The 2.2 -> 2.3 Rebalance Thread

[Zarel]

I think the fact it's also amphibious means it's fairly advantageous over every other ground propulsion. Fact is, as it is now the very slight advantages wheels have over hover don't matter much, hover's strengths usually outweigh it. I just thought some balancing was in order.

Hovercraft are also pretty slow in hilly terrain, and there's a lot more hilly terrain than water. A lot of maps don't even have any water - are hovercrafts completely useless on those maps?

[lav_coyote25]

Hovercraft are also pretty slow in hilly terrain, and there's a lot more hilly terrain than water. A lot of maps don't even have any water - are hovercrafts completely useless on those maps?

on the maps i have made - hover craft work well... even on the small hills i have... xD

[Kacen]

Hovercraft are also pretty slow in hilly terrain, and there's a lot more hilly terrain than water. A lot of maps don't even have any water - are hovercrafts completely useless on those maps?

Well it is a dilemma. It's just I think there should be more distinct advantages and disadvantages between using hover and wheels.

Because as it stands now, it seems weighing the advantages and disadvantages hover comes out first.

[Zarel]

Well it is a dilemma. It's just I think there should be more distinct advantages and disadvantages between using hover and wheels.

Because as it stands now, it seems weighing the advantages and disadvantages hover comes out first.

Well, hover should come out first. Weighing machinegun and assault gun, assault gun comes out first, too.

Hover is harder to research than wheels. Hover is more expensive than wheels. Hover is an upgraded version of wheels.

Of course hover should come out first...

[Kacen]

Well, hover should come out first. Weighing machinegun and assault gun, assault gun comes out first, too.

Not necessarily. Weapons get incremental upgrades, but I always saw propulsion types as having strengths and weaknesses. For all other propulsion neither one is in every way "better" than the other, so to speak.

Erm I'm probably just nitpicking at something minor...

[BulletMagnet]

hover should have one primary strength; it floats.

[TVR]

What part of "3x the DPS" do you have trouble understanding?

Consider the exceptional risk, four Scourge missiles will destroy a SRMA-Python-Hover instantaneously, while four SRMA volleys should destroy a Scourge hardpoint.

However, not only are Scourge hardpoints $150 less expensive than SRMA-Python-Hover, but the Scourge hardpoints always get the first shot, and have higher DPS & initial shot damage than those SRMAs.

That means it isn't cost effective to use SRMA against the most common T3 hardpoint, whereas Hellstorm always works, even Pepperpot works given time.

[Zarel]

Not necessarily. Weapons get incremental upgrades, but I always saw propulsion types as having strengths and weaknesses. For all other propulsion neither one is in every way "better" than the other, so to speak.

Erm I'm probably just nitpicking at something minor...

Well, when you compare hover and tracks, they should have strengths and weaknesses. I want Wheels to be effectively obsolete by T3, though.

Consider the exceptional risk, four Scourge missiles will destroy a SRMA-Python-Hover instantaneously, while four SRMA volleys should destroy a Scourge hardpoint.

However, not only are Scourge hardpoints $150 less expensive than SRMA-Python-Hover, but the Scourge hardpoints always get the first shot, and have higher DPS & initial shot damage than those SRMAs.

That means it isn't cost effective to use SRMA against the most common T3 hardpoint, whereas Hellstorm always works, even Pepperpot works given time.

You forget that the Scourge hardpoint has a range of 12. The SRMA has a range of 14.

[TVR]

Inconsistencies from hardpoint and weapon mount range, or does the Scourge have a range less than 16?

[Zarel]

Inconsistencies from hardpoint and weapon mount range, or does the Scourge have a range less than 16?

No. All weapons get a slight bonus to sensor range to see structures. Rationale is something like that structures are taller than units. Scourge has a weapon range of 16, but unless it's mounted on a tower, it's restrained by sensor range.

[Kacen]

The SRMA also fires more shots per volley than a scourge, which only fires two.

[Deus Siddis]

Well, when you compare hover and tracks, they should have strengths and weaknesses. I want Wheels to be effectively obsolete by T3, though.

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?

I think maybe there should be replacement propulsion techs for every propulsion tech, like articulated wheels that replace wheels, maglev tracks (or articulated tracks) that replace tracks, legs that replace half-tracks and ionic lift hovercraft that replace hovercraft.

Just like you have the NEXUS bodies that replace all other bodies except in terms of cost.

[Kacen]

articulated wheels that replace wheels

What advantage would articulated wheels have over regular wheels that could have a noticeable, useful effect on gameplay?

maglev tracks (or articulated tracks) that replace tracks

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.

legs that replace half-tracks

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.

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.

ionic lift hovercraft that replace hovercraft.

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.

I can sorta see something like that filling a gaming niche, actually.

Just like you have the NEXUS bodies that replace all other bodies except in terms of cost.

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.

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.

[zeland]

Bipedal or quadrupedal propulsion could act like towers and give a bonus to attack/sensor range.

[Kacen]

Bipedal or quadrupedal propulsion could act like towers and give a bonus to attack/sensor range.

Depends, really. I guess if we have some quadrupedal propulsion like an AT-AT that may be so, but even then the advantage would be minor weighing everything out.