TD balance thread

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
User avatar
ZxGanon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Post by ZxGanon » Tue May 15, 2018 8:51 am

The HP nerf of APC in AoA´s version is a tad stronger than in our modmap Unano.
So the increase by 50$ is maybe fine.

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Mon May 21, 2018 10:52 pm

Here is a map pack link for the future changes.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mfuq4s7baxqy0 ... s.zip?dl=0

Makes it easier to both browse the maps and view replays.

EDIT: Updated link

EDIT 2: Fixed Pirates & Emperors.

User avatar
Beans
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:41 pm

TD = Tower Defence

Post by Beans » Thu May 24, 2018 5:55 pm

I've noticed many games with the balance changes have become really tower spammy, specifically AGT all over the damn place accompanied with base pushing. Mesacer uses this tactic heavily. Unfortunately its so effective it will catch on and become the norm, tower defence is not RTS.

Ok, I think the problem has come from a few areas but mostly way too much eco on most maps, both oil & tiberium. BUT! People love high eco and we need players so we cant take that away from them! So we need to balance the game for high eco maps, since thats the norm.

Suggested solution, increase build time of AGT signifcantly? I think this is worth testing.

Mesacer
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:03 pm

Re: TD = Tower Defence

Post by Mesacer » Thu May 24, 2018 6:30 pm

Beans wrote: I've noticed many games with the balance changes have become really tower spammy, specifically AGT all over the damn place accompanied with base pushing. Mesacer uses this tactic heavily. Unfortunately its so effective it will catch on and become the norm, tower defence is not RTS.

Ok, I think the problem has come from a few areas but mostly way too much eco on most maps, both oil & tiberium. BUT! People love high eco and we need players so we cant take that away from them! So we need to balance the game for high eco maps, since thats the norm.

Suggested solution, increase build time of AGT signifcantly? I think this is worth testing.
I was gdave that's started it!

But on a more serious note I agree that team games in the high Eco maps have turned to a tower defense game. It's something we need to have a look on!

eskimo
Posts: 274
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:59 pm

Post by eskimo » Thu May 24, 2018 7:15 pm

Aren't the TD maps small and/or chokey which helps make static play more probable?

maceman
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:49 pm

Post by maceman » Thu May 24, 2018 8:10 pm

I think it's more that the Advanced Guard Tower, and defences in TD are generally overpowered. Which works out OK because you can use the (also overpowered imo) airstrike to deal with them. But yea killing defences with units, especially the AGT is never cost effective from what I've seen. Which is wierd for a 'unit-based' game.

User avatar
Beans
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:41 pm

Re: TD = Tower Defence

Post by Beans » Thu May 24, 2018 8:17 pm

Mesacer wrote:
Beans wrote: I've noticed many games with the balance changes have become really tower spammy, specifically AGT all over the damn place accompanied with base pushing. Mesacer uses this tactic heavily. Unfortunately its so effective it will catch on and become the norm, tower defence is not RTS.

Ok, I think the problem has come from a few areas but mostly way too much eco on most maps, both oil & tiberium. BUT! People love high eco and we need players so we cant take that away from them! So we need to balance the game for high eco maps, since thats the norm.

Suggested solution, increase build time of AGT signifcantly? I think this is worth testing.
I was gdave that's started it!

I knew he would be involved in this conspiracy against us!

But on a more serious note I agree that team games in the high Eco maps have turned to a tower defense game. It's something we need to have a look on!

User avatar
Beans
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:41 pm

Post by Beans » Thu May 24, 2018 8:21 pm

eskimo wrote: Aren't the TD maps small and/or chokey which helps make static play more probable?




this is a really good point, however people like the maps they like, and we have to cater to what the player base wants to play. As I've said before, no point in making a game nobody wants to play, even if it is technically better in ways. Therefore the game should be balanced around the maps that people play, not an Ideal map situation, this means nerfing AGT build time. Thanks for making this point.

User avatar
Beans
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:41 pm

Post by Beans » Thu May 24, 2018 8:26 pm

maceman wrote: I think it's more that the Advanced Guard Tower, and defences in TD are generally overpowered. Which works out OK because you can use the (also overpowered imo) airstrike to deal with them. But yea killing defences with units, especially the AGT is never cost effective from what I've seen. Which is wierd for a 'unit-based' game.

Not sure about it being overpowered in general, its quite easy to take one down with a minigunner and a couple of tanks. and best with Arty /MRLS. The problem lies in there being so many they swamp the map, and with chokey maps they can cripple most strategy and turn games into tower defence brut force. I think the only nerf it needs is build time to counter this. My other worry is that the MCV being cheaper will just double AGT spamming. I know a lot of these concerns are small or chokey map issues, but people play those the most so we must take that into account for game balance.

User avatar
Beans
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:41 pm

Post by Beans » Thu May 24, 2018 8:30 pm

maceman wrote: I think it's more that the Advanced Guard Tower, and defences in TD are generally overpowered. Which works out OK because you can use the (also overpowered imo) airstrike to deal with them. But yea killing defences with units, especially the AGT is never cost effective from what I've seen. Which is wierd for a 'unit-based' game.

Not sure about it being overpowered in general, its quite easy to take one down with a minigunner and a couple of tanks. and best with Arty /MRLS. The problem lies in there being so many they swamp the map, and with chokey maps they can cripple most strategy and turn games into tower defence brut force. I think the only nerf it needs is build time to counter this. My other worry is that the MCV being cheaper will just double AGT spamming. I know a lot of these concerns are small or chokey map issues, but people play those the most so we must take that into account for game balance.

maceman
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:49 pm

Post by maceman » Thu May 24, 2018 8:36 pm

Beans wrote: Not sure about it being overpowered in general, its quite easy to take one down with a minigunner and a couple of tanks. and best with Arty /MRLS. The problem lies in there being so many they swamp the map, and with chokey maps they can cripple most strategy and turn games into tower defence brut force. I think the only nerf it needs is build time to counter this. My other worry is that the MCV being cheaper will just double AGT spamming. I know a lot of these concerns are small or chokey map issues, but people play those the most so we must take that into account for game balance.
How much does this cost compared to the defence cost? What about killing two AGTs?

User avatar
ZxGanon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Post by ZxGanon » Thu May 24, 2018 8:53 pm

The AGT is pretty op in terms of usage and cost effectiveness.

Also the build time is just not dynamic at all. You just basically wait your 48 seconds to deploy it. 1000$ in 48 seconds is nothing and increasing the buildtime will just make it a no brainer que for more defense.

Increasing the cost would help a lot since its also way more usefule than an Obelisk of Light.

You could also change its attack to be like in original TD where it had a 2 burst and longer reloaddelay. Could make cause air units to get one bursted but you can also splitt the anti ground and anti air weapon easily.

Infinite possibilities and so many changes possible but you gotta choose one.

User avatar
Beans
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:41 pm

Post by Beans » Thu May 24, 2018 9:16 pm

ZxGanon wrote: The AGT is pretty op in terms of usage and cost effectiveness.

Also the build time is just not dynamic at all. You just basically wait your 48 seconds to deploy it. 1000$ in 48 seconds is nothing and increasing the buildtime will just make it a no brainer que for more defense.

Increasing the cost would help a lot since its also way more usefule than an Obelisk of Light.

You could also change its attack to be like in original TD where it had a 2 burst and longer reloaddelay. Could make cause air units to get one bursted but you can also splitt the anti ground and anti air weapon easily.

Infinite possibilities and so many changes possible but you gotta choose one.


Surely a longer build time will make less AGT on the map? I wouldn't want it nerfed in damage as they're easy to kill in ones or two's. It's when there's 5 or 6 supported with mrls/tanks they become impossible and immune to powers due to numbers.

maceman
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:49 pm

Post by maceman » Thu May 24, 2018 9:55 pm

Beans wrote:
Surely a longer build time will make less AGT on the map? I wouldn't want it nerfed in damage as they're easy to kill in ones or two's. It's when there's 5 or 6 supported with mrls/tanks they become impossible and immune to powers due to numbers.
I would have thought increasing build time would mean that you just queue them constantly because they are the best defence and still more than worth their value.

Whereas if you increase their cost to what they should be worth, it means people have to think do they want to shell out on the kill-everything defence, or would a cheaper turret / tower do, or just get 2 tanks instead of a tower, which you can move around.

Right now from what i can tell people just queue AGT as soon as they can until the game ends because they are so cost effective.

User avatar
Beans
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:41 pm

Post by Beans » Thu May 24, 2018 10:26 pm

maceman wrote:
Beans wrote:
Surely a longer build time will make less AGT on the map? I wouldn't want it nerfed in damage as they're easy to kill in ones or two's. It's when there's 5 or 6 supported with mrls/tanks they become impossible and immune to powers due to numbers.
I would have thought increasing build time would mean that you just queue them constantly because they are the best defence and still more than worth their value.

Whereas if you increase their cost to what they should be worth, it means people have to think do they want to shell out on the kill-everything defence, or would a cheaper turret / tower do, or just get 2 tanks instead of a tower, which you can move around.

Right now from what i can tell people just queue AGT as soon as they can until the game ends because they are so cost effective.

I strongly contest them being too strong, I just killed one with 2 minigunners and a medium tank as the enemy didn't have time to micro it to the tank. Often is the case there is not time to micro them and they attack the least effective unit. its only when they are in groups of 3+ I have an issue with the extra splash damage they become stacked, and even then MRLS/Artillery get slaughtered and easily flanked. Increasing the build time is an adequate nerf for testing purposes. The price is fine and it already had a 10% hp nerf. We need to remember that every time changes are made, more unforeseen things happen, so upmost caution is required. The MCV becoming too cheap may cause a lot of issues like this on reflection. Personally I think we should take more time and be more careful with changes over long drawn out deliberation. Months of fruitful work :)

Post Reply