Page 6 of 11

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 03 Nov 2013, 14:29
by Terminator
crab_ wrote:
Per wrote: The only thing I would change is to remove weapons from transport altogether, rather than replacing the weapon with a useless one.
I think weapon on Transport is needed to signalize enemy about transport flying around.
Transport weapon prevents silent landing troops at enemy base.
So i think transport should have weapon.
Silent landings are exactly what transports should do. This s a part of tactics, like it does in StarCraft.

btw I thought that weapon was removed long time age. Why it still there ? :geek:

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 03 Nov 2013, 15:23
by crab_
Terminator wrote: Silent landings are exactly what transports should do. This s a part of tactics, like it does in StarCraft.
Making transports silent can improve effectiveness of transports. But i dont like to do them silent just because in SC it going same way :)
I think we could reduce price of transports to make them more usable in MP.

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 04 Nov 2013, 04:36
by vexed
NoQ wrote:You're misunderstanding. We do nothing to incendiary damage and thermal armor values. But there is one more sort of hidden-and-never-documented damage: a fixed 15dps whenever unit burns, regardless of weapon damage and thermal armor. We're trying to get rid of it because this value is very significant in early game, skewing flamers to it too much in our opinion.
O_o
There is a short circuit in how you guys are calculating things, it isn't hidden, and it isn't a fixed value, and it does take thermal armor into account.
Spoiler:
300 - 151 = 149HP lost in (58-48) = 10 sec, avg of 15 DPS ***NO ARMOR
Spoiler:
300 - 251 = 49 HP (57 - 48) = 9 secs 5.4 DPS armor = 99
...
300 - 251 = 49 HP (26-16) = 10 secs Total DPS of 5. Armor = 50

So, there is no reason to get rid of it, and, as I said before, we want things to suffer damage when it burns.
Nerf the range, like I said, and it should be fine, we could also make another layer of research to get range higher... :hmm:

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 04 Nov 2013, 06:10
by NoQ
I was already corrected that it does take thermal armor into account, but it is still constant (the code we removed mentions #define BURN_DAMAGE 15) and it still has nothing to do with incendiary damage from stat files (which also has nothing to do with regular damage) (units burnt by plasmite bomb do burn much faster than units burnt by flamer cyborg, it's not simply 15 for everything).

After removing this fixed damage, units still get damaged when burning.
Much less though; crab_, are you still sure your calculations are all right? It feels that simply removing BURN_DAMAGE nerfes them quite a bit.
Nerf the range, like I said, and it should be fine, we could also make another layer of research to get range higher...
I don't think function.txt allows that. Well, ranges are already minimal, and upgrading from flamer to thermite etc. already improves range (2 tiles -> 3 tiles i think).

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 04 Nov 2013, 08:06
by crab_
NoQ wrote: Much less though; crab_, are you still sure your calculations are all right? It feels that simply removing BURN_DAMAGE nerfes them quite a bit.
Please can you describe your test? Did you tested flamer against viper body?
My calculations should be correct.

Ok, here is my test.
I make Flamer with 0 incendiary damage and incendiaryRadius=256
I cannot test burn_damage=0 because i cannot compile wz, but i can do test with flamer which has 0 damage and 0 incendiary damage.

Here is test-data, flamer damage is 0
test_mod_flamer0.wz
(193.65 KiB) Downloaded 219 times
Here is picture where yoiu can see how much damage done by flamer with zero damage.
wz2100-20131104_100135-Sk-Rush.jpg
Trucks got red HP damaged by flamer with absolute zero damage in stats data.

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 04 Nov 2013, 08:11
by crab_
vexed wrote: So, there is no reason to get rid of it, and, as I said before, we want things to suffer damage when it burns.
Nerf the range, like I said, and it should be fine, we could also make another layer of research to get range higher... :hmm:
Your logs says i was right :)
Viper body have 4 armor. so tanks in early game get 110 additional damage.
See the picture above, there trucks damaged by flamer which has 0 damage and 0 incendiary damage in stats data.
Do you think is it ok? I think this situation is not good.

vexed wrote: we want things to suffer damage when it burns.
We have 2 type of burning.
Type 1: incendiary damage
Type 2: post-incendiary burning with constant time and fixed damage

What you meant under "when it burns", What kind of damage? Select one please.

(i'm afraid my english it too dirty and some of my sentences are just misunderstood)

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 04 Nov 2013, 17:38
by NoQ
All right, let's remove this change if it's so unobvious.
Setting flamer inc.damage to 20/16.
Spoiler:

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 04 Nov 2013, 22:46
by crab_
Well, we lost this fight for removing hardcoded damage :ninja: :cry: :cry: :cry:

I think flamer stats should be nerfed more.
Flamers have nice penetrate effect and this make them strong in certain circumstances.
I suggest
Flamer:
Price 40->60.
Damage 26 -> 25
Incendiary Damage 28->18.
Flamer Cyborg:
Price 50 -> 65
Incendiary Damage 22->15.
Incendiary Mortar:
Incendiary Radius 192->128.
Splash Damage 70 -> 55
Incendiary Damage 22 -> 19
Plasmite Bomb
Type ALL ROUNDER -> ARTILLERY ROUND
Damage 1000 -> 900
Splash Damage 1000 -> 900

Also i think we can remove transport weapons.
VTOL-Machinegun have DPS like Heavy Machinegun and i think it can be still too strong :)

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 05 Nov 2013, 05:40
by vexed
crab_ wrote: Your logs says i was right :)
Viper body have 4 armor. so tanks in early game get 110 additional damage.
See the picture above, there trucks damaged by flamer which has 0 damage and 0 incendiary damage in stats data.
Do you think is it ok? I think this situation is not good.
I never said it was a good situation, that is why we are trying to hammer out balance tweaks.
vexed wrote: we want things to suffer damage when it burns.
We have 2 type of burning.
Type 1: incendiary damage
Type 2: post-incendiary burning with constant time and fixed damage

What you meant under "when it burns", What kind of damage? Select one please.
Type 1 is what happen on initial hit.
Type 2 is what happens when the unit is on fire, (called burned damage, aka 'when it burns').
(i'm afraid my english it too dirty and some of my sentences are just misunderstood)
Always possible.

Let me try one more time.
On initial hit (be it kinetic or thermal) that deals X damage amount.
If it was a kinetic hit, then the unit just gets X amount of damage, and that is it.
If it was a thermal hit, it does X damage, and if the unit catches on fire, it suffers Y more damage per sec for Z secs, since it is burning.

At the start of T1 games, flamers are too strong because of the Y damage per sec, if the unit catches on fire.
In later stages of the game, when players have better thermal armor, then the extra burn damage caused by Y isn't as great, because of said thermal armor.

This brings us, to how to fix the early stages of the game.
NoQ's latest patch looks good, except I would also nerf the HP down by about 20%, so 200->160 for the cyborg & flamers.
They can still cause lots of damage at short range, so don't let them get close. :)

For the Thermite bomb: Incendiary Damage 120->70
I think that is a bit too much, should be in the 95 range from my testing.
Same for the Plasmite Bomb so, Incendiary Damage 140->115.
The rest of the stuff seems OK, but obviously, I haven't had the time to test each change.

Here is NoQ's list, with changes in bold.

NoQ wrote:All right, let's remove this change if it's so unobvious.
Setting flamer inc.damage to 20/16.
  • balance-3-1-1-v4.patch
Spoiler:

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 05 Nov 2013, 06:48
by NoQ
On initial hit (be it kinetic or thermal) that deals X damage amount.
If it was a kinetic hit, then the unit just gets X amount of damage, and that is it.
If it was a thermal hit, it does X damage, and if the unit catches on fire, it suffers Y more damage per sec for Z secs, since it is burning.
What we're trying to say is that it's sorta Y+15.

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 05 Nov 2013, 06:55
by NoQ
I would also nerf the HP down by about 20%, so 200->160 for the cyborg & flamers.
But they have only 40HP currently.
By the way, it's actually a good idea to reduce that. Maybe 40->10. For viper flamer wheels it'd mean 175->145, for ht 235->205.
Spoiler:

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 05 Nov 2013, 09:41
by crab_
Trying explain...
In Short: Each burning unit gets additional 15 damage for 10 seconds when left inflamed area.

For Example
Flamer have 28 incendiary (periodical) damage for 5 seconds. That means flamer makes ground burning for 5 seconds.
All enemy units on burning ground get 28 damage per second.

When enemy unit leave burning ground it is still burning and this time unit burn constantly 10 seconds and get 15 damage each second.

Burning have 2 stages:
1) Unit is burning while staying of burning ground (get documented incendiary damage per second)
2) Unit is burning after it left burning ground (get hardcoded 15 damage per second for hardcoded 10 seconds)
NoQ wrote:Type 1 is what happen on initial hit.
Type 2 is what happens when the unit is on fire, (called burned damage, aka 'when it burns').
There is one more Type of damage (lets call it Type3)
Type 2 is applicable only when droid is staying in inflamed area.
Droid gets Type3 damage only if this droid was in inflamed area and left this area.

Damage Type3 "additional hardcoded incendiary damage".
NoQ wrote:What we're trying to say is that it's sorta Y+15.
It is Y per sec for N seconds and additional 15 per sec for 10 seconds

vexed wrote: At the start of T1 games, flamers are too strong because of the Y damage per sec, if the unit catches on fire.
In later stages of the game, when players have better thermal armor, then the extra burn damage caused by Y isn't as great, because of said thermal armor.
See.
Flamer has 49 burn damage per second. Viper body have 4 thermal armour.
So enemy unit gets 44 damage per second when it is staying on burning ground.

When you see attacking flamers you always try to flee from them.
Enemy units not stay on burning ground when flamers attack them. Enemy unit trying to run away.
Consider average time of burning as 3 seconds - time when unit trying to flee from burning.
Result: 3 seconds of burning plus 10 seconds of hardcoded burning.
Type2 damage: (49-4)*3 = 132 damage
Type3 damage: (15-4)*10 damage = 110 damage

See hardcoded damage in that case is over 45% of total damage done by burning.

NoQ: i asked you to describe your test with zero burn_damage because it can give different results.

Another example:
Inferno against Scorpion body (flamer damage lvl-4, thermal armor lvl-2)
Type2 damage: (80-19)*3 = 183
Type3 damage: (15/3)*10 damage = 50 damage (use minimum 33% of damage)
Part of hardcoded damage in this case is minimized.

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 05 Nov 2013, 12:02
by crab_
I suggest to discuss list of most glaring issues.
Here is my variant:
Most glaring issues.xlsx
(10.46 KiB) Downloaded 175 times
If someone cannot read excel file, here is content:
Spoiler:
Please add your issues, or filter my list of issues.


I think better way to handle incendiary damage - increase thermal armor of all bodies. In this case we can nerf hardcoded damage without changing anything in code. NoQ, do you confirm?... but it produces more longer list of changes :(
Changing flamers HP can bring some uncontrolled results. I think better do not touch it, not sure.

Sample of changelist for thermal armour
Spoiler:

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 06 Nov 2013, 05:22
by vexed
NoQ's last patch, balance-3-1-1-v5.patch seems to have touched the most glaring stuff, and after playing 2 games with it, it seems like an improvement.

crab_, has you tried that patch yet ?
Anyone else try it ?

Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?

Posted: 06 Nov 2013, 06:14
by NoQ
Rush
I think reduced modifiers against halftracks nerfed rush a bit. Maybe towers will be helpful too, not sure. Also tmg hp nerf affected wheeled units more. Also we have a bit better cannons (i actually always thought of cannons as an option for the rusher (as they don't need engineering), but when we're saying "there's no choice but mg" ... dunno).