[RA] Playtest v1.6b - Still an experimental phase.

From alpha to beta!

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
OMnom
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:04 am

Post by OMnom »

But I wonder if this is the correct way to apply the change. In OMnom's playtest build he tried 1600 cost WF. I would like to hear what was the reasoning behind capping WF production at 4 instead of cheaper WF as ways to reward players for building 2nd WF.

First, a comparison of "bang for your buck" 1600 WF vs 2000 WF capped at 4.
2000 WF capped at 4 (2nd WF yielding +25% production speed): 2000 / 25 = 80 creds per 1% of production speed boost
1600 WF capped at 7 (2nd WF yielding +15% production speed): 1600 / 15 = 107 creds per 1% of production speed boost
I was working on mapping out the effects of different step sizes of scaling and money making before I went inactive. The denominator of any metric, such as $/s or cred/1% scaling, simplifies all ratios to its simplest form. My hypothesis was that this metric is not an accurate way to measure the game because the rate at which we spend our money is not constant (humans can't place buildings immediately the moment they finish building, strategic pocket pillbox, forgot to build out of WF, etc), so we would need a corrective factor to accurately portray all of these metrics.

Anyways, back to the $1600 WF...my original idea was to shuffle around the added costs to the "meta" MCV rushing by making the SD $1500, the WF $1600, and the MCV $2500/40s. This would allow WF first builds to queue the defensive structure needed in the earlier stages of the game, but it would also make MCV first builds require a net extra of $400 relative to the current MCV. It also equalizes the scaling and the pace of the game, relative to the amount of money you can spend, due to the extra 8-10s on the MCV. To try and explain this as simply as I can: by making early game development faster, along with slowing down the scaling of MCVs, it'll hopefully create room for other units to appear.

A similar change to this would be to nerf the MCV to 48s. The games we played on this mod were strangely well balanced, but the pace of the game changes dramatically because of this. Armies became bigger, and there was not many ways to stop the deathblob. This is because the time gap hits exactly after you start your first MCV -- 17s of max eco production leads to a lot of units. In my latest tests, the time gap is spread out over the course of WF - SD - MCV production, which means a lot of the extra production time is during a period of low eco. As a result, I can get the positive effects of a 48s MCV, without the added max-eco production time.

Qualitatively, the net effect of these changes made early APC, Ranger, LT, and APC builds much more effective; the quicker WF makes it so that light vehicles have more time to do damage while the infantry count is still low. It also made capturing more than one oil derrick, without the help of a ranger/apc, impossible. Right when the first MCV was made, there was a greater threat of the MCV being taken out by early vehicles/armies (it's still a relatively minor threat), so players weren't able to move their MCVs around the map with impunity. A second/third WF was made on occasion, typically during a stalemate. I tested these changes out mostly with Lorry and Smitty.

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

@Doomsday: There wasn't really a choice made between the WF cap and the cheaper WF, more than anything it was a decision done at whim on my part. I agree on that game design should be simple and unified wherever possible however the WF being an expensive piece of structure, be it 2K or 1,6K, we never really see a good opportunity for vehicle production being speed up, even in big macro team games.

One notable thing about the WF cap is that compared to default it takes only +1 WF to gain 25% with a $2000/48s investment compared to +2 WF on default (100, 85, 75) with a $4000/96s (or $3200/76s with the 1,6K WF). Meaning the War Fac cap gives the player a tangible choice when deciding between a second War Factory and everything else.

@OMnom: The cheaper WF is certainly very interesting and I'd love to see more of it. When it comes to exploring changes to the game my approach in usually specific, meaning as long as it's avoidable, I'll start out with options that keeps the main stem of the game-play intact - in this case, by default the WF cap opens up a new "route" in gameplay while the cheaper WF adjusts the core of the game progression as a whole and, if I understand it correctly, is aimed to solve specific issues with the MCV and early game. It was also previously tested in combination with a restructured tech route/cost. Not saying that the former will necessarily be proven to be better but if there's a reason to be said on why it got aboard the playtest train first then that would probably be the most important one. There'll be ample opportunities to play with both and I don't see why both or a combination of the two shouldn't be explored. If you have the time I'd hope to see you continue to explore that route.

Also just because I'm ramming through the gates with this playtest series that doesn't mean there aren't room for others. Other players' mods and modded maps was, is, and always will be, crucial to the direction of my own. I just tend to adopt them slowly. Without other peoples initiatives and involvement this series wouldn't be half of what it is today.
Last edited by SoScared on Thu May 04, 2017 8:06 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

On thing I haven't talked to much about regarding the extensive list of changes is that for the most part the changes are compartmentalized. Meaning despite all the changes often interact with one another, relatively few effects stack to alter the overall gameplay progression. I believe this is why overall the balance changes aren't felt that strongly on a basic level. With exception to the Tank buffs, Barracks Cost and occasionally the WF cap, the changes are pretty situational. This is why I favor releasing out big batches of playtest maps over a longer period of time.

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

Not entirely sure on the Medic idea. Mainly their strong point is their 100% heal rate. Reduce this to 80% and you will see a huge improvement.

WF cap speeds is a good idea but it also inadvertently buffs allies and promotes more use of tier 1 units. (Light tanks, APC combos.) Which are good infantry killers. You tend to run a risk going heavy tanks against allies when they have a set of mechanics waiting by their defense line to take them. Currently light tanks on 1 WF builds at 17 seconds and the APC at 21. With 2 WF light tanks are then 13 while APCs are 16. An interesting trade off is both medium tanks and APC are the same price at 850$. Which turns into the same build speed.

The Heavy Tanks with a nice HP buff of 600 from 550 cost 1150$ at 28 under 1 WF with 2 WF is 21 seconds. A faster build speed has a tendency to drain money much more quickly as well. Being that APCs are at a good price with a quicker movement speed with the heavy armor type make good tier 1 units. Some games have involved the old build style of army of APCs to crush infantry with the infantry to back them up. This style can also be used for Allies.

The core numbers in ORA RA also has a hidden stat. With a cap of 7 barracks you produce infantry less then 2 seconds fast. The estimated time is about 1.9 seconds. With less barracks its coming down to 2.1 - 2.4 in minigunners. This stat applies to everything that has a faster production speed with more of the same structures. Evidently when people use barracks to tank shots from defense structures or for a push are getting two birds for a single shot and producing much more quickly. (Should the barracks survive.)

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

@AoAGeneral: So far I haven't really seen a successful T1 multiple War Fac build executed. For the most part the economy don't seem to support a 2nd WF until somewhere in the mid-game, at which point Light Vehicles has taken a back seat. I'm hoping it stays that way.

User avatar
WhoCares
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:28 pm

Post by WhoCares »

Having played few games, as far as now this is the result :

Had to face a shooky blob : the shooky blob was created in short time and i diden't see it coming,it has melted everything in its road including armor (4 harvie barely crushed ... nothing before dying).

]Flame tower [Can't see any change about that in your log so the it's related to new release] are now deadly to everything, put 3 of them with a bit of infantry support and even heavy tanks have hard time breaking it. I resisted without consuming effort a base push just by popping few rax, few inf and flame turrets, my opponenet (happy) tried armor, walls with rocket to finally stop the assault and fortified few cells away.

The army composition include more vehicule wich force to different kind of responses, T2 radar tech is now less interesting due to the numbre of armor on the field, all that is radar tech related is more anti infantry and when you sucessfully, removed/killd the infantry, dealing with 6-10 armor remaining (with their stats improved) is not that easy.

I see dog more often and i have to take them a bit more seriously, double the number of riflemens to be sure that the dogq remain useless, means dog get a bit more credibility.

Civilians feel more usefull as spotter scout, their speed and vision provide a descent use for what they are (not just casual meatsheild when you sold a structure and you just don't want them wandering in your base).

I susprised myself to invest in a second and forward service depot in order to repair my armors on frontline. I tend to send them more often in sd because : 1) they survive more often, 2) it's viable to send 2 or 3 of them to repair because they come back quickly and/or new ones replace them while they go get fixed.

Civilian tech center : The vision is a great game modifier but can be too powerfull, the one on agenda grants the 4 middle derrick to the one who rushes it, 4 game over 4, i was able to get the center with few inf and an 1 enge by starting capping the tech center and my opponent had to just avoid that zone before getting a vehicule for tank/vision, my few inf in the area were able to pick larger forces without problem. Wich means the quicker clicker to build and bring unit there secure for himself half derrick of the map, 3/4 if he caps the ones backline. Should be intersting to see more of them in positioning like in pifight to protect side path. You need to invest 500 but at least the vision for the buck gives you a nice fellling of security.

I listed here only the changes I personally perceived/try to take advantage of/had to face. This is a mix of facts and personal feelings.

I don't suggest any modification in eather way, I think more playtest to adjust personal gamestyle aspect is still needed before claiming any change is innapropriate.

Edit : i personally like how the game feels with your changes, might be just related to the learning process but i have the impression to have more diversity in my gameplay option without playing a tottally different game.

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

@WhoCares: I was a spec on your match vs Happy. Was a pretty intense long match so I took the liberty of uploading the replay: https://www.gamereplays.org/openra/repl ... &id=320065

As for the civilian buildings unfortunately they'll have very limited exposure, however I revised a few maps with a few Technology Centers thrown at them (Civ structure spam on Agenda, because why not!) and updated the Map Packs:

Agenda: http://resource.openra.net/maps/21073/ *added extra hospital and 4x Technology Centers.
Green Belt: http://resource.openra.net/maps/21072/ *added 2x Technology Centers
Pit Fight: http://resource.openra.net/maps/20953/ *added 2x Technology Centers

Hopefully we'll see some new maps with these properly featured.
Last edited by SoScared on Thu May 04, 2017 9:48 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
WhoCares
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:28 pm

Post by WhoCares »

Got the map, will play them i soon i have time and opponents (frustrating enought to not get both at the same moment).

User avatar
hamb
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:57 pm

Post by hamb »

SoScared wrote: support a higher tank-to-infantry ratio (hand in hand with the more expensive barracks) and bring some more interesting timing pushes into RA. There's no guarantee this will work well and will potentially push tech options further back. We'll see tho, I've occasionally seen a few sick macro tank blobs zipping around the maps but so far (just a few days in) the games has played more or less the same way, including tech, given that the 2nd War Factory 2K$ investment eats up quite a bit of production time. As mentioned it's a high risk-high reward experiment that, if working well, would pay dividends to RA's gameplay. If all we see are big fat blobs swarming everywhere, expect it to be scrapped.
Big gripe I had with blobs is they're low tech, boring, and necessary. If tank cannons actually damaged infantry - i.e. evenly traded blows between rocket soldiers and medium tanks - you'll see more tanks.

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

@Hamb: I actually had the damage vs none raised to 30% from 20% for the Medium/Heavy/Mammoth Tank. E.g. 1 medium tank kills a 50HP infantry in 8 shots instead of 12. Not amazing but makes the tank vs infantry slightly less annoying. Given the minuscule damage output it could be raised further - just gotta keep in mind hot targets such as Tanya and the Hijacker.

User avatar
Doomsday
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:45 am
Location: Helsinki

Post by Doomsday »

I was expecting to be a fan of technology centers providing vision. However, I hate it because basically everything in RA has more range than vision. To me that is the most frustrating mechanic about the RA mod. Force fire battles and other things that come with it are not good gameplay features if you ask me.
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
-Sun Tzu

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

@Doomsday: I think that also will depend on the Technology Center placements. Currently the revisions above have had the TCs just thrown at them instead of carefully considered.

The range/vision is a particularly unique issue to the RA mod. I think to some degree it adds a good dynamic to the game in terms of using support units and actively scouting. For stand-alone armies early- and mid-game it's a bit more problematic as units are often committed into death-trades. This is the main motivation behind the +1 vision to all main battle tanks on 1.6a. The +1 vision to the Light Tank (2016.0508 release) supported the Allies a bit in this regard and allowed it to become a viable infantry support unit.

noobmapmaker
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:59 am

Post by noobmapmaker »

https://youtu.be/mbiDgSGh69k

Whocares vs Happy game featured on FiveAces' channel.

Based on one game:
I like how infantry blobs are not so 100% the only option anymore. You can go for tankblobs now, whereas before it was basically impossible. Also like that the service depot was not only built for technology advancement, but also so that units could be repaired close to the front. Alltogether it felt like this will result in a much larger variety of builds and army compositions.

Flametowers seem to have to much range and I randomly estimate that the technology center gives too much vision.
I'm not sure if it's the game that was just really fun or the changes, but alltogether Im enthusiastic about these changes. Infantry is still important, but there are more options.
Playlist with ALL games of the Dark Tournament Youtube.com/CorrodeCasts
Consider supporting OpenRA by setting a bounty or by donating for a server

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

@NoobMapMaker: GG! I noticed FiveAces comment on the FlameTower, 100% projectile speed and possible damage buff :D It certainly feels that way but the only change with the FlameTower from release 1019 (no change with this playtest) is a +25% projectile speed (250, up from 204). It hits moving targets more accurately and can hit two different infantry targets at a distance!

The FT feels way more aggressive. Some comments mentions it to be OP, which may or may not be true, but at least it's more leveled with the Allied pillbox - I'm no fan of symmetric balancing but with this case you now don't feel so naked playing as Soviet vs Allies base pushes. Altering defensive structures can now also be done better across the board.

User avatar
WhoCares
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:28 pm

Post by WhoCares »

I was playing again some ragl map to not get too used to your playtest before the league ends and i realised how slow the sd is to repair and why it underused.

One main issue is the "exit" "enter", diden't notice but i think even with your version, you can end up with unit stuck in sd with a queue because they'll try to exit same path where another try to enter.

And it will happens all the time with a massive use, tank are coming for repair from the battle feild and the rally point is ofc on frontine wich is same direction so it will alwais be an issue.

Could you tell me is your sd changes fix that here, if you noticed it. Not t sure but i think it happend to me .

Could the sd be unidirectional ? Means entrance south, exit north (for example) so unit don't really have a choice and don't get stuck.

Post Reply