TD balance thread

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
BigBadBain
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:37 pm

Re: Balance

Post by BigBadBain » Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:46 pm

Having a more deifnite choice beetween men or vehicles early game has made things more of a guessing game on small to medium maps. And as has been mentioned in 1v1, one mistake is crippling as things stand. You can do everything right but just choose the wrong building depending on your opponents choices. It just feels more random to me. Its used to be much more realistic to counter the enemy and more skill based that way, rather than trying to guess the enemy strategy. You can be the best scouter on the planet, but lets face it, the vast majority if guessing what the enemy might do, then responding. This responding has become more difficult with the power changes that were made and has restricted early gameplay. I for one don't enjoy or play very much 1v1's since this change. as for 50% of games you may as well quit in the first 3 minutes as theres little chance of coming back.

As it stands, if I think Anjew may build a barracks, I'll build a barracks too, to get my gt ready and wipe our his inf rush, but if he goes wf and I don't rush, fug, im dead. The delay now between getting both buildings up and its effects is too devestating early game in some circumstances. Too much guessing makes games no fun. Yes I can scout ( but by then its often too late as you have to resort to selling or cancelling WF build that also screws you up anyway) and yes its my fault for doing the wrong thing, but TD had far superior and fluid games in the past, when you could more dynamically respond.

^^

This I 100% agree with, I now tend to build 3 Humvee or buggy b4 I start to build harvesters, (while building ref to sell) just in case the person I am playing builds them b4 me, if we could make barracks openers a thing again, this would stop players being able to infantry rush, or block refs or WF, it would make for a longer game.

I do also think T1 spam has become a thing in current build, however I don't know what is the best way to go about this.

User avatar
Major Kusanagi Motoko
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:35 am

Post by Major Kusanagi Motoko » Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:26 pm

Beans wrote: Balance was great in 2014/15, I cant remember the specific builds but many people agree with me that this time period produced the best games.
There has been numerous features that (now disabled) have contributed to that very dynamic games, such as a very quick 2nd WF/AS, 2 defence structures of different kinds rdy for deployment, expansion without open mainbase, just to name a few

However,
also problems with having more than the 2nd mcv.
Someone mentioned the idea to increase buildtime and price in an appropriate ratio as an exponential function of number of current mcvs on the field.

Not to mention, with the balance patches over the last ~2 years, a lot has been improved significantly, so a rollback wouldn't come along without additional regression...

As of now, the recent TDGL is showing balance weaknesses and thus it should be clear on where to set priority of work.
This doesn't mean that they (iE. broken apc) haven't been mentioned long ago, just that it becomes to obvious to overlook now...

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:23 am

This post is going to be a bit long so try and hold on. I will break it down as best as possible to make reading easy.

--====+++====--


@Anjew,

If it is true that you had brought this up to me then I apologize. The past quote you mentioned is true actually. They are only a problem in numbers. The APCs mechanic is based off the weapon due to the nature of how the weapon works. Its an instant hit projectile that does direct damage which in numbers will increase its damage. Compared to tank projectile based where you can dodge or run negating its damage/fire.

---------------------------

@Everyone,

Power changes.

I can see your point a bit about the changes in the build structure. If the community does feel as you are expressing it is possible to revert the changes and do testing.

But I want an opinion on the following:

Reverting back the changes would cause the old vehicle spam issue to come around again which made Nod extremely tough. One power plant with the older 2014/2015 release could support 3 airstrips/factories before needing another power plant. This made light tank spams a huge problem along with massing up harvesters and various units. Infantry would get overwhelmed by this kind of build.

Changing the power structure negated this quite a bit as only 2 airstrips could be run. Comparing the following:

2014/2015 Opener:

Power > Ref > Airstrip/Factory > Power > Airstrip/factory > Ref > Airstrip/factory.

Power > Ref > Airstrip/Factory > Power > Ref (Sell ref while building harvester) > Airstrip/Factory > Airstrip/Factory > Refinery.
Current Opener:

Power > Ref > Airstrip/Factory > Power. (Build another airstrip? Another barracks? Refinery? Move out to expand?)

I like the idea about different build order styles which was the reason for promoting the change on the power output. However, as mentioned if the community prefers the older style im all for hearing it.

But at the sametime, I don't want mid tier games turning into the old school army of airstrips/factories everywhere kind of games which had caused problems in the past. If there is a solution to fix this then awesome.

------------------------------

@Major Kusanagi,

Are you speaking about multiple the MCV build time/price increase built from the factory? Or of the Construction Yard taking longer to build buildings if there are more CYs on the field?

Agreed on the TDGL portion. Again, the problem comes with disagreements. When a possible (or solution itself) is provided and the community expresses large amounts of disagreements will cause issues. While I can make (If the devs agree on the changes) changes such as the APC damage reductions in the current, there are disagreements that come up and need to be addressed. I prefer to take opinions/ideas from as many people as possible.

Some of the other issues is getting feedback as Beans has mentioned in this forum "Hasn't posted in years. Doesn't prefer the forums." which is another reason I jump into games when I can.

-------------------------------------

@Beans,

Putting the recon bike on barracks tech is something I have disagreed with in the past. Games in the past had the mentality of Nod is the rushing type faction. If people are wanting this I say roll out the mod maps for testing.

-------------------------------------

If there are any suggestions or feedbacks to fix potential issues mentioned here feel free to post here.

As mentioned before as well I can be contacted on Discord if people prefer to stay out of the forums.

BigBadBain
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:37 pm

Post by BigBadBain » Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:43 am

Is there not a way to have barracks openers again, see the issue at the moment is, if you build a barracks then you have to rush with infantry or grab oil derricks, you can't just make a barracks so you can have a GT ready in case someone rushes you, which happens a lot at the moment.

and if you do build a barracks, you put yourself at a massive disadvantage, due to Eco and build orders.

I'd prefer this, as it suits my style of play more, however this does not work for a opener in this build, the other thing is, it makes TD games open up more, I've seen to many games that don't go the distance in TD, games have become a roll of the dice sometimes at the start, in TD sometimes it can feel like, rock paper scissors, and often it's not tactical its down to luck

GDave
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:42 am

Post by GDave » Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:06 am

Previously, this build order was viable:
pp(+100) ref(-50) rax(-20) wf(-30)
[power indicated in parentheses]

AoA, you said that gave you both structures too quickly. I disagree. That allowed for a more secure opener to games. It was the standard build order. It's far harder to (effectively) end a game in the first couple of minutes when that build is viable. It seemed that is what people liked and that is what people now want (me included).

The power requirements were changed with the aim of nerfing the ability of Nod to rush out 3 airstrips, but requiring a single extra pp for that is insignificant. It really hasn't nerfed Nod light vehicle spam or light tank spam much at all (the nerf to the light tank nerfed light tank spam).

The power change, coupled with the rise of competitive 1v1 play, has proved detrimental. On most maps it makes a wf opener too risky. Check the TDGL game between anjew and Orb on Pirates & Emperors for an example. Opening with wf when your opponent has opened with rax and sent a squad of infantry means there is a good chance it's gg. You'd need to build a second pp, a rax and then minis or a gt. Previously, you didn't have the 12-second/$500 cost of the pp, you'd already have a GT queued, and as soon as the enemy arrived you could start building a pp or rax, depending on which was likely to get sniped.

I never liked not being able get both a wf and a rax out off of one pp, but I was willing to test it. We have tested it, extensively, and it isn't good. I think the guys have described well why it isn't good.

For me, the only positive thing with the power change is that it permitted e.g. pp ref rax ref.

To that end, I propose:
Refinery -40 power
War factory -40 power
Barracks -20 power

That allows: pp ref rax wf
which will hinder the very quick ggs that we are seeing

and it allows: pp ref rax ref
thus still enabling early infantry plays.

Also, guess what... you'll need 2 pps for 3 airstrips! Everybody will be happy :)

- -

APCs have been OP and this has been known about (just not widely exploited) since a long time before TDGL. They really shouldn't be able to wreck bases and tank armies. One way of buffing apaches (which still suck in terms of the damage they deal) would be to make APCs less effective/ineffective vs air.

I'm not sure an APC should turn quite as slowly as a medium tank, how about a halfway house between that and its current turn speed?
Last edited by GDave on Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Clockwork
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:50 am
Contact:

Post by Clockwork » Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:37 am

how about we all play RA?

Blackened
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Post by Blackened » Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:55 pm

no u

BigBadBain
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:37 pm

Post by BigBadBain » Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:31 pm

Happy wrote: how about we all play RA?

sorry I'm not really into tower deference games :P

User avatar
ZxGanon
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Post by ZxGanon » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:02 pm

I like the Power change idea.

I will ask mesacer about that one to add it.

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:02 am

@Gdave,

While it was the standard build order it was pretty well the only good build order in many cases. Very common you would have airstrip/factory openers and getting harvesters out quickly. Barrack openers were rare because of the use of the vehicles. (Not just light tanks. It involved the old school buggy/bike builds. Specially if you were able to get a 2nd airstrip out for buggy on one, bike on the other.)

Now, unless you mean something different in 2014/2015 compared to the current I would need some better clarification.

The power changes were indeed ment to nerf the quick vehicle openers. Some of the complaints about "Being risky opening with a factory" is essentially what I was aiming for.

You are actually right about the rax > ref > ref builds. That was the complete reason for doing it to buff infantry openers/GT queued up.

--++--

In that end, I like your proposal better as you stated:

Refinery -40 power
War factory -40 power
Barracks -20 power

This would not only allow for a double opener type, but also provides different openers. IE:

Power > Rax > Ref > Ref > power

Power > Factory > Ref > power > Com Center > Factory > Power

Power > Rax > Ref > Factory > Power

Power > Rax > Ref > Factory > Power > Com Center

--++--

This opens up a few orders that can be done while allowing players to have Rax, Factory openers as well as open up new possibles. It also still prevents a large opening of Factories as the following reason:

Ref > Factory > Power > Factory > Com Center

40p > 80p > (Power plant built here) > 120p > 170p

The only issue is again it might be possible to have a build of getting another 3 factories as you could be at 80p then add three factories would cap at 200p. So it would still be possible to do a 3 factory build.

The good thing about this, is if they wanted to build a Command Center, it would negate going 2 factories as the Command Center is -50p. So this again COULD open up other optional choices such as "Do I go an extra 2nd and 3rd factory? Or go tech instead?"

Power > Ref > Factory > Power > Factory > Command Center = 170p (Can't build 2nd factory)

Power > Ref > Factory > Power > Factory > Factory > Factory = 200p (Doesn't have tech.)

I say your idea is strongly liked from my perspective and would like to see it implemented.

--------------------

APCs is still on the testing brand. I do like them being slower due to crushing but if its to slow it can be looked at being increased.

The effectiveness vs Air is being tested with turretless APCs but keeping the same weapon. IE: Need to turn to shoot air and ground. (No comment on this yet.)

(Sorry if this is yet another long post. I had to show examples in break down theory to why I like it.)

GDave
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:42 am

Post by GDave » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:30 am

AoAGeneral1 wrote: @Gdave,
While it was the standard build order it was pretty well the only good build order in many cases.
Nah, other BOs were viable.
AoAGeneral1 wrote: The power changes were indeed ment to nerf the quick vehicle openers. Some of the complaints about "Being risky opening with a factory" is essentially what I was aiming for.
<snip>
You are actually right about the rax > ref > ref builds. That was the complete reason for doing it to buff infantry openers/GT queued up.
The point of the change to the ref power (50-->40) was to allow for infantry openers. The change to the WF power (30-->50) was intended to retard Nod vehicle spam. The side effects have been a marked increase in early ggs and forcing early rax: https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/12507
AoAGeneral1 wrote: Power > Factory > Ref > power > Com Center > Factory > Power
Ref is a pre-requisite for WF ;)
AoAGeneral1 wrote: I say your idea is strongly liked from my perspective and would like to see it implemented.
Good good.

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:35 am

1) not so much. It was about getting buggies/bikes as soon as possible to start herassing. Only on extremely larger maps or much smaller maps were they bad ideas.

2) It didn't always force early rax. There are still games happening where people open with factories. In cases though the other player opens rax while the other opens factory.

3) Yep. Thats what happens when I respond while at work.

---------

https://resource.openra.net/maps/26371/

This map is provided by Mesacer. Has the power changes, APC testing involved as well as some other changes.

Keep in mind that anything in this map is not subject to the final. There are a few things that I will be looking more closely at (IE: Power changes, APC changes.) Anything else of course can be discussed.

User avatar
ZxGanon
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Post by ZxGanon » Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:30 am

If APC with Hummer gun is still too strong we could actually make him non turreted.

Actually we should Id really like to go for original as close as possible (but still keeping out the bullshit).

BigBadBain
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:37 pm

Post by BigBadBain » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:11 pm

ZxGanon wrote: If APC with Hummer gun is still too strong we could actually make him non turreted.

Actually we should Id really like to go for original as close as possible (but still keeping out the bullshit).

I think this would be interesting, would this make nod buggy's and bikes OP?

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:48 am

Problem with having the APC with the machine gun is it replaced the role of the hummer. In the games tested, only a few hummers were built and then APCs replaced them.

A topic was posted regarding this before so I will copy paste here:

"In the games I had seen prior there were still a lot of APCs roaming the map. Originally, it was said that there were to many APCs on the map causing air units to be impractical because of a large amount of AA. Attached to that complaint was its weapon being the problem.

In those games as well I witnessed APCs taking over the role of the hummers since they had the same weapon. They were able to now both crush and shoot infantry easily preventing drops. Originally in the complaints, it was said their mobility was an issue because they could crush. Now with the hummers weapon that mobility in terms of crushing is made up with shooting the infantry. Im personally not quite convinced this is a good solution in two reasons:

1) Kills infantry easily.
2) Takes the role of the humvee"

The information past this explains about ideas removing the turret while keeping the flak on APC.

Post Reply