MCV Balance Playtesting

OMnom · Post by **OMnom** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:02 pm

All of phase 2 maps and replays. I've selected some good games in a seperate rar file.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/t27d42zsv ... eplays.rar

Please see previous post for motivations behind the upcoming testing.

All maps will have the following changes
-600/800/800 Allied defensive buildings
-600 Hp Barracks
-$1600 WF, 38s to build
-$2500, 40s MCV

EDIT: going to change the mcv to 40s, not 48s. 48 was too long

These changes were well-received by a large majority of the people who helped playtest. The 40s MCV will be used for this next phase of playtesting in conjuction with the reduced cost/build time WF. The first MCV comes out 2 seconds sooner, relative to the current version of RA, but the subsequent MCVs will be delayed by 8s. From playtesting, it was found that moving the cost/time from the WF to the MCV was a good way to reduce the scaling of the MCV, without slowing the game down considerably.

Phase 3 will involve testing 1) the best way of balancing scaling and progression of tech and 2) the strength of tech versus static defenses.

To test the best way of getting faster tech, we will be comparing the TabEditWF versus a flat build time reduction (not price) of tech buildings

TabEditWF
-SD, Dome, and Tech center moved to defense tab, with War Factory as the prereq

TechCostEdit
-Dome takes 30s to build (33% reduction), and tech center takes 25s to build (28% reduction).

To test the strength of tech versus static defenses, a number of random buffs were applied to multiple T3 units, V2/Arty spam was slightly nerfed, and static defenses were modified in order to reduce their effectiveness when used en masse. Many of these changes were done at a whim without any serious testing.

The overall goal of these mass changes is to a) increase the effectiveness and number of scouting tools, b) make static defense require micro in order to be used effectively, and c) to see if slight T2 nerfs and T3 buffs will make people consider using T3 to beat static defense spam.

Version 3
-Pillboxes now have to reload for 65 ticks after every 4 bursts. BurstDelay reduced by 2 ticks. Tanya in PB is unaffected.
-Flame Turret projectile speed increased by 15%, reload delay increased by 5 ticks, burst delay increased by 15 ticks, Spread increased by 20%.
-Tanks do 10% more damage to pillboxes, turrets, and flame turrets.
-Gap Generator HP decreased from 1000 to 350. Increased Createshroud from 6c to 8c. Increased RevealShroud from 6c to 10c
-Mobile Gap Generator RevealsShroud increased from 6c to 9c
-Mobile Radar Jammer can now crush infantry
-Yak now do larger splash damage
-MiGs RevealsShroud increased from 10c to 12c
-Chronotanks can now attack air. Overall Damage increased by 33%, extra 10% to light
-Teslatanks and Tesla Coils now do 100% extra damage to light units (not shockies)
-Phasetanks now share same weapon as Rocket Soldiers
-Sam sites can now kill most aircraft with 1 missile. Increased reload time to 95 ticks, increased range to 10c
-Supply Truck is now Transport truck. Can carry up to 10 infantry units. Vision reduced to 3 cells
-V2 and Artillery death explosion radius increased by 50%.

Version 4
No additional buffs or nerfs other than the ones in the TabEditWF and the TechCostEdit.

I haven't uploaded the maps yet, in case anyone wants to add to this list of nerfs and buffs.

If anyone has any suggestions for some minor nerfs or buffs relevant to the playtest , and if it's simple enough to make the changes in the yaml, I'll put it in. Please try to refrain from buildtime/cost modifications unless you have a really good reason or proof that it works.

lucassss · Post by **lucassss** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:50 pm

isn't the faster WF build time going to encourage people to rely more on vehicles? (not saying it's a bad thing necesserily, but it's an extra side effect).

OMnom · Post by **OMnom** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:32 pm

Yes, that was the idea as well. The players agreed that they'd consider building tech units if they were able to build multiple war factories. I also think they'd be more comfortable being aggressive if they could get their tank count up.

AoAGeneral1 · Post by **AoAGeneral1** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:45 am

War factory change is a buff to the allies. tank vs tank battles in allies vs soviets is really bad right now. Soviet armor is severely lacking in compared to the medium tanks (And now with the light tank buffs doing more damage).

I would strongly suggest holding off from the WF edits and look into the armor of Soviets.

OMnom · Post by **OMnom** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:51 am

The -10s on the WF has so far made the engagements happen much quicker, and has allowed for extra opportunities for harassment and other build orders.

So far, there haven't been any cases where the soviet armor / allied armor severely overpowers the other. Granted, most players aren't building an early 2nd WF, and by the time they do get a 2nd WF, most of the money on the map is gone.

I understand your concerns and watch out for this in the upcoming playtests.

Doomsday · Post by **Doomsday** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:36 am

War Factory price decrease sounds like a significant boost for quick WF build order.

As second thought, double refinery build also gets same faster WF so this might not change much. I'm expecting this change to boost allied a little bit because of quick ranger build now has more spare money available to defend against rush.

Just some thoughts. I personally like cheaper war factory. I basically never build 2nd WF because personally I think 2000 investment for +15% build speed tends to be weak for it's cost.

OMnom · Post by **OMnom** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:17 am

Cheaper WF in combination with the MCV nerf made it such that all other units except for the MCV come out earlier. I know I should probably test more, but from 3-4 games with just those changes, everyone in the game all agreed that they liked this change. If the playtests don't go as expected due to the faster WF, I will get rid of this change.
In general, there was less waiting time before you could get to the mid-game, you got your eco up faster, there were more vehicles in play, and the games were action-packed. The WF first and 2ref builds weren't nerfed nor buffed, as both sides did get access to a quicker WF.
The cheaper WF also allows players another option to scale into the late game, which I am all for. Sure, you get quicker V2s and artillery, but the tank/inf composition was more balanced and less skewed towards infantry, making mass v2/arty not as good as it is in the current version.

Fortnight · Post by **Fortnight** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:36 pm

A quick thought, does everybody really want a much shorter early game?

It cuts away a part of the match that some people might enjoy; that calmer phase when you scout, take oil derricks, plan your base, get your economy rolling, make small-scale tactical attacks and generally try to read your opponent and think about which direction you want to go in tech.

JuiceBox · Post by **JuiceBox** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:45 pm

^^
I have been opposed to all this from the get go. Don't forget this is not official this is his own play test he has done off his own back.

klaas · Post by **klaas** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:18 pm

Fortnight wrote: ↑A quick thought, does everybody really want a much shorter early game?

It cuts away a part of the match that some people might enjoy; that calmer phase when you scout, take oil derricks, plan your base, get your economy rolling, make small-scale tactical attacks and generally try to read your opponent and think about which direction you want to go in tech.

I think this all depends on who plays. If you are playing a competitive player, you better like the action that is an essential part of RTS. If you play casual, you can still play casual vs another casual player, just don't expect to stay alive for 5+ minutes against a better player.

Anyway, as I already said before: I really like the TabEdit where there is no WF prerequisite for either a RadarDome or ServiceDepot. I would go as far as removing the prerequisite for the tech center as well. Just think about all the crazy opening strategies this would unlock... Make RA great again!

FiveAces · Post by **FiveAces** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:31 pm

After having played a good chunk of matches, I conclude that I really enjoy the TabEdit version
as it allows for more flexible build paths and crazy tech rush strats.

The idea of removing the radar/SD prerequisites from the tech center is actually an Idea I proposed to Klaas after a match yesterday,
and we came to the conclusion that the only T3 unit that might be hard to counter would be a phase transport,
but even that could - if scouted - be easily denied by going triple expansion plus base defenses,
making you pull ahead in eco over someone who rushed T3.

Demo trucks, on the other hand, could wipe an entire army,
but they are a one-time-punch unit and can easily fall prey to a scouting unit.

And finally, a Tanya rush would be really good against the current mass infantry meta
but can be countered in the same way as a phase transport,
plus the global laugh being a 100% indicator for her arrival.

Keep in mind that a T3 rush would prevent you from getting T2 air/siege units as well as an MCV,
so you'd trade access to high-impact units for long-term map control.

There are a couple balance changes I don't agree with on this list,
specifically giving Chronotanks AA missiles or the cheaper WF,
but that's for another time to decide.

On to playtesting!

Clockwork · Post by **Clockwork** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:23 pm

I don't feel I have the great deal of experience to have a good judgement on any of this but it came to me that these play tests have been edited with the suggestions of the top tier players but I haven't really seen the opinions of the casuals and low tier players that make up the other 95% of the community. Maybe they'd love it just as much as people are making out here but my fear is that what if the other 95% and the silent majority dislike it enough to abandon the game which means the community would probably die, just my thoughts and if blowing out of proportion with that then fair enough my bad but its a niggling feeling.

JuiceBox · Post by **JuiceBox** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:41 pm

Problem is not enough people speak their minds. Me... I don't care I'll say what I want to say if you don't like it that's fine. I have no personal problem with Omnom or anyone else I speak out about if you take issue with what I say that's your problem. My issue. I know for a fact that there are people that don't like this Mod. I won't name names because it's quite clear they don't want to be mentioned. Why? I don't know maybe they don't want to be seen as disturbers of the peace and upset the tight knit comunity. So as it stands this thread and play testing has been running seemingly unopposed by the majority because of a lack of people willing to speak out, Giving the illusion that it has great credibility and outstanding ovations when in reality it does not! Just because people have not opposed this dosnt mean there is not opposition. You talk about the casual gamer as if they are sheep, have no say and they will fall in line and do as they are told. Why? Because a group of Better well known competitive players say so? That's bull IMO! There are more casual gamers ONLINE and PLAYING at any given time on OpenRa than competitive players. When competitive players ARE online they congregate in one 1v1 lobby speccing and half of them just sit around blowing each others trumpets.

This mod will benefit certain players more than others making strong players even stronger so obviously they will be all for it. Coupled with the beep of the bandwagon horn and the loyal fan boys jumping on the back of it no wonder this bandwagon is gaining momentum. So is this how we do business in OpenRA? Popular players have more say in the development of the game? Ram idea enough down someone's throte enough they end up swallowing it. My opinion people have far to much to say for themselves here , yes help the Devs out come up with ideas as for becoming a self appointed developer.... for god sake get your super hero cape off and just play the god damn game like everyone else!

For everyone who is opposed to this I implore you to make your feelings be known.

Am expecting some sort of backlash from the bandwagon cannon so don't hold back because I absolutely love it xxxx

klaas · Post by **klaas** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:27 pm

Juicebox I think you have the wrong attitude about this. It's fine to be conservative, it's not OK to say you speak for a 'silent majority" without any proof, give no arguments whatsoever and vilify everyone who disagrees with you.

JuiceBox · Post by **JuiceBox** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:49 pm

So if I strongly oppose I have the wrong attitude??? Because I won't name names my argument holds no validity??? That's ridiculous klass. Am not vilifying everyone who disagrees with me at all. Everyone is entitled to Thier opinion just as I am mine. People tend to just go with the flow because it's easier or they think Thier opinion dosnt matter or they don't want to be seen in a bad light by going against the popular people. My point being that just because a group of popular people get together and come up with ideas THEY want to implement that this should be accepted without opposition. it's bull!