Mcv don't need to be rebalanced but if you think it should be changed then make them slower, that would make it harder to expand so fast.
Also this annoying "moving mcv to the enemy at start" would be not so good anymore.
Raiseing the price to 2500 can also be done to stem the mcv's but would have no effect to this startingproblem.
2500 sounds like a fair price to me, although i'd prefer a slowdown
As long as it isn't done like in TD, this mod is ruined in my opinion since a mcv costs 4k.
MCV Balance Playtesting
this is coming from the guy who abuses them the most
It's been brought to my attention by Lorrydriver and 5A that 2ref builds seem to be very dominant in the tabedit. I took a look at many of the replays, and I found some recurring patterns. To begin, lets start by analyzing the current release at the 4 minute mark.
20161019 Release
2Ref: 5 harvesters
WF first: 6 mining harvesters.
Both sides have service depot at approximately the same time, with WF first usually having the quicker SD (most likely due to 2ref having divided attention).
Assets, earned, and spent money are roughly equal (+/-1k) between 2ref and WF first at 4 mins. WF first begins to outeco 2Ref after 4minutes.
TabEdit
2ref: 4-6 harvesters, depending on when tech is built.
WF first: 4-7 harvesters, depending on when the tech is built.
Just from the increased possibilities of build orders and build order matchups, it's very likely that 2ref might be stronger. These are some of the more common occurrences at the 4 minute mark:
2R (5) vs WF (5) -- 2ref has better eco, assets, and spent differential. WF first has faster tech advantage, but very vulnerable. 2R has a slower, but more stable tech rush. The former is more suited for hijacker, spy, and single hind/yak rushes, while the latter is better for faster MCVs and multiple hinds/yaks.
2R (5) vs WF (6) -- Nearly identical asset/earned/spent/eco as the normal release.
2R (5) vs WF (7) -- WF first is relatively even in assets/earned money, but it has a very strong and stable eco. 2ref has a large (2-3k+) advantage in spent money.
I'm not going to be able to cover all the different combinations and matchups, but I hope the general idea is there. WF first options will be faster and/or riskier than 2ref options, while 2ref options are much safer and smoother. Note: in both versions, the most stable time to get the SD was around the 3:30 mark, with the SD being placed by the 4 minute mark.
Some analysis on 2Ref with a 6th harvester+SD... 2R with 6 harvesters is "better" than the traditional WF first for 6 harvesters in the sense that it's equal in terms of harvester count and wins in the spent money category. However, 2R needs a 4th ref in order to get the 6th harvester, which means WF first has the option of scaling quicker (more barracks), or it has the option of getting a 7th harvester (4th Ref). This is the exact, same situation when it comes to 2ref vs WF first in the normal build, but minus 1 harvester.
When it comes to tech rushes, i.e, getting SD + 2nd or 3rd ref at the same time, 2ref is much better in this situation because you have extra income that will allow for safer teching. This is also due to the fact that you can't have a defense ready while your tech is being built. However, that is not to say that WF tech rushes are completely useless. On the contrary, WF tech rushes are very good, especially versus a 2ref player who is slow to scout or vs a WF first player who is extremely greedy. These builds are also not completely all-in anymore since the tech buildings are separate from your eco buildings now.
These scenarios are very foreign and unfamiliar, as players are not accustomed to a lot of the new opportunities. For instance, building 7 harvesters before an MCV is not common because its normally impossible to spend the money from the 7th harvester. However, since you can spend money quicker in the TabEdit, it's reasonable to go for the 7th harvester.
Also, I've noticed that players also don't like scouting and adapting; they prefer to be reactionary, having a defensive structure on standby, ready to place at all times. Having this static defense on standby is considered crucial by many, but I would argue that it's only necessary for the first 3-4 minutes while you build your harvester count. While you're teching, it's possible to scout and react accordingly with your initial ranger/flak truck, rather than just relying on instantly placing a PB down the moment you're being attacked. It's difficult, but not impossible to use a flak/ranger to scout their base, their army size, and to delay their approach.
On a personal level, I think the mechanic of having a pillbox on standby to deflect any type of rush should not come without its consequences. It doesn't make any sense how it's never a bad thing to have a pillbox on standby for the first 5 minutes of the game. It compels the players to just sit in their base, and to do the bare minimum of scouting. I believe players should be rewarded for having better scouting and for placing less static defenses than their opponents.
tl;dr : 2ref with 6 harvesters is probably a better option in the TabEdit if you typically go WF first > 6 harvester > MCV expand in the normal version. However, going WF first with 7 harvesters versus 2ref with 6 harvesters will turn the game into the current meta.
20161019 Release
2Ref: 5 harvesters
WF first: 6 mining harvesters.
Both sides have service depot at approximately the same time, with WF first usually having the quicker SD (most likely due to 2ref having divided attention).
Assets, earned, and spent money are roughly equal (+/-1k) between 2ref and WF first at 4 mins. WF first begins to outeco 2Ref after 4minutes.
TabEdit
2ref: 4-6 harvesters, depending on when tech is built.
WF first: 4-7 harvesters, depending on when the tech is built.
Just from the increased possibilities of build orders and build order matchups, it's very likely that 2ref might be stronger. These are some of the more common occurrences at the 4 minute mark:
2R (5) vs WF (5) -- 2ref has better eco, assets, and spent differential. WF first has faster tech advantage, but very vulnerable. 2R has a slower, but more stable tech rush. The former is more suited for hijacker, spy, and single hind/yak rushes, while the latter is better for faster MCVs and multiple hinds/yaks.
2R (5) vs WF (6) -- Nearly identical asset/earned/spent/eco as the normal release.
2R (5) vs WF (7) -- WF first is relatively even in assets/earned money, but it has a very strong and stable eco. 2ref has a large (2-3k+) advantage in spent money.
I'm not going to be able to cover all the different combinations and matchups, but I hope the general idea is there. WF first options will be faster and/or riskier than 2ref options, while 2ref options are much safer and smoother. Note: in both versions, the most stable time to get the SD was around the 3:30 mark, with the SD being placed by the 4 minute mark.
Some analysis on 2Ref with a 6th harvester+SD... 2R with 6 harvesters is "better" than the traditional WF first for 6 harvesters in the sense that it's equal in terms of harvester count and wins in the spent money category. However, 2R needs a 4th ref in order to get the 6th harvester, which means WF first has the option of scaling quicker (more barracks), or it has the option of getting a 7th harvester (4th Ref). This is the exact, same situation when it comes to 2ref vs WF first in the normal build, but minus 1 harvester.
When it comes to tech rushes, i.e, getting SD + 2nd or 3rd ref at the same time, 2ref is much better in this situation because you have extra income that will allow for safer teching. This is also due to the fact that you can't have a defense ready while your tech is being built. However, that is not to say that WF tech rushes are completely useless. On the contrary, WF tech rushes are very good, especially versus a 2ref player who is slow to scout or vs a WF first player who is extremely greedy. These builds are also not completely all-in anymore since the tech buildings are separate from your eco buildings now.
These scenarios are very foreign and unfamiliar, as players are not accustomed to a lot of the new opportunities. For instance, building 7 harvesters before an MCV is not common because its normally impossible to spend the money from the 7th harvester. However, since you can spend money quicker in the TabEdit, it's reasonable to go for the 7th harvester.
Also, I've noticed that players also don't like scouting and adapting; they prefer to be reactionary, having a defensive structure on standby, ready to place at all times. Having this static defense on standby is considered crucial by many, but I would argue that it's only necessary for the first 3-4 minutes while you build your harvester count. While you're teching, it's possible to scout and react accordingly with your initial ranger/flak truck, rather than just relying on instantly placing a PB down the moment you're being attacked. It's difficult, but not impossible to use a flak/ranger to scout their base, their army size, and to delay their approach.
On a personal level, I think the mechanic of having a pillbox on standby to deflect any type of rush should not come without its consequences. It doesn't make any sense how it's never a bad thing to have a pillbox on standby for the first 5 minutes of the game. It compels the players to just sit in their base, and to do the bare minimum of scouting. I believe players should be rewarded for having better scouting and for placing less static defenses than their opponents.
tl;dr : 2ref with 6 harvesters is probably a better option in the TabEdit if you typically go WF first > 6 harvester > MCV expand in the normal version. However, going WF first with 7 harvesters versus 2ref with 6 harvesters will turn the game into the current meta.
https://www.mediafire.com/?fjh13ooiwu8s132
Newest replays of the 40s MCV and the TabEdit for you guys to review. I've attached the ones that I think were fun to watch and to play. I also included an explosion-filled 2v2 for those who are interested in the effects of the tabedit on the team-game scene. I've also included a couple normal games for people to compare the edits to.
Those of you who are concerned that the TabEdit will completely change the game, I urge you to watch the replays and see if it is so. If you are still concerned that the TabEdit will dramatically change the game after watching the replays, please comment and let me know why you feel that way.
Some quick comments:
-There have been some concerns that the TabEdit makes map control and eco too important...this is true to some extent, but it is only because there are more ways you can control the map now (fast hind, fast yak, apc with hijackers, ranger with a spy, etc).
This typically goes hand in hand with the complaint that people are now unable to have a defensive structure on standby to stop any sort of rush...now I'm not a huge proponent of forcing players to play a certain way, but I think forcing players to scout is a reasonable demand.
-The tabedit is pretty stable; pure eco builds are still very possible, and the meta looks very similar compared to the current release. However, there are now multiple ways to enter the mid game, not just 2ref into SD or 1refWF into SD (yes, i realize there are other build orders, but these are the two most common build orders).
-Late game static defense spamming is still a thing. To be honest, I'm fine with this, since by the time the spam starts to happens, all of the late-game tech is on the field, meaning that it's more feasible to maneuver around the spam and/or to bust through.
-More testing is needed to see if phase transports, shockies, demo trucks, and tanya are too good in the TabEdit.
Newest replays of the 40s MCV and the TabEdit for you guys to review. I've attached the ones that I think were fun to watch and to play. I also included an explosion-filled 2v2 for those who are interested in the effects of the tabedit on the team-game scene. I've also included a couple normal games for people to compare the edits to.
Those of you who are concerned that the TabEdit will completely change the game, I urge you to watch the replays and see if it is so. If you are still concerned that the TabEdit will dramatically change the game after watching the replays, please comment and let me know why you feel that way.
Some quick comments:
-There have been some concerns that the TabEdit makes map control and eco too important...this is true to some extent, but it is only because there are more ways you can control the map now (fast hind, fast yak, apc with hijackers, ranger with a spy, etc).
This typically goes hand in hand with the complaint that people are now unable to have a defensive structure on standby to stop any sort of rush...now I'm not a huge proponent of forcing players to play a certain way, but I think forcing players to scout is a reasonable demand.
-The tabedit is pretty stable; pure eco builds are still very possible, and the meta looks very similar compared to the current release. However, there are now multiple ways to enter the mid game, not just 2ref into SD or 1refWF into SD (yes, i realize there are other build orders, but these are the two most common build orders).
-Late game static defense spamming is still a thing. To be honest, I'm fine with this, since by the time the spam starts to happens, all of the late-game tech is on the field, meaning that it's more feasible to maneuver around the spam and/or to bust through.
-More testing is needed to see if phase transports, shockies, demo trucks, and tanya are too good in the TabEdit.
I feel as though this post has lost its way somewhat. The original post is MCV needs to be rebalanced. I know your going to say it's all linked etc but I think you are way over thinking your original problem which was your 5 conyard base push tier 1 spam. I watched you play a game last night on SoScared stream with the con yard build time edit and you still managed to spam 5 yards and a insane amount of barracks all over the map. To NERF your strat we have to look at what your strat feeds on. Which is
1. Increased build speed to out push your opponent.
take away the bonus build speed increase from multiple con yards for building and defensive structures. This dosnt hurt anyone. all it would do is keep the conyard as an expansion unit only. The opponent can match you defence for defence giving noone the edge on rushing buildings
2. Utilising the barracks as your primary pushing structure.
Limit the number of barracks to 7. This way you wouldn't be able to hammer them out all over the place either forcing you to sell old ones making your push a tad more annoying for yourself.
3. Taking map control by making the map one big base.
Limit the number of con yards to 3 per player. This way if u want to spam your base everywer you have to risk leaving other areas conyardless.
They are not by any means 'the difinative answer' these are ideas but I think actually attacking the conyard directly is the answer.
Having said the above I appreciate that you have worked hard on your tab eddit and your countless hours of play testing are a credit to your commitment to improve the game, I think that your tab eddit should be its own separate entity away from this issue and therefore be a separate post. If the community like your ideas and the developers give your ideas a thumbs up am sure everyone will enjoy the game and give thanks for the improvements. I just don't think they are a nasesity to solving the original problem. I would definitely have more respect for the idea of your tech tab eddits if you were not linking it to the MCV balance issue
Juice
1. Increased build speed to out push your opponent.
take away the bonus build speed increase from multiple con yards for building and defensive structures. This dosnt hurt anyone. all it would do is keep the conyard as an expansion unit only. The opponent can match you defence for defence giving noone the edge on rushing buildings
2. Utilising the barracks as your primary pushing structure.
Limit the number of barracks to 7. This way you wouldn't be able to hammer them out all over the place either forcing you to sell old ones making your push a tad more annoying for yourself.
3. Taking map control by making the map one big base.
Limit the number of con yards to 3 per player. This way if u want to spam your base everywer you have to risk leaving other areas conyardless.
They are not by any means 'the difinative answer' these are ideas but I think actually attacking the conyard directly is the answer.
Having said the above I appreciate that you have worked hard on your tab eddit and your countless hours of play testing are a credit to your commitment to improve the game, I think that your tab eddit should be its own separate entity away from this issue and therefore be a separate post. If the community like your ideas and the developers give your ideas a thumbs up am sure everyone will enjoy the game and give thanks for the improvements. I just don't think they are a nasesity to solving the original problem. I would definitely have more respect for the idea of your tech tab eddits if you were not linking it to the MCV balance issue
Juice
"I love the smell of JuiceBoxes in the morning"
LT. COL. Bill Kilgore
Apocalypse Now
LT. COL. Bill Kilgore
Apocalypse Now
I watched yesterday's stream and the idea of having to build War Factory before you can build Radar Dome seems a little restrictive. It opens up to more playstyles when you can rush Radar Dome in order to get early aircraft or in order to get early Destroyers from the Shipyard (remember those guys? 
).
To me it feels pretty good that you can go either Radar Dome to unlock Helipad/Airfield or go War Factory to unlock Service Depot. I know it's not common to see Radar before War Factory but the more variation is supported the better, right?
I'm even considering if it would be a good idea to allow construction of War Factory and Radar Dome before you build a Ore Refinery. I have three motivations for this:
+ Late game it's possible to lose all your Ore Refineries and all your War Factories. However what if you have a bunch of silos and are floating a ton of credits? You want to build a War Factory and get tanks to defend yourself but you can't since you are forced to make a Ore Refinery first and might lose just because of this. You can also get money from Oil Derricks and those credits doesn't need silo storage (same thing when you find a crate).
+ It's possible to set a different starting amount of credits, if you start out with 20k it's more likely you want to wait with getting the economy rolling since you can afford it.
+ It makes games a little less predictable, some players might risk a small start economy for a couple of early Rangers that can surprise the enemy.
--
I'm not sure if the shorter early games caused by tech structures being moved into the defense tab is a positive change for the gameplay. It changed the game very much and question is how often we would see sneaky Grenadiers in APC. Being able to build Power Plant while you are building tech structures reduces a lot of risks and makes early rushes less feasible (you might ask yourself, "is it worth it?").
It's of course just my gut feeling since this was the first time I saw this change but I don't think I feel this way just because it's so different to what we are used to. It's important to try out new stuff like this and these playtests are great! Gets you thinking hard about how the game shoud be. I'm going to do some tests myself for the heck of it.
--
@JuiceBox:
Limiting the max MCV/Conn Yard number to three would probably be fun to watch. You'd have to make a expansion and move away from there to expand elsewhere, then unable to plop down defense structures if it was attacked. It means you have to plan some defense before hand.
Fun but maybe impossible to do with the current engine. There is a way to limit the current unit count on the map for a certain unit, however the problem is that the unit transforms into a different unit when you unpack the MCV. So if you set the MCV limit to 3 you would be able to build as many as you want, as long as you never have more than 3 unpacked on the map.
Although... on second thought it might be possible if you create several MCV units that disable/enable each other by providing techlevels. So when you build your first MCV it would get disabled in the War Factory and the second MCV gets enabled (looks the same, functions the same, but it's a completely different unit as far as the engine is concerned). It'd be a little exhausting to prepare though since you also have to create several Conn Yard units that each unpacks into the correct version of the MCV unit.
).To me it feels pretty good that you can go either Radar Dome to unlock Helipad/Airfield or go War Factory to unlock Service Depot. I know it's not common to see Radar before War Factory but the more variation is supported the better, right?
I'm even considering if it would be a good idea to allow construction of War Factory and Radar Dome before you build a Ore Refinery. I have three motivations for this:
+ Late game it's possible to lose all your Ore Refineries and all your War Factories. However what if you have a bunch of silos and are floating a ton of credits? You want to build a War Factory and get tanks to defend yourself but you can't since you are forced to make a Ore Refinery first and might lose just because of this. You can also get money from Oil Derricks and those credits doesn't need silo storage (same thing when you find a crate).
+ It's possible to set a different starting amount of credits, if you start out with 20k it's more likely you want to wait with getting the economy rolling since you can afford it.
+ It makes games a little less predictable, some players might risk a small start economy for a couple of early Rangers that can surprise the enemy.
--
I'm not sure if the shorter early games caused by tech structures being moved into the defense tab is a positive change for the gameplay. It changed the game very much and question is how often we would see sneaky Grenadiers in APC. Being able to build Power Plant while you are building tech structures reduces a lot of risks and makes early rushes less feasible (you might ask yourself, "is it worth it?").
It's of course just my gut feeling since this was the first time I saw this change but I don't think I feel this way just because it's so different to what we are used to. It's important to try out new stuff like this and these playtests are great! Gets you thinking hard about how the game shoud be. I'm going to do some tests myself for the heck of it.
--
@JuiceBox:
Limiting the max MCV/Conn Yard number to three would probably be fun to watch. You'd have to make a expansion and move away from there to expand elsewhere, then unable to plop down defense structures if it was attacked. It means you have to plan some defense before hand.
Fun but maybe impossible to do with the current engine. There is a way to limit the current unit count on the map for a certain unit, however the problem is that the unit transforms into a different unit when you unpack the MCV. So if you set the MCV limit to 3 you would be able to build as many as you want, as long as you never have more than 3 unpacked on the map.
Although... on second thought it might be possible if you create several MCV units that disable/enable each other by providing techlevels. So when you build your first MCV it would get disabled in the War Factory and the second MCV gets enabled (looks the same, functions the same, but it's a completely different unit as far as the engine is concerned). It'd be a little exhausting to prepare though since you also have to create several Conn Yard units that each unpacks into the correct version of the MCV unit.
@Fortnight
I'm lowering the restrictions as I continue the playtest to see if affects the stability of the game. The prior playtests were much more restrictive since I forced SD before Dome in order to preserve the current meta. From the feedback I have gotten, there have been no other complaints about the WF TabEdit being too restrictive, only complaints about it creating an entirely different game. Look at the replay pack I posted; you'll see that there is a much wider repertoire of opening build orders which are possible only in the TabEdit.
The games are shorter on average, but its too early to tell why that is. A lot of the people helping me playtest don't have a lot of experience with T3 units, so it's hard to say if the games are shorter because of the TabEdit or because we aren't very good at using it (or both). I've had some very intense 20m+ TabEdit games with FiveAces and Lorrydriver that I would suggest you watch.
I would encourage you to do your own playtesting; if we can help the devs with the balance of the game, they can focus on making the game a more enjoyable experience for everyone else. =)
__
@Juicebox
Clearly, your changes would severely nerf basepushing. However, before I make this playtest or try to make this playtest, I would like to ask you two questions. Why do you think the MCV/base pushing and the poor diversity of build orders are two separate issues? Is base pushing itself too strong, is it because there is nothing better to do than to base push, or is it for some other reason?
I'm lowering the restrictions as I continue the playtest to see if affects the stability of the game. The prior playtests were much more restrictive since I forced SD before Dome in order to preserve the current meta. From the feedback I have gotten, there have been no other complaints about the WF TabEdit being too restrictive, only complaints about it creating an entirely different game. Look at the replay pack I posted; you'll see that there is a much wider repertoire of opening build orders which are possible only in the TabEdit.
The games are shorter on average, but its too early to tell why that is. A lot of the people helping me playtest don't have a lot of experience with T3 units, so it's hard to say if the games are shorter because of the TabEdit or because we aren't very good at using it (or both). I've had some very intense 20m+ TabEdit games with FiveAces and Lorrydriver that I would suggest you watch.
I would encourage you to do your own playtesting; if we can help the devs with the balance of the game, they can focus on making the game a more enjoyable experience for everyone else. =)
__
@Juicebox
Clearly, your changes would severely nerf basepushing. However, before I make this playtest or try to make this playtest, I would like to ask you two questions. Why do you think the MCV/base pushing and the poor diversity of build orders are two separate issues? Is base pushing itself too strong, is it because there is nothing better to do than to base push, or is it for some other reason?
1. They are probably all linked in someway or another. What I am saying is the topic for debate is re balancing the MCVs so let's focus on the MCVs , poor diversity of builds is IMO a separate topic for discussion and a very interesting one.OMnom wrote: ↑ @Juicebox
Clearly, your changes would severely nerf basepushing. However, before I make this playtest or try to make this playtest, I would like to ask you two questions. Why do you think the MCV/base pushing and the poor diversity of build orders are two separate issues? Is base pushing itself too strong, is it because there is nothing better to do than to base push, or is it for some other reason?
2. Base pushing will always be a strong play it has been in many strategy games through the ages. Not everyone base pushes and people who do, don't seem to take it to your extreams. I don't think it is an issue of there is nothing better to do because the vast majority don't do it and enjoy the game. People are not used to getting base pushed and a lack of experience dealing with a push is a contributing factor also. You have found a an over powering flaw in the game and you have run with it and made it a viable strategy that only seems to be stoppable in the current build by fighting fire with fire. Trying to fight a base push with two MCVs Vrs Five MCVs is a very unbalanced situation. 5 MCVs can spam barracks and defences faster than 2 and to me this is the deciding factor and the issue at hand.
This puts us at a cross roads. NERF your strat or change the game to accommodate your strat ?
IMO the latter is the most complicated answer.
It's like building a rail road and coming to a river and instead of building a bridge re inventing the train so it can fly. (Not that I don't like the idea of flying trains it's just a topic for debate for another time just like your tech tab
)"I love the smell of JuiceBoxes in the morning"
LT. COL. Bill Kilgore
Apocalypse Now
LT. COL. Bill Kilgore
Apocalypse Now
Considering the playtest maps: In general I like the variation of possibilities around the 5 minute mark. I still think the mappool, especially the more recently added 1v1 maps force players to go out and scout/expand at the 5 minute mark. Exception might be Dual Cold Front.
Teching up and expanding are two trails that can be followed at the same time. Against a good, basepushing player, I feel the techroute does not unlock any units which can really make a difference when the basepush commences. as Juicebox states: "It's best to fight fire with fire"
- Main production tab: Barracks / PP
- Defense Tab: Defense structures
- Vehicle tab: MCV (possibly arty/tanks/flak when needed)
- Unit tab: rockets/gun infantry
This is exactly why placing a deployed MCV in the defense tab can be very interesting. Another benefit is players are forced to spend more money on attack/scout vehicles generating more mobile armies.
Teching up and expanding are two trails that can be followed at the same time. Against a good, basepushing player, I feel the techroute does not unlock any units which can really make a difference when the basepush commences. as Juicebox states: "It's best to fight fire with fire"
n my opinion, the main reason because this strat is succesfull, is that you can put all your production slots to good use.JuiceBox wrote: ↑ 1. They are probably all linked in someway or another. What I am saying is the topic for debate is re balancing the MCVs so let's focus on the MCVs , poor diversity of builds is IMO a separate topic for discussion and a very interesting one.
2. Base pushing will always be a strong play it has been in many strategy games through the ages. Not everyone base pushes and people who do, don't seem to take it to your extreams. I don't think it is an issue of there is nothing better to do because the vast majority don't do it and enjoy the game. People are not used to getting base pushed and a lack of experience dealing with a push is a contributing factor also. You have found a an over powering flaw in the game and you have run with it and made it a viable strategy that only seems to be stoppable in the current build by fighting fire with fire. Trying to fight a base push with two MCVs Vrs Five MCVs is a very unbalanced situation. 5 MCVs can spam barracks and defences faster than 2 and to me this is the deciding factor and the issue at hand.
This puts us at a cross roads. NERF your strat or change the game to accommodate your strat ?
IMO the latter is the most complicated answer.
It's like building a rail road and coming to a river and instead of building a bridge re inventing the train so it can fly. (Not that I don't like the idea of flying trains it's just a topic for debate for another time just like your tech tab
- Main production tab: Barracks / PP
- Defense Tab: Defense structures
- Vehicle tab: MCV (possibly arty/tanks/flak when needed)
- Unit tab: rockets/gun infantry
This is exactly why placing a deployed MCV in the defense tab can be very interesting. Another benefit is players are forced to spend more money on attack/scout vehicles generating more mobile armies.
@Juicebox
Let me get at least 200 good games on both the 40s MCV and the WF tabedit before I start testing out direct nerfs to the MCV. I currently have 60 total TabEditWF games and 30 MCV40 games. The next phase of testing will be to incorporate direct nerfs to the MCV and pillboxes with and without the TabEdit.
What I can tell you so far, is that both edits seem to have a negligible impact on casual players. I don't mean to be demeaning or condescending when I say this, but maybe 1 or 2 casual players have actually tried to do something with the TabEdit; the majority of them tend to just sit back and build whatever they want, much like how they play in the normal version. So as far as casual gamers go, I don't think they'll feel the difference other than "oh this is weird," which is understandable since they're accustomed to the current version.
@Wippie
I think I found the buildpaletteorder for the con yard from one of Zooly's maps, so I should be able to place a deployed conyard in the defense tab. Also, you're 100% right about why base pushing is so effective,
What I eventually hope to show in the TabEdit games is that the tech route can stifle the base push enough to force them do something other than pure basepushing. There have been a couple of games where I tried to set up the base push, but it was too slow and not cost-efficent versus aircraft/artillery. I tried forging on as I normally do with the base push; sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Regardless, I'll have to test this some more.
Let me get at least 200 good games on both the 40s MCV and the WF tabedit before I start testing out direct nerfs to the MCV. I currently have 60 total TabEditWF games and 30 MCV40 games. The next phase of testing will be to incorporate direct nerfs to the MCV and pillboxes with and without the TabEdit.
What I can tell you so far, is that both edits seem to have a negligible impact on casual players. I don't mean to be demeaning or condescending when I say this, but maybe 1 or 2 casual players have actually tried to do something with the TabEdit; the majority of them tend to just sit back and build whatever they want, much like how they play in the normal version. So as far as casual gamers go, I don't think they'll feel the difference other than "oh this is weird," which is understandable since they're accustomed to the current version.
@Wippie
I think I found the buildpaletteorder for the con yard from one of Zooly's maps, so I should be able to place a deployed conyard in the defense tab. Also, you're 100% right about why base pushing is so effective,
What I eventually hope to show in the TabEdit games is that the tech route can stifle the base push enough to force them do something other than pure basepushing. There have been a couple of games where I tried to set up the base push, but it was too slow and not cost-efficent versus aircraft/artillery. I tried forging on as I normally do with the base push; sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Regardless, I'll have to test this some more.
-
Materianer
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:27 am
Hi,
for me the tabedit is no good option to prevent this basepuhing, because it has t5he bad sideeffect that you can not build defenses in an important pashe of the game.
What will you do if someone comes with a flamerAPC to you or rushes you with any other stuff?
Also airunits are too strong then because you have always too less aa's.
As i said before i'd prefer a slower mcv and maybe something like a cooldown like there is in TD.
If you place a structure there you always have to wait until you can set the next one.
Maybe a cooldown of 5 seconds is good.
As far as i know the allied defense structures will get much more expensive in future so the basepush will not be such a big problem then anymore anyways.
It is also a mistake that teslas dont get nerfed in that step in my opinion. with the big range they have they often zapp those allies defenses easylie if placed well.
Btw what is your aim with your tabedit, makeing a new mod or so? You dont really think this will ever happen in a futurerelease of openra or?
Dont get me wrong it is good to try new things for openra but this change would just be too big in my opinion.
for me the tabedit is no good option to prevent this basepuhing, because it has t5he bad sideeffect that you can not build defenses in an important pashe of the game.
What will you do if someone comes with a flamerAPC to you or rushes you with any other stuff?
Also airunits are too strong then because you have always too less aa's.
As i said before i'd prefer a slower mcv and maybe something like a cooldown like there is in TD.
If you place a structure there you always have to wait until you can set the next one.
Maybe a cooldown of 5 seconds is good.
As far as i know the allied defense structures will get much more expensive in future so the basepush will not be such a big problem then anymore anyways.
It is also a mistake that teslas dont get nerfed in that step in my opinion. with the big range they have they often zapp those allies defenses easylie if placed well.
Btw what is your aim with your tabedit, makeing a new mod or so? You dont really think this will ever happen in a futurerelease of openra or?
Dont get me wrong it is good to try new things for openra but this change would just be too big in my opinion.
As a side effect of higher cost to allied defensive structures, we have already increased build time. Soviet defensive structures remain unchanged but judging from comments, feels like allied defensive structures were the main problem anyway. Personally I'm against removing build time boost from additional MCVs. Generally speaking I would prefer to first do minor adjustments to build cost and build time of units and buildings instead of changing more fundamental features of the game.JuiceBox wrote: ↑1. Increased build speed to out push your opponent.
take away the bonus build speed increase from multiple con yards for building and defensive structures. This dosnt hurt anyone. all it would do is keep the conyard as an expansion unit only. The opponent can match you defence for defence giving noone the edge on rushing buildings
Omnom's builds nerfed HP of barracks. I was thinking of possibly changing barracks cost from 400 to 500 to push the nerf slightly further. I'm personally very much against putting a hard-cap of 7 barracks. First of all it mostly affects lower skilled players. I'm sure omnom having to sell his unused barracks would not hinder his gamestyle at all. Also, if we need to put a hard-cap for certain unit/building, there is most likely a better alternative solution to problem. Again, I'm refering to altering build cost and/or build time.JuiceBox wrote: ↑ 2. Utilising the barracks as your primary pushing structure.
Limit the number of barracks to 7. This way you wouldn't be able to hammer them out all over the place either forcing you to sell old ones making your push a tad more annoying for yourself.
Again, I'm very much against hard-cap for game balance. If MCVs are overpowered, we should look into altering cost and/or buildtime accordingly instead of using hard-cap.JuiceBox wrote: ↑3. Taking map control by making the map one big base.
Limit the number of con yards to 3 per player. This way if u want to spam your base everywer you have to risk leaving other areas conyardless.
If I go 1refWF, there is no way that I don't scout my opponent's attack before it hits me.Materianer wrote: ↑Hi,
for me the tabedit is no good option to prevent this basepuhing, because it has t5he bad sideeffect that you can not build defenses in an important pashe of the game.
What will you do if someone comes with a flamerAPC to you or rushes you with any other stuff?
There are replays of me going 1refWF and repelling 2ref attacks from Fiveaces, Hi, Gatekeeper, and Lorrydriver with minimal losses. If you don't have the time to check them out, you'll have to just take me at my word then.
If I go 2ref, there is no need for the pillbox because I have an early army to repel everything.
If he does a flamer drop later in the game and catches me while i'm teching, well then good for him. This is not something that only works in the TabEdit, as I've done sneaky engineer caps, rocket drops, and gren raids while I'm distracting my opponent elsewhere. Also, drops are more easily dealt with now with aircraft being easier to access.
A lot of what you are saying here are speculations and with no hard evidence. I've been testing various editions of the tabedit for 100's of games, and aircraft units are not too strong. It was a fear I had at first, but their price and build time are too high for them to be used en masse early on in the game.Materianer wrote: ↑ Also airunits are too strong then because you have always too less aa's.
As i said before i'd prefer a slower mcv and maybe something like a cooldown like there is in TD.
If you place a structure there you always have to wait until you can set the next one.
Maybe a cooldown of 5 seconds is good.
As far as i know the allied defense structures will get much more expensive in future so the basepush will not be such a big problem then anymore anyways.
It is also a mistake that teslas dont get nerfed in that step in my opinion. with the big range they have they often zapp those allies defenses easylie if placed well.
Pillbox price did not have an effect on the base push, only the speed of the pillbox spam in the game. You can check the replays for that too.
And in your opinion, teslas need to get nerfed? Show me enough games where the tesla coil range makes a difference in the game, and then maybe i'll consider this seriously.
Obviously, my aim is to get the tabedit, or some aspects of it, incorporated into the main release. I'd be happy if they just moved only the tech center to the defense tab. I understand that this would be a major change to openra, but could you at least look at some of the replays or try out a few games?Materianer wrote: ↑ Btw what is your aim with your tabedit, makeing a new mod or so? You dont really think this will ever happen in a futurerelease of openra or?
Dont get me wrong it is good to try new things for openra but this change would just be too big in my opinion.
@Doomsday
You are missing my point entirely regarding reduced structure build speed from MCV.
What I am saying is that base push vrs base push 5 MCVs will win against 2 MCVs. Simply because it can produce defence structures faster due to its superior build speed from the accumulated effect. You can increase cost to defence structures all you like it makes no difference at all the 5 MCV player will still out scale the 2 MCV player. Just as a player with 5 barracks will produce more rifle men than a player with 2 barracks regardless of the rifleman's individual build speed and cost.
Removing build speed increase from MCVs has no detrimental effect to the game it would still be balanced. All you are doing is making the MCV an expansion unit which is what I belive is it's intended purpose. The whole topic for debate is the MCV and how omnom abused the MCV mechanic's to gain an advantage over his opponent. Why does omnom build 5? Why not 3? He can still base push with 2? He builds 5 for the build speed increase and out scales his opponents that way. Even with the 40 second MCV he can still forfill his strat and it's not just the defence structures he gains advantage with. He can pump out refs at a faster rate too out scaling your eco also.
For me this is the abuse of the MCV taking advantage of its increased build speed trait. Remove the trait or keep it, reduce its effect and make it only applicable 1-3 MCVs making it redundant from 4+ if you really want to keep it in the game.
But I see no reason to keep it in at all
You are missing my point entirely regarding reduced structure build speed from MCV.
What I am saying is that base push vrs base push 5 MCVs will win against 2 MCVs. Simply because it can produce defence structures faster due to its superior build speed from the accumulated effect. You can increase cost to defence structures all you like it makes no difference at all the 5 MCV player will still out scale the 2 MCV player. Just as a player with 5 barracks will produce more rifle men than a player with 2 barracks regardless of the rifleman's individual build speed and cost.
Removing build speed increase from MCVs has no detrimental effect to the game it would still be balanced. All you are doing is making the MCV an expansion unit which is what I belive is it's intended purpose. The whole topic for debate is the MCV and how omnom abused the MCV mechanic's to gain an advantage over his opponent. Why does omnom build 5? Why not 3? He can still base push with 2? He builds 5 for the build speed increase and out scales his opponents that way. Even with the 40 second MCV he can still forfill his strat and it's not just the defence structures he gains advantage with. He can pump out refs at a faster rate too out scaling your eco also.
For me this is the abuse of the MCV taking advantage of its increased build speed trait. Remove the trait or keep it, reduce its effect and make it only applicable 1-3 MCVs making it redundant from 4+ if you really want to keep it in the game.
But I see no reason to keep it in at all
"I love the smell of JuiceBoxes in the morning"
LT. COL. Bill Kilgore
Apocalypse Now
LT. COL. Bill Kilgore
Apocalypse Now
Yes you are right. I did not comment on that.JuiceBox wrote: ↑@Doomsday
You are missing my point entirely regarding reduced structure build speed from MCV.
What I am saying is that base push vrs base push 5 MCVs will win against 2 MCVs. Simply because it can produce defence structures faster due to its superior build speed from the accumulated effect.
Let's talk about a hypothetic situation. I will use omnom's MCVedit mod for this example. We have player A with 5 MCVs going base pushing and player B with 2 MCVs defending against base push. Both players are playing allied faction.
Basepushing player (A) can build pillboxes in 9 seconds per. In two minutes he will build total of 13 pillboxes.
Defending player (B) can build pillboxes in 13 seconds per. In two minutes he will build total of 9 pillboxes.
Therefore the offensive player with three extra MCVs will be able to build 4 additional pillboxes within two minutes. However the defending player has some things going for his side. He has 9900 extra credits available (cost of three additional MCVs and those 4 extra pillboxes player A built). Defending player also has 120 extra seconds worth of war factory production time (three MCVs 40 seconds each). For example he could have 6 artilleries or 5,7 medium tanks. Those combat vehicles cost 4800 credits so defending player still has 5100 credits to spend for other things. Defending player also has home field advantage of being able to start defensive structure building earlier and his war factory and heli pad are closer to front line.
In reality defending player would have more extra credits available because offensive barracks and defensive structures require power so basepushing player needs more power plants.
I think the idea is not to make basepushing obsolete. We are trying to nerf it so alternative strategies become more viable.
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
-Sun Tzu
-Sun Tzu
Phase 2 Playtesting Halfway Update
Hypothesis of the whole OP: By allowing players to tech and eco at the same time with the TabEdit, players will have more viable early game options, which in turn would diversify the number of viable mid game options players have at their disposal. If my theory is true, then pure T1 basepushing with multiple MCVs would have increasing opportunity cost as the game progresses, and the trade-deficits from T1 base pushing would be too high for a player to continue doing so without getting tech.
The counter hypothesis is that directly nerfing the MCV build time will allow for tech units to be built and to scale past basepushing, allowing for a more enjoyable game.
Data and Results: Replays and maps are in previous posts; will compile and release all replays in a single link at a later date once I finish phase 2 testing.
TabEditWF
Pros
+Diversifies opening range of build orders and allows for different playstyles
+Forces more consistent scouting and allows for earlier access to scouting and map control tools
+Punishes constantly having a pillbox on standby, and punishes mid-game pillbox spam, without harming early game build orders up to the 2m mark.
+Base pushing no longer results in pure stalemates; base pushes can be dealt with in other ways that do not involve purely counter-basepushing
+V2 and artillery spam is not impossible to get around; T3 units and abilities in conjunction with other vehicles and aircraft do curb the effectiveness of mass v2/arty
Cons
-Eco and map control are still the primary goal of every game, and TabEdit emphasizes this even more; the player who falls behind in one aspect will fall behind noticably due to tech advantages.
-Base pushing and late game static defense spam is still very strong.
-Tech is incredibly difficult to use; almost always easier to use MCV instead of tech rushing.
Debatable
+/- Game is now faster, which makes certain builds feel less powerful than others
+/- Skill ceiling and floor is raised
+/- MCV has not been nerfed directly
+/- Inability to place static defenses makes the game unfriendly to casual gamers.
40s, $2500 MCV
Pros
+Slower pace of the game allows for base pushing to be adequately halted
+More overall units allows opportunities for mini-skirmishes and strategic maneuvers
Cons
-The pace of the game is slowed down to the point where there is even less money and time left for T3 tech to make a significant impact on the game
-V2/arty army can be built after mass MCV/base pushing, which often resulted in stalemates
-Even though base pushing was slower, the only way to stop static defense spam was to spam more static defense.
Debatable
+/- More T1 units means V2/arty is even more useful against T1 mass mcv spam.
+/- The game more or less resembles the current release
+/- The slower pace of the game makes the game more painful should the game develop into a stalemate situation.
Discussion:
Overall, the TabEdit has allowed for more early game options, and more dynamic and varied midgame play as a result. Also, this edit also showed that its possible for T2 and T3 to outscale T1 basepushing, if given enough time. This is proof that building multiple MCVs can be indirectly nerfed if we buff the scaling of T2 and T3 tech. However, building a T1/tank blob, basepushing, and spamming static defenses is still the choice of play for most players, and it works exceedingly well before T2 starts outscaling it.
With the MCV40 edit, the pace of the game slows down to allow for mobile armies to scale better against the basepush. In general, it's not easy to secure the whole map with just base pushing; you have to use a weaker force to contest the opposite side of the map. The problem with this edit is that, eventually, the MCV enters the playing field, and then the game develops into the V2/Arty/base push war we all know and love (hate). Games also tend to run out of money before T3 even becomes relevant.
After nearly 120 games of MCV40 and TabEditWF testing, along with the prior playtests, a few things that were once assumptions are now undeniably true:
-Tech units do not outscale static defenses because pillboxes/turrets require no attention to be effective.
You can make them more effective with micromangement, but they're useful when they're simply doing nothing. Tech units require constant micromanagement and babysitting to be useful; a MiG flying around in a circle is not worth its $2000. herefore, the "easiest" way to deal with the T1 spam and the static defense spam is still to spam T1 and static defense yourself, at least until you can start outscaling with tech. The trap here is that the "best" way to deal with this is to spam V2/artillery, which starts the static defense / artillery wars.
Unfortunately, I don't know of any ways to make static defenses require more attention, and I don't know of any ways to make tech units require less micro. The only thing I can think of is to increase the effectiveness of individual units, or to increase the scaling of tech units.
In order to go about this, I believe the best way to buff tech is with the TabEdit, and not with a reduction in cost/price/power for tech building. I will seek to prove this in the next phase of playtesting. A price reduction of tech buildings/units would have to be substantial in order to overcome the constant scaling of static defense spam. Since the scaling of defensive structures in RA is linear, it will take a very long time for tech to outscale static defenses, even with the new $600 pillboxes. Often times, there is no money left on the map left for tech to outscale static defenses; you're stuck trying to kill 10+ pillboxes with V2s/artillery, the latter of which are more difficult and more expensive to replace.
Putting tech and defensive structures in the same tab will 1) allow power plants to be built at the same as tech buildings, which substantially reduces the build time of tech stuctures without changing the price, 2) stop the scaling of defensive buildings for the build duration of tech buildings, making it easier for tech to outscale static defenses, 3) allow players to tech while they have the money to support it, and 4) give players incentive to stop fighting the base push with a base push; if one can stop or stall the basepush without taking significant losses, he will enter the next fight with a tech advantage.
-In the current release, scouting tools are limited, and there are not many things to scout for.
In all of the MCV40 games and standard games, there is little to no effort exerted by either side to scout beyond "where is his army." Right now, the current game and the MCV40 games are about 80% map control and 20% scouting. As long as you control more eco and you are able to force the T1 spam, there is no need to scout extensively.
The TabEdit brings the map control / scouting ratio to somewhere around 60/40 by allowing easier access to scouting tools and increasing the number of things you have to scout for. Now, if a player wants to force the T1 spam, he's going to have to be very cautious of protecting the MCV from aircraft, sneak attacks, ambushes, and pushing fast enough before artillery come onto the field in signficant numbers.
-Scaling and opportunity cost/value of MCVs is undoubtedly too high.
40s MCV was good in the sense that it allowed more things to happen before the next MCV came out; the game was more explosive amongst higher level players. However, the opposite was also very common; since players knew that they were more likely to run into a larger army, they were hesitant to advance forward. Since the engagements were generally on a larger scale, rebuilding the army was even more costly, which led to reliance on V2s/Arty and little or no money for T3 tech.
Phase 3 planning:
I hope I have presented sufficient evidence that we have to nerf the MCV/basepush and to significantly buff tech in order to allow for game to develop beyond the basepush T1/T2 spam.
In addition to continue phase 2 playtesting, I will also be testing out some numbers for the next phase of playtesting, I will combine the TabEdit with the MCV edit and compare it to a TechCost + MCVedit in order to see what the best way to buff tech is.
CombinedTabEdit
-Tech buildings in defense tab, with WF as the prereq
-48s, $2500 MCV, incorporated from MCV48
-38s, $1600 War Factory. This will allow players to more easily build multiple WF's for faster T3 tech vehicles. In conjunction with the 48s MCV, the first MCV is delayed by 6s total, with each subsequent MCV costing an extra 16s.
-600hp barracks, incorporated from MCV40
TechMCVEdit
-Reduced cost of Radar and Tech center by 10 seconds, reduce cost of Chronosphere and Iron Curtain by 5 seconds.
-48s, $2500 MCV
- 38s, $1600 War Factory.
-600hp barracks,
Up for consideration
-Pillbox with a reload delay of 65 ticks (same as flame turret) after 4 shots, incorporated from the burst PB playtest
-Lowering cost of SD by 10 seconds
-Remove scaling of additional MCVS, or cap it at 25%
-Reduce cost of migs, longbows, tesla tanks, and chrono tanks by $200, increasing damage/dps of said units
-Remove MCV from WF production and putting a deployed conyard in the defense tab.
Hypothesis of the whole OP: By allowing players to tech and eco at the same time with the TabEdit, players will have more viable early game options, which in turn would diversify the number of viable mid game options players have at their disposal. If my theory is true, then pure T1 basepushing with multiple MCVs would have increasing opportunity cost as the game progresses, and the trade-deficits from T1 base pushing would be too high for a player to continue doing so without getting tech.
The counter hypothesis is that directly nerfing the MCV build time will allow for tech units to be built and to scale past basepushing, allowing for a more enjoyable game.
Data and Results: Replays and maps are in previous posts; will compile and release all replays in a single link at a later date once I finish phase 2 testing.
TabEditWF
Pros
+Diversifies opening range of build orders and allows for different playstyles
+Forces more consistent scouting and allows for earlier access to scouting and map control tools
+Punishes constantly having a pillbox on standby, and punishes mid-game pillbox spam, without harming early game build orders up to the 2m mark.
+Base pushing no longer results in pure stalemates; base pushes can be dealt with in other ways that do not involve purely counter-basepushing
+V2 and artillery spam is not impossible to get around; T3 units and abilities in conjunction with other vehicles and aircraft do curb the effectiveness of mass v2/arty
Cons
-Eco and map control are still the primary goal of every game, and TabEdit emphasizes this even more; the player who falls behind in one aspect will fall behind noticably due to tech advantages.
-Base pushing and late game static defense spam is still very strong.
-Tech is incredibly difficult to use; almost always easier to use MCV instead of tech rushing.
Debatable
+/- Game is now faster, which makes certain builds feel less powerful than others
+/- Skill ceiling and floor is raised
+/- MCV has not been nerfed directly
+/- Inability to place static defenses makes the game unfriendly to casual gamers.
40s, $2500 MCV
Pros
+Slower pace of the game allows for base pushing to be adequately halted
+More overall units allows opportunities for mini-skirmishes and strategic maneuvers
Cons
-The pace of the game is slowed down to the point where there is even less money and time left for T3 tech to make a significant impact on the game
-V2/arty army can be built after mass MCV/base pushing, which often resulted in stalemates
-Even though base pushing was slower, the only way to stop static defense spam was to spam more static defense.
Debatable
+/- More T1 units means V2/arty is even more useful against T1 mass mcv spam.
+/- The game more or less resembles the current release
+/- The slower pace of the game makes the game more painful should the game develop into a stalemate situation.
Discussion:
Overall, the TabEdit has allowed for more early game options, and more dynamic and varied midgame play as a result. Also, this edit also showed that its possible for T2 and T3 to outscale T1 basepushing, if given enough time. This is proof that building multiple MCVs can be indirectly nerfed if we buff the scaling of T2 and T3 tech. However, building a T1/tank blob, basepushing, and spamming static defenses is still the choice of play for most players, and it works exceedingly well before T2 starts outscaling it.
With the MCV40 edit, the pace of the game slows down to allow for mobile armies to scale better against the basepush. In general, it's not easy to secure the whole map with just base pushing; you have to use a weaker force to contest the opposite side of the map. The problem with this edit is that, eventually, the MCV enters the playing field, and then the game develops into the V2/Arty/base push war we all know and love (hate). Games also tend to run out of money before T3 even becomes relevant.
After nearly 120 games of MCV40 and TabEditWF testing, along with the prior playtests, a few things that were once assumptions are now undeniably true:
-Tech units do not outscale static defenses because pillboxes/turrets require no attention to be effective.
You can make them more effective with micromangement, but they're useful when they're simply doing nothing. Tech units require constant micromanagement and babysitting to be useful; a MiG flying around in a circle is not worth its $2000. herefore, the "easiest" way to deal with the T1 spam and the static defense spam is still to spam T1 and static defense yourself, at least until you can start outscaling with tech. The trap here is that the "best" way to deal with this is to spam V2/artillery, which starts the static defense / artillery wars.
Unfortunately, I don't know of any ways to make static defenses require more attention, and I don't know of any ways to make tech units require less micro. The only thing I can think of is to increase the effectiveness of individual units, or to increase the scaling of tech units.
In order to go about this, I believe the best way to buff tech is with the TabEdit, and not with a reduction in cost/price/power for tech building. I will seek to prove this in the next phase of playtesting. A price reduction of tech buildings/units would have to be substantial in order to overcome the constant scaling of static defense spam. Since the scaling of defensive structures in RA is linear, it will take a very long time for tech to outscale static defenses, even with the new $600 pillboxes. Often times, there is no money left on the map left for tech to outscale static defenses; you're stuck trying to kill 10+ pillboxes with V2s/artillery, the latter of which are more difficult and more expensive to replace.
Putting tech and defensive structures in the same tab will 1) allow power plants to be built at the same as tech buildings, which substantially reduces the build time of tech stuctures without changing the price, 2) stop the scaling of defensive buildings for the build duration of tech buildings, making it easier for tech to outscale static defenses, 3) allow players to tech while they have the money to support it, and 4) give players incentive to stop fighting the base push with a base push; if one can stop or stall the basepush without taking significant losses, he will enter the next fight with a tech advantage.
-In the current release, scouting tools are limited, and there are not many things to scout for.
In all of the MCV40 games and standard games, there is little to no effort exerted by either side to scout beyond "where is his army." Right now, the current game and the MCV40 games are about 80% map control and 20% scouting. As long as you control more eco and you are able to force the T1 spam, there is no need to scout extensively.
The TabEdit brings the map control / scouting ratio to somewhere around 60/40 by allowing easier access to scouting tools and increasing the number of things you have to scout for. Now, if a player wants to force the T1 spam, he's going to have to be very cautious of protecting the MCV from aircraft, sneak attacks, ambushes, and pushing fast enough before artillery come onto the field in signficant numbers.
-Scaling and opportunity cost/value of MCVs is undoubtedly too high.
40s MCV was good in the sense that it allowed more things to happen before the next MCV came out; the game was more explosive amongst higher level players. However, the opposite was also very common; since players knew that they were more likely to run into a larger army, they were hesitant to advance forward. Since the engagements were generally on a larger scale, rebuilding the army was even more costly, which led to reliance on V2s/Arty and little or no money for T3 tech.
Phase 3 planning:
I hope I have presented sufficient evidence that we have to nerf the MCV/basepush and to significantly buff tech in order to allow for game to develop beyond the basepush T1/T2 spam.
In addition to continue phase 2 playtesting, I will also be testing out some numbers for the next phase of playtesting, I will combine the TabEdit with the MCV edit and compare it to a TechCost + MCVedit in order to see what the best way to buff tech is.
CombinedTabEdit
-Tech buildings in defense tab, with WF as the prereq
-48s, $2500 MCV, incorporated from MCV48
-38s, $1600 War Factory. This will allow players to more easily build multiple WF's for faster T3 tech vehicles. In conjunction with the 48s MCV, the first MCV is delayed by 6s total, with each subsequent MCV costing an extra 16s.
-600hp barracks, incorporated from MCV40
TechMCVEdit
-Reduced cost of Radar and Tech center by 10 seconds, reduce cost of Chronosphere and Iron Curtain by 5 seconds.
-48s, $2500 MCV
- 38s, $1600 War Factory.
-600hp barracks,
Up for consideration
-Pillbox with a reload delay of 65 ticks (same as flame turret) after 4 shots, incorporated from the burst PB playtest
-Lowering cost of SD by 10 seconds
-Remove scaling of additional MCVS, or cap it at 25%
-Reduce cost of migs, longbows, tesla tanks, and chrono tanks by $200, increasing damage/dps of said units
-Remove MCV from WF production and putting a deployed conyard in the defense tab.