots fast.
But yeah, it takes too long to research...

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 14 Apr 2012, 01:05
by Iluvalar
Reg312 wrote: [update] 14% more units will make your army 42% stronger (by Iluvalar's math)
for 14% discount :
Units budget Gain (%)
1 25
2 28
3 30
5 32
10 33
20 34
70 34
80 34
90 35
100 35
110 35
120 35
Giani wrote: Flamers boosted by zzz-delay? O_o
Seriously?
Of course it is, the delay add right to the player reaction time to move out of the flamer.If you try to avoid them, it make a serious difference.

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 14 Apr 2012, 01:32
by Reg312
Giani wrote: Assault cannon is NOT useless, it is like a mg, it makes low damage but it shoots fast.
But yeah, it takes too long to research...
you should understand, lets compare 1) 50 damage * 10 shoots and 2) 100 damage * 5 shoots
and target armor = 20
1) (50dmg - 20armor) * 10times = 300 total damage
2) (100dmg - 20armor) * 5times = 400 total damage

i play warzone long enough, no one uses assault cannon, and i did some tests
medium cannon better than assault cannon.
medium canno has better stats and became researched earlier


Iluvalars formula: 2 units stronger 3x times than 1 unit
if i decrease price of cannons by 10%
then player can make 10% more cannons in game
then cannons become ~30% more effective

10% is not constant, it lesser for heavy bodies, and higher for light bodies

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 14 Apr 2012, 01:40
by Reg312
Iluvalar wrote:
Giani wrote: Flamers boosted by zzz-delay? O_o
Seriously?
Of course it is, the delay add right to the player reaction time to move out of the flamer.If you try to avoid them, it make a serious difference.
in games with long zzz you can move your army to location
and you cannot move them back in same moment
so if you move units forward and enemy do same - both armies will start kill each other, even if both players want to retreat
in that situation player with flamer can be advantage

another flamers problem - inflamed units become uncontrolled if they have order to retreat at medium (or high) damage

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 14 Apr 2012, 02:21
by Giani
Reg312 wrote:
Iluvalar wrote:
Giani wrote: Flamers boosted by zzz-delay? O_o
Seriously?
Of course it is, the delay add right to the player reaction time to move out of the flamer.If you try to avoid them, it make a serious difference.
in games with long zzz you can move your army to location
and you cannot move them back in same moment
so if you move units forward and enemy do same - both armies will start kill each other, even if both players want to retreat
in that situation player with flamer can be advantage

another flamers problem - inflamed units become uncontrolled if they have order to retreat at medium (or high) damage
So you say one of the reasons of why flamers are op is the zzz?
To "fix" that there exists a way to kick players and check their pings...

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 14 Apr 2012, 03:03
by Giani
But now i agree flamers are op.(But i dont agree whit that reason of zzz)

Re: my two cents for beta balance

Posted: 14 Apr 2012, 03:08
by Iluvalar
it's not exactly the ZZZ but the synch mechanic that delay the orders. That give more time for flamers to move before the enemy player go back.

Beside that, the infermo and plasmite are op since a long time, it is in that balance proposition i made months ago...