More rebalancing!

Discuss the future of Warzone 2100 with us.
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

More rebalancing!

Post by Zarel »

So I've been lax in discussing some of the later rebalancing changes on the forums, so now I am.

It appears the last time I discussed changes was 0.2.3. So here are all the changes since then. Please provide feedback.

1. Weaken structures

I saw that at one point, Troman doubled the HP of every structure. Now that I've generated balance tables from 1.10, 2.1, and Rebalance, I've found out that Troman increased a lot of defenses' HP beyond the initial doubling. Hardcrete was increased from 250 to 1100. Hardpoints have been increased from 400 to 1300.

I think the HP should be decreased to be a little bit closer to twice as much as 1.10. Doubling structure HP is drastic enough; tripling and quadrupling has caused major balance problems. Anyone who's played 1.10 always complains that structures in 2.1 are practically invincible (especially bunkers), but they shouldn't be.

2. Replace Flashlight Hardpoint with Pulse Laser Hardpoint

No one ever uses Flashlight once Pulse Laser's been researched. We might as well give players one more hardpoint they'll actually use.

3. Pulse Laser replaces Flashlight, instead of Heavy Laser

If you didn't know, in Warzone, researching certain things will make certain other things outdated - removed from the design, manufacture, and build screens. For instance, researching Assault Gun will remove all earlier machineguns from the design screen - the Assault Gun is a direct replacement for all earlier MGs.

Same goes for Pulse Laser. It's basically a replacement Flashlight. It has better accuracy, damage, range, and ROF. Heavy Laser, on the other hand, is not a replacement for Pulse Laser - it's way heavier and lower range, and was designed to be used completely differently. So it makes more sense for Flashlight to be replaced by Pulse Laser than Heavy Laser.

4. Graphics updates.

Please, who would ever say no to this? Here's all I did: I made Twin Assault Gun look like a Twin Assault Gun, and Lancer (cyborg) rockets look like lancer rockets (they looked like mini-rockets before). I also made the Rocket Bastion shoot rockets that look like lancer rockets (it previously shot what looks like mini-rockets), so it's easier to tell that it shoots rockets, not mini-rockets.

5. Body prices back

This is another one of the things I didn't realize what Troman did. He made all bodies cost practically the same.

1.10:
Bug: 20 power
Retaliation: 100 power

2.1:
Bug: 29 power
Retaliation: 37 power

NP bodies used to be significantly cheaper than Project bodies. Now they're only 1 power cheaper, except the Scorp, which is 1 power more expensive. And later game bodies, which should get a lot more expensive, are only slightly more. Vengeance is 60 instead of 200. 60 is only 31 points more than the cheapest body. 31 points. For comparison, Scourge Missile, which you should have by then, is 300 points.

I've put them about halfway between 1.10 levels and 2.1 levels.

6. The big cannon/rail vs rocket/missile split.

I've been talking about this for a long time on the IRC channel, but I haven't mentioned it on the forums.

Basically, the idea is to change the multipliers for cannons vs rockets. Anti-tank is a huge type. It's the primary type of 5 different subclasses: cannons, rails, mini-rockets, rockets, and missiles. The next most popular type is artillery, which only has 3 subclasses: mortars, howitzers, and bombs. And it's really only two - bombs are just VTOL versions of mortars. All other types only span 2 subclasses at most.

So that's why I'm proposing a split: Give cannons/rails one type, and mini-rockets/rockets/missiles another. Here are the multipliers:

Code: Select all

             Old anti-tank  Rockets/missiles  Cannons/rails
Cyborgs     |      75%      |      30%      |      60%
Wheels      |     133%      |     130%      |     120%
Half-tracks |     133%      |     125%      |     110%
Tracks      |     110%      |     120%      |     100%
VTOLs       |      20%      |     100%      |      60%
Hover       |     133%      |     100%      |     100%

Soft        |     100%      |      90%      |     130%
Medium      |      80%      |      60%      |     110%
Hard        |      70%      |      30%      |      90%
Bunker      |      47%      |      60%      |      40%
7. Decrease upgrades

Damage upgrades have been in 30% steps. ROF upgrades are often in 20% steps. Taken together, these upgrades are huge. It's most dramatic in the cannon line: Light cannon starts with a DPS of 8.7 and ends up with a DPS of 123.5 (Which, I'll point out, is about as much as a fully upgraded Scourge Missile, in case anyone was still in doubt a rebalance was needed).

I think these should be reduced to 25% steps and 15% steps. This would reduce a fully upgraded T3 weapon to about 3.8x as much as a base T3 weapon, instead of 5.7x. Warzone will still be a game where upgrade research matters a ton compared to games like, say, StarCraft (where a fully upgraded weapon is around 1.2x as much as a base weapon).

So why decrease upgrades at all? The answer is that these decreases are just enough that trading up weapons become favorable. I see too often people think "I don't want a un-upgraded needle gun, that's too much weaker than the mostly-upgraded cannons I have" or "Scourge won't be better than TK until I have 3 rate upgrades and 2 damage upgrades, and that'll take another... 30 minutes. The game will be over by then!"

Upgrades should matter, but when keeping with existing upgrades is more strategically important that switching to a new and better weapon, something's wrong with balance.

8. Cyborg factory has been moved down a bit, and only requires Engineering

Previously, in Rebalance, it required Fuel Injection Engine, and before that, in 2.1/1.10, it required Hardened MG Bullets. It was changed because cyborgs have nothing to do with machineguns. I'm moving it to Engineering because it's closer in terms of time to get to as Hardened MG Bullets than FIE.

9. Cyborgs don't have to be researched.

Research flamer, get flamer cyborg free. Research lancer, get lancer cyborgs, etc. Borg factory still has to be researched, and heavy cyborgs still have to be researched.

It's a bit unfair that you can use weapons in tanks and VTOLs just by researching the weapon, but you need to research it again to use it in a cyborg. This fixes that, and should make cyborgs better.

10. Lifted structure requirements for many research items.

Researching borg transports don't require a VTOL factory built anymore. Researching Command Turret doesn't require Command Relay Post built anymore. This is so people who don't study the research tree can still get these items. The structures are still required to build them, of course, but now people will be able to see them in the research screen, first, and maybe then they'll be more inclined to build them.


Feedback, please!
elio
Regular
Regular
Posts: 508
Joined: 09 Jun 2007, 22:11

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by elio »

Awesome work zarel!

I'm looking forward to test it next time i play online..

1. imo, a wall should be very strong. why should i build a wall when it's destroyed in <10 seconds? one or two shots with a bunker buster and :stressed: it's gone
4. Ah, good, that always confused me...
10. Good idea. But for what do we need the Command Relay Post anymore? I suggest remove it from multiplayer game play.

regards
User avatar
Terminator
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1077
Joined: 05 Aug 2006, 13:46
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by Terminator »

elio wrote:Awesome work zarel!

10. Good idea. But for what do we need the Command Relay Post anymore? I suggest remove it from multiplayer game play.

regards
no... Command relay center needed for Command Turret (for commaneders). Its badly implemented in game anyway, but it should be.
Death is the only way out... sh*t Happens !

Russian-speaking Social network Group http://vk.com/warzone2100
themousemaster
Regular
Regular
Posts: 611
Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by themousemaster »

So a quick look at the new multiplier table...

It looks like cannons are now better at anti-structure (overall), and rockets better at anti-vehicle.

Ok, cool.

But what else I noticed was the new VTOL multipliers...

All rockets/cannons used to do 20% damage, but now "rockets" do 100% damage.

Just out of curiosity, what damage type of SAMs fall under? Do they have their own damage type, or will it now be the case that a single Vaenger can now down just about anything?

(I went to the site's FAQ, but if the weapon-damage-type tree is in there somewhere, I don't see it)
elio
Regular
Regular
Posts: 508
Joined: 09 Jun 2007, 22:11

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by elio »

themousemaster wrote:Just out of curiosity, what damage type of SAMs fall under?
i would say Surface to Air Missile
Per
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 3780
Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 19:39

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by Per »

Thanks. The only thing I am unsure about is pulse laser obsoleting flashlight, since flashlight has higher range, and flashlight cyborgs are much smaller and faster than the pulse laser cyborgs. I will be one sad player if a research suddenly removes my ability to spam flashlight cyborgs.
User avatar
ThomasCarstein
Trained
Trained
Posts: 53
Joined: 24 Mar 2009, 15:31

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by ThomasCarstein »

Hey there!

Nice to see those upgrades and nice to know that there are people out there willing to spend time pouring over the percentages and whatnot to make WZ a better game :D

I'm not so much in the percentage stuff myself, but i tend to look at some things from a more "fluffy" kind of perspective, since i always want to emerse myself in to the game athmosphere (I'm thinking of writing up a story when i finish translation, but that's not important for now :-S ).
Anyway, fluffwise i just wanted to comment on something:
Zarel wrote:
9. Cyborgs don't have to be researched.

Research flamer, get flamer cyborg free. Research lancer, get lancer cyborgs, etc. Borg factory still has to be researched, and heavy cyborgs still have to be researched.

It's a bit unfair that you can use weapons in tanks and VTOLs just by researching the weapon, but you need to research it again to use it in a cyborg. This fixes that, and should make cyborgs better.
The thing is: cyborgs are cybernetic organisms (duh :rolleyes: ) and in most movies and stories I've seen or read a cyborg is a human with some or most of his bodyparts replaced with machine parts. Now (from a technical point of view) if you want to put a machinegun, cannon or flamer on top of a jeep or tank, i don't think that it's very complicated to do; when you wanna put those things on an airplane, you basically just mount a similar weapon arrangement on to a plane and connect it to the plane's weapon controls.
As for cyborgs, i think that putting the same flamer, machinegun or cannon that is mounted on a tank or jeep or plane on to a human-sized vehicle would not work very well and would be even potentialy dangerous for the cyborg (flamers for instance). Also on other vehicles the operating controls are much simpler; you push a button, the electric signal triggers the launch; on a cyborg a mental neuron signal would probably be initiated (like thinking of flexing your right index finger), this neuron signal travels to the synaptic link and is there translated to an electric signal which then fires the weapon.
Just my personal opinion here: I think that for adapting a normal (usually quite big) weapon to fit on a human sized (and still partly human-working) body, which has to work with a neuron translating device and gets signals from the owners thoughts, additional research is needed and it makes sense that it must be researched.

I know that this hinders the pure playability somewhat, but like i said, I tend to look on these things from a more fluff-like point of view, so if you don't agree with me, I'll understand ;) (I agree with all the other changes btw)

Just my 2 cents... bye
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by Zarel »

Per wrote:Thanks. The only thing I am unsure about is pulse laser obsoleting flashlight, since flashlight has higher range, and flashlight cyborgs are much smaller and faster than the pulse laser cyborgs. I will be one sad player if a research suddenly removes my ability to spam flashlight cyborgs.
Pulse laser has range 16. Flashlight has range 12.
themousemaster wrote:But what else I noticed was the new VTOL multipliers...

All rockets/cannons used to do 20% damage, but now "rockets" do 100% damage.

Just out of curiosity, what damage type of SAMs fall under? Do they have their own damage type, or will it now be the case that a single Vaenger can now down just about anything?

(I went to the site's FAQ, but if the weapon-damage-type tree is in there somewhere, I don't see it)
SAMs used to be anti-air. Since I needed to free up a damage type to put cannons under, I just got rid of anti-air, so now all anti-air weapons are rocket/missile-like. All it really means is that scourge cyborgs, as well as missile fortress, are now extremely effective against VTOLs.

An in case you're looking for other damage types; you realize Warzone Guide says so if you mouse over the damage, as well as if you go to the Avenger SAM details - direct homing kinetic anti-tank missile.
ThomasCarstein wrote:The thing is: cyborgs are cybernetic organisms (duh :rolleyes: ) and in most movies and stories I've seen or read a cyborg is a human with some or most of his bodyparts replaced with machine parts. Now (from a technical point of view) if you want to put a machinegun, cannon or flamer on top of a jeep or tank, i don't think that it's very complicated to do; when you wanna put those things on an airplane, you basically just mount a similar weapon arrangement on to a plane and connect it to the plane's weapon controls.
As for cyborgs, i think that putting the same flamer, machinegun or cannon that is mounted on a tank or jeep or plane on to a human-sized vehicle would not work very well and would be even potentialy dangerous for the cyborg (flamers for instance). Also on other vehicles the operating controls are much simpler; you push a button, the electric signal triggers the launch; on a cyborg a mental neuron signal would probably be initiated (like thinking of flexing your right index finger), this neuron signal travels to the synaptic link and is there translated to an electric signal which then fires the weapon.
Just my personal opinion here: I think that for adapting a normal (usually quite big) weapon to fit on a human sized (and still partly human-working) body, which has to work with a neuron translating device and gets signals from the owners thoughts, additional research is needed and it makes sense that it must be researched.
You have a good point. But keep in mind the signal that fires the weapons should be mostly the same for every cyborg, so I don't think that much research will be needed; just the modifications to make it small enough to be portable, really.
3drts
Trained
Trained
Posts: 379
Joined: 01 Aug 2007, 03:50

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by 3drts »

I'm all for most of these changes, but on the subject of defensive strength.... can we do something like double build time?
I think you should be able to fortify an area to withstand an attack from forces that require more resources than it took to construct the defenses - but it should take some time to do so.

When the raw firepower of structures constructed by a truck is superior to the raw firepower of a factories production in the same time period (ignore resource cost), something is wrong imo.

I would like to see bunker, tower, hardpoint, etc build time increased the same % as any firepower increase...
Make them cost effective but not time effective.
Early games are all build rushes, if a MG viper wheels has a chance at taking out some trucks before they can construct something, I think we may see some more dynamic game play and increased use of early combat units.

Could we also limit the max # of trucks that can work on a construction at once.

I had a quite ridiculous game against ortmaster once (with no reblance, making it even worse) - or never bothered to make a single combat unit, he'd just cruise around with 10+ HT python trucks, and anytime I got near them, they'd spam a line of HPV cannons very quickly and retreat.

Somehow now I have to deal with a *fortified* position that wasn't fortified a minute ago?

I know this isn't Civ- but in that game you can get big defensive bonuses, but they take a lot of time to accumulate - Most units can get a 25% bonus for staying on the same tile with the fortify command for 5 turns- and cities can get 100%+ defensive bonuses, but it takes a long time for the bonus to get that high.

I'd like to see build times increased to make it a requirement that an enemy actually control the area being fortified for a significant time.
Make them build some combat units to cover the trucks while they build.
truck buildwars just seem ridiculous to me, even though I partake in them as much as the general WZ population

I'm not sure I agree with splitting AT and getting rid of AA though....
Last edited by 3drts on 02 Apr 2009, 23:20, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ThomasCarstein
Trained
Trained
Posts: 53
Joined: 24 Mar 2009, 15:31

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by ThomasCarstein »

Zarel wrote:You have a good point. But keep in mind the signal that fires the weapons should be mostly the same for every cyborg, so I don't think that much research will be needed; just the modifications to make it small enough to be portable, really.
Also true, good point back :D Well, that takes care of my problems ;) Bye, T.
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by Zarel »

3drts wrote:I'm all for most of these changes, but on the subject of defensive strength.... can we do something like double built time?
This belongs in another thread. A thread I'm going to make very soon, actually.

In any case, I agree with you. I'm looking to halving the build rate. I think this is why most games don't have multi-build. Limiting multi-build seems like a weird way to deal with it, though. Maybe it'd be better to limit the max number of trucks lower than 15. 10?
3drts wrote:I'm not sure I agree with splitting AT and getting rid of AA though....
Why not?
3drts
Trained
Trained
Posts: 379
Joined: 01 Aug 2007, 03:50

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by 3drts »

Why does limiting the multibuild number seem weird?

Try putting up a fence by yourself- slow, 2 people speed it up, 200 people will just be too many, you'll have a lot of people sitting around doing nothing.

Its basically the law of diminishing returns. Past a certain point, each additional worker will be less and less productive.... this would be much harder to implement (say 2nd truck is at 2/3 the build rate, then the 3rd is 2/3 of 2/3, etc....), but a cap of around 3 or 4 would be fine and simple.

Similarly, there is the nearly invincible unit due to multi heal. Very popular in Homeworld 1 with the "magic green healing beam" - get 5 support frigates behind a frigate or corvette wall, and you loose almost nothing (particularly if you were doing a battle as taiidan against non missile/ion cannon armed ship and also had a defense field frigate to block 90% of the incoming fire to the ship being repaired, and all nearby ships). As your corvette wall does battle against enemy fighters or corvettes (basically anything that didn't have turreted Ion cannons), green beams start shooting all over the place to ships taking damage, and you simply couldn't kill the corvettes without focus firing multiple ion cannons on them, or having a missile destroyer clear all its missile tubes at a singe in a single "missile volley" - keeping in mind a missile destroyer cost 1,500, and a light corvette only 135.

Homeworld 2 instead had utility ships that latched onto and repaired ships, bigger ships had more latch points and hit points could be repaired faster(but they also had more HP, so % "healed" per unit time was similar), but you still couldn't assign 20 repair ships to a battlecruiser (with its own docking bay so the utility ships could themselves dock inside the battlecruiser for repairs) - to have an unstoppable juggernaut.
Nope you had to be content with only 5 repair ship latch points for the big ships, and 2 for the small.
Heavily damaged ships had to be taken to the rear of the fleet for quite a while to be fully repaired, no more regenerating to full health mid battle.

The repair ship latch point seemed to make sense in game - "oh more repair ships can fit on a bigger ship to work at once".

Id like to see the same with structures and trucks - but it getting rid of multi build/heal is the easiest/best possible way - so be it.

Having a max of only 5 trucks would be too crippling for large maps, or would make it to easy to win with a quick vtol strike wiping out factories and 5 trucks.
Last edited by 3drts on 02 Apr 2009, 23:29, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lav_coyote25
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3434
Joined: 08 Aug 2006, 23:18

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by lav_coyote25 »

leave the number of trucks alone...please. multibuild?? more info... if you mean cue up multiple buildings or hardpoints.... leave it the way it is. please. xD i use that extensivly.
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by Zarel »

lav_coyote25 wrote:multibuild?? more info... if you mean cue up multiple buildings or hardpoints.... leave it the way it is. please. xD i use that extensivly.
No, I mean, having a bunch of trucks build the same structure at once. I'm thinking of limiting it to, say, five trucks.
User avatar
lav_coyote25
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3434
Joined: 08 Aug 2006, 23:18

Re: More rebalancing!

Post by lav_coyote25 »

you mean 5 trucks per building / hardpoint / etc...?? naw - that takes for ever - 10 to 15 is awesomeness. stuff is built way faster - at least for myself. xD
Post Reply