Rocket/Cannon balance

[lav_coyote25]

explain fully - for those that havent seen nor played earth 2150 ... thanks

[Zarel]

off topic a bit, but it has come up: why not restrict the amount of "oil" in any well? This always worked very well in the Earth2150 series. It would revolutionize map-making as well as gameplay.

There is code support for this, because Warzone used to have limited oil. It was determined early in Pumpkin's development progress that unlimited-oil derricks made the game more fun.

[Fred]

What if the rocket artillery would be made ineffective against cyborgs just like the rest of the rocket techs?

What do you mean by "ineffective against cyborgs"? You mean they should be anti-tank-type? That would make them FAR too overpowered (they'd be 3x more powerful against tanks, and they're already too powerful against tanks). Or all-rounder-type (they'd be 2.5x more powerful against tanks, and they're already too powerful against tanks)? Or anti-structure-type (now there's a possibility, but they look nothing like long-range bunker busters)? The other types, flamer/AP/A are all super-effective against cyborgs.

Hm, I didn't think of the fact that all weapons can only have one of the pre defined damage types. I agree that anti tank or allround type would make rocket artillery too powerful. My point was that in the rocket tech tree, you shouldn't get any weapon for anti cyborg use, so using cyborgs would be an effective counter strategy against rocket only users.

Another suggestion then: how about making rocket artillery dependent on more of the other artillery techs, like mortars and howitzers, so you don't get them "for free" when researching rockets only? Or just remove them from multiplayer... oh wait, maybe not

[3drts]

off topic a bit, but it has come up: why not restrict the amount of "oil" in any well? This always worked very well in the Earth2150 series. It would revolutionize map-making as well as gameplay.

There is code support for this, because Warzone used to have limited oil. It was determined early in Pumpkin's development progress that unlimited-oil derricks made the game more fun.

Ahh, I remember in the 2 mission demo (which I thought fast play would be identical to, but its not, the first mission is almost the same, but there is no second mission - though a campaign mission is very similar to the demo 2 mission), I think each derrick had like 1,000 power in it that was slowly extracted... but if you demolished and rebuilt, it had 1,000 power again! as if the power was tied to the structure, not the well - > new structure, new power.

Mats wrote:
Good idea! I agree.

We have no room for another damage upgrade line, nor an empty subclass slot to put them in. They're all missiles, anyway - it would just get confusing...

Well, you could lump lancer in with mini-pod/Mini array, and free up one upgrade class.
-Minipods are a class that falls into disuse really fast
Weapons like the twin MG fall into disuse fast, as do medium cannons, but their *class* does not. Mini-pods are a useless class, besides, they are rockets too - isnt that the reason the lancer UGs didnt work in 1.0, they were applied to the mini-rocket class or something instead of AT rockets?

Or you could lump Mortars/Howitzers together into an "artillery" or "field gun" upgrade class.
Or of course, lump cannons and howitzers together, to free up a class, but then we just reverse the situation: 1 upgrade line for AT (All Rounder is still mainly AT, just not as specialized) and artillery, vs seperate UGs in another weapon line.

Plus, the ripples/lancer upgrades make sense because the upgrades are called "Rocket" upgrades, and the weapon names are "Lancer AT Rocket" and "Ripple Rockets" - it's clear that both weapons receive the upgrades. With "Howitzer" and "Cannon" - what would you call the upgrades? "HEAT Howitzer/Cannon Shells"?

You are fine with re-naming:
Groundshaker -> Groundshaker Cannon
Hellstorm -> Hellstorm Cannon
Howitzer -> Howitzer Cannon

I mean, after all, Howitzers ARE cannons.

Going back to early blackpowder weapons, the only difference between mortars, cannons, and howitzers were the relative dimensions/proportions of explosive-propellant charge, barrel length vs bore, and shell weight (related to bore size)

Howitzers are relatively short barreled Low Muzzle velocity cannons, they are on one end of the spectrum, while HPV cannons are on another.

Mortars are technically a cannon too, but most mortars today are not heavy vehicle mounted or towed weapons, but simple movable tubes with one end stuck in the ground.

Or, add an intermediate, lower power, lower range ripple rocket weapon that you must get before ripples, something equivalent to the Howitzer, and the ripples would be like the GS.

[Mabsterone]

@zarel: the idea of blocking oil by removing the limit is not bad at all, but it has an tremendous effect on t1 smallmap games. I would really like to ask for to keep the limit set by the number of generators, maybe otherwise games on rush map will be called oil hunt in the future. And its definetly a killer for rush trainer maps like marrnas rush.
Maybe it could be set with an option tag like unlimted/limited oil rigs in the setup screen ?
So there is no suprise to any players, you can see it when joining the game.

regarding my feedback: i do know that some things ( maybe most ) were said in another place or are know already, but since you ask to test with canons vs roks i felt like giving full feedback to keep things together and in one place. its of course only my opinion and point of view...just feedback, nothing else.

[Zarel]

Well, you could lump lancer in with mini-pod/Mini array, and free up one upgrade class.
-Minipods are a class that falls into disuse really fast
Weapons like the twin MG fall into disuse fast, as do medium cannons, but their *class* does not. Mini-pods are a useless class, besides, they are rockets too - isnt that the reason the lancer UGs didnt work in 1.0, they were applied to the mini-rocket class or something instead of AT rockets?

A fairly good idea. We could change "mini-rockets", "rockets", and "missiles", to "rockets", "rocket artillery", and "missiles".

It also has the benefit of getting lancer/TK a slower upgrade progression, since it'd be adding on to an existing upgrade progression instead of branching off a new one.

Or you could lump Mortars/Howitzers together into an "artillery" or "field gun" upgrade class.
Or of course, lump cannons and howitzers together, to free up a class, but then we just reverse the situation: 1 upgrade line for AT (All Rounder is still mainly AT, just not as specialized) and artillery, vs seperate UGs in another weapon line.

I'd prefer to keep them separate. I think splitting rockets and rocket artillery is a better idea.

Plus, we already have plenty of cannons. LC, MC, HC, AC, TAC, HVC, Plasma Cannon. 7 different cannons, the most out of any subclass I know of.

Or, add an intermediate, lower power, lower range ripple rocket weapon that you must get before ripples, something equivalent to the Howitzer, and the ripples would be like the GS.

Yes, that will be Ripple Rockets. The upgraded version would be Archie. Like I said, their damage needs to be toned down, anyway.

@zarel: the idea of blocking oil by removing the limit is not bad at all, but it has an tremendous effect on t1 smallmap games. I would really like to ask for to keep the limit set by the number of generators, maybe otherwise games on rush map will be called oil hunt in the future. And its definetly a killer for rush trainer maps like marrnas rush.

Why?

Like I said, even if you have unlimited derricks, you still have limited power generators, so you'd still have the exact same power limit as before.

[Dylan Hsu]

It also has the benefit of getting lancer/TK a slower upgrade progression, since it'd be adding on to an existing upgrade progression instead of branching off a new one.

Actually, that makes lancers initially stronger because you have the chance to research rockets before you get lancers. Keep it the way it is. Mini rockets are different from rockets.

[Zarel]

Actually, that makes lancers initially stronger because you have the chance to research rockets before you get lancers. Keep it the way it is. Mini rockets are different from rockets.

No it wouldn't, because I would decrease lancer damage to match. :rolleyes:

Or did you forget that I have the ability to change lancer starting damage to whatever I want it to be?

[dmkp]

off topic a bit, but it has come up: why not restrict the amount of "oil" in any well? This always worked very well in the Earth2150 series. It would revolutionize map-making as well as gameplay.

Why compare the two games? They're not the same at all.

I do remember in the playstation version's demo, you could see how much oil was left in a well. Usually around 30,000 if I recall.

[Mabsterone]

Why?
Like I said, even if you have unlimited derricks, you still have limited power generators, so you'd still have the exact same power limit as before.

Just lookat a map like ntw or marnas rush. If you spawn side by side just send one truck over and block oil by clicking and move to the next one quick, i can block you 2 complete lines even before you got a tank out to kill me. Then you are plain dead if you spawned in a corner of the map like position 7 on ntw, any oil is far out of reach and the blocking player can just build up his oil resources in his base due to the fact the number of oilrgigs isntlimited.
Same would be on other maps, i just let 1-2 trucks run around and block the oil just by clicking on it and running on.
The time and energy you need to get access to the oil plus the burntime after freeing it will let you drop back so much, that you will realy struggle to get in the game again.

Then, this is no real time strategy anymore, this is a fastclicking contest then. And i dont think thats something you are looking for.

Why not just add a option icon in the setup screen wich limits the oil to the powergenerators set ?
So everybody can decide how to play.

If you fear coding it, i can do it in the sourcecode, no problem. But i dont want to submit a feature patch that has no chance to merge. So please quote on this one.

Oh, and maybe you would like to split this part out too into an own topic, since this thread should be about rocket and cannon balancing.

[3drts]

or you could make whoever finished the oil rig, own the oil rig....
You click on it to partial build.... but its classed as unowned, and anyone can continue its construction (as you can help build allies buildings now), just give ownership to whoever finishes it....
But make it so that once one person starts building it, an unallied player cant help build

Bah, I don't like maps like that anyway, I just wouldn't play them, rather than trying to work a solution around them

[3drts]

Well, you could lump lancer in with mini-pod/Mini array, and free up one upgrade class.
-Minipods are a class that falls into disuse really fast
Weapons like the twin MG fall into disuse fast, as do medium cannons, but their *class* does not. Mini-pods are a useless class, besides, they are rockets too - isnt that the reason the lancer UGs didnt work in 1.0, they were applied to the mini-rocket class or something instead of AT rockets?

A fairly good idea. We could change "mini-rockets", "rockets", and "missiles", to "rockets", "rocket artillery", and "missiles".
It also has the benefit of getting lancer/TK a slower upgrade progression, since it'd be adding on to an existing upgrade progression instead of branching off a new one.

I'm glad you like it.... because if it is a limitation on "slots" for weapon classes, I cannot think of a more useless weapon class that takes up a slot.
Mini-rockets are just interim weapons - like light cannon or twin MG, but twin mg and light cannon don't get their own weapon class - I sometimes see mini rocket arrays built right before lancers, and some mini pods built earlier, and then the weapon class is never used again....
Just put them in the AT rocket class, make the mini-pod upgrades apply to lancers as well, and tweak the lancer +TK + Ripple stats such that they are the same power when you first get them, factoring in the mini-rocket upgrades that will also now apply to them.
Dump the mini-rocket upgrades that aren't needed to get lancers - the mini-rockets will now be getting benefits from the main rocket weapon line.
Ie Heap mini-rockets mk2 and 3, stabilized mini rockets mk2 and 3 -> Gone
I'd also get rid of fast fire mini-rockets, but maybe just the Mk2 and mk3 topics, and lower the other rockets base ROF.
Then readjust the other upgrades, such that with the new "nerfed" base states for BB, lancer, TK, ripps, they all are exactly the same power.
This should also keep mini-rockets usable longer in the game.
Who ever bothered with fast fire rockets, HEAP mini-rockets mk2/3, stabilized mini's mk2/3?
The mk3 UGs just didn't make sense, they weren't needed, and they usually came when the weapon was already, or soon to be obsolete,
One might grab the Mk1 ROF UG, because it had a better cost:benefit ratio than the mk3 UGs: the UG would be in effect longer (once you stop using the weapon, the UG is useless), its cheaper, and going from 1-> 1.3 is proportionally better than 1.3 -> 1.6


Now mini rockets will continue to improve, as lancers improve, and after the damage UGs are readjusted (assuming the readjustment takes place after HEAP mini mk1, and fast fire mini Mk1), they will get a 200% * 250% = 5x damage bonus, and a 118% * 182% ROF bonus = 2.15x ROF bonus,
Making them quite powerful, and their relative power will taper off in a much more gradual fashion.

That would be a 110 damage per shot, fully upgraded, rather than 55, and an ROF of 128.7 rather than 109.1,
Of course, when at these stats, you'll be unlocking scourge, and have a TK doing 600 damage 10.7 times per minute, and your enemies will have pretty thick armor.
Oh, and their accuracy would be 10% better after factoring in the AT rocket upgrades.

Quite simply, they will remain usefull longer by piggybacking off the lancer upgrades.
The ripples are *too* useful, because they piggy back off lancer upgrades.

It seems the only way to defeat a player that goes rocket tech, is too mass vtols, and hope you aren't attacked before the VTOLs are ready, and I think this mainly only works on high oil maps.

[Zarel]

Just lookat a map like ntw or marnas rush. If you spawn side by side just send one truck over and block oil by clicking and move to the next one quick, i can block you 2 complete lines even before you got a tank out to kill me. Then you are plain dead if you spawned in a corner of the map like position 7 on ntw, any oil is far out of reach and the blocking player can just build up his oil resources in his base due to the fact the number of oilrgigs isntlimited.
Same would be on other maps, i just let 1-2 trucks run around and block the oil just by clicking on it and running on.
The time and energy you need to get access to the oil plus the burntime after freeing it will let you drop back so much, that you will realy struggle to get in the game again.

That is a flaw of the specific case of how the map is designed PLUS how you're using the map.

It's called "NTW" for a reason - the people you spawn side-by-side with are supposed to be on your team.

Why not just add a option icon in the setup screen wich limits the oil to the powergenerators set ?
So everybody can decide how to play.

It's a corner case that doesn't deserve adding even more complexity to the options screen. I am of the opinion that the fewer options there are, the better, or else you're no longer playing the same game as other Warzone players, which causes more problems when people disagree on settings, people have to learn multiple styles of play, etc etc.

[Mabsterone]

I dont think you estimate the impact of unlimited oilrigs, it will change game play drastically.

[Dylan Hsu]

I dont think you estimate the impact of unlimited oilrigs, it will change game play drastically.

Here's where you are wrong. Need I explain? Nahhh