Why basepushing is so strong

aka, how i learned how to play the game

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Fri May 26, 2017 8:39 am

OMnom wrote:
AoAGeneral1 wrote:
Doomsday wrote:
AoAGeneral1 wrote: You can fix the base pushing. Its actually easy. Problem is its become the base gameplay of RA.
OMnom wrote: The first, and less important one is, "What are you going to do about the other problems?" The second, and much more pertinent one is, "Are you creating any new problems?"
Other problems are game by game basis. IE: MAD tanks, MIGS, etc. Support units like these is what makes RA. They just aren't used due to their issues.

"Are you creating any new problems?" No.
This post is a perfect example of how NOT to approach balance changes.
That is actually the perfect example.

IE: Build duration increase -- Never tested.

Shocktrooper damage scale vs infantry changed -- never tested.

Economic value changes on ore trucks to prevent floating/broke scalings -- never tested.

A small list here are things that aren't tested. The build duration on defenses is something im confident would work.

Following to that would be some changes on the MCV. Currently since they build like candy pulls from the RA direction that MCVs are the prize to kill. Rather, holding defenses or basecrawling.

Generally I am not against basecrawling all together as this even happens in TD from time to time. Its merely stomping armies much to easily which is a problem in any RTS category. (Cough cough Grey Goo cough)

--------

A gradual radius increase would cause problems. IE: moving your MCV in your own base to prevent arty shells or the undeploy/deploy trick to erase it from the fog. By then you have to wait for its radius to pop up to its normal size before you can place anything near the attackers. Would effectively cause issues for inbase defenses.

--------

Multiple MCVs with higher value. Not much I can say on this but a problem I can think of would be that it inadvertently punishes players going for expansions. (More so on larger maps with naval) which is something that wouldn't be wanted.

--------

In SCBW you scouted with your starting SCV/Drone/Probe at the start of the game. Depending on how quick you find such player you then herass worker lines or block vespene geysers to slow the opponent down. All of this requires a higher APM calibur which in the CNC/RA series was not ment for a high APM play due to their movements. RTS genres coming out are making attempts to move away from these but are failing in doing so because they turn them into MOBA compilations. Grey Goo made a good attempt but it failed in a few aspects (Funnily enough one of them being base crawling lol)

Blackened
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Post by Blackened » Fri May 26, 2017 8:46 am

Code: Select all

ARCHITECTONE:
	Inherits: E6
	Tooltip:
		Name: Architect
		Description: [lengthy description that I removed to shorten post.]
	Valued:
		Cost: 500
	Buildable:
		Prerequisites: ~techlevel.infonly, ~visible_architect, ~!gotarchitect
		BuildDuration: 500
		BuildDurationModifier: 100
	BaseProvider:
		Range: 5c64
	GivesBuildableArea:
	ProvidesPrerequisite@architect:
		Prerequisite: gotarchitect

ARCHITECTTWO:
	Inherits: ARCHITECTONE
	Valued:
		Cost: 2000
	Buildable:
		Prerequisites: ~techlevel.infonly, ~visible_architect, ~gotarchitect
		BuildDuration: 500
		BuildDurationModifier: 100
This is how Fortnight did it in his mod. It's not exactly sleek and if we could condense it with an upgrade modifier that would be preferred. But I think we can extrapolate from there.

OMnom
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:04 am

Post by OMnom » Fri May 26, 2017 9:04 am

AoAGeneral1 wrote:
OMnom wrote:
AoAGeneral1 wrote:
Doomsday wrote:
AoAGeneral1 wrote: You can fix the base pushing. Its actually easy. Problem is its become the base gameplay of RA.
OMnom wrote: The first, and less important one is, "What are you going to do about the other problems?" The second, and much more pertinent one is, "Are you creating any new problems?"
Other problems are game by game basis. IE: MAD tanks, MIGS, etc. Support units like these is what makes RA. They just aren't used due to their issues.

"Are you creating any new problems?" No.
This post is a perfect example of how NOT to approach balance changes.
That is actually the perfect example.

IE: Build duration increase -- Never tested.

Shocktrooper damage scale vs infantry changed -- never tested.

Economic value changes on ore trucks to prevent floating/broke scalings -- never tested.

A small list here are things that aren't tested. The build duration on defenses is something im confident would work.
Talking to you is impossible. Your posts make no logical sense, your responses go off-topic, you bring up unrelated subjects (shocky damage versus infantry? bounties???), and you're constantly insisting that your change would work without saying anything other than "I'm confident its going to work."

If you think your changes will work, go make your own RA playtest. Don't tell us to go play TD.

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Fri May 26, 2017 9:07 am

as mentioned not tested.

User avatar
kyrylo
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:46 am

Post by kyrylo » Fri May 26, 2017 10:12 am

OMnom wrote:
Talking to you is impossible. Your posts make no logical sense, your responses go off-topic, you bring up unrelated subjects
If you want to follow logic, then this statement isn't true at all.

@AoAGeneral1's first response was to your original post:
http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... 462#302462

It looks very related and on-topic to me.

In turn, your response to that was...
OMnom wrote: ....

I have self restraint. I will restrain myself from blowing up your post. I can do this.
...which doesn't suggest a friendly and productive conversation at all. So how do you expect people to stay on-topic if you show them that you're not interested in their feedback at all?

P.S. I'm not siding with anyone.

User avatar
WhoCares
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:28 pm

Post by WhoCares » Fri May 26, 2017 12:33 pm

Got the map and the replays.

I'll find some random fools to test it out with me and i'll give you my feedback.

Just for the curiosity, does the programming possibility that you have access right now allow you to make this a reversible state pressing a hotkey ? (Not that i ask you to do it, just wanna know the limits)

edit i watched the replay : As you say is not entirely representative but i like what i'm seeing (personal opinion with 0 valor on a balance scale). It feels wierd because the dynamic seems different but it look more logical to see invading units not shooting at everything like idiot and cleaning what has to be clean until, receiving precise order to destroy that or that. Give me the feeling (just the feeling) that mobile forces will prevail on tank building and static defences. For the rest, let's go testing !

OMnom
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:04 am

Post by OMnom » Fri May 26, 2017 6:15 pm

@kyrylo

With regards to that particular post of mine, I deleted a very long post that would've derailed the thread from the beginning, so I replaced it with the few lines that you quoted. AoA and I have had very long and fruitless conversations on multiple threads, and I didn't want to start another one here. I wont say anything more on this.
Blackened wrote:

Code: Select all

ARCHITECTONE:
	Inherits: E6
	Tooltip:
		Name: Architect
		Description: [lengthy description that I removed to shorten post.]
	Valued:
		Cost: 500
	Buildable:
		Prerequisites: ~techlevel.infonly, ~visible_architect, ~!gotarchitect
		BuildDuration: 500
		BuildDurationModifier: 100
	BaseProvider:
		Range: 5c64
	GivesBuildableArea:
	ProvidesPrerequisite@architect:
		Prerequisite: gotarchitect

ARCHITECTTWO:
	Inherits: ARCHITECTONE
	Valued:
		Cost: 2000
	Buildable:
		Prerequisites: ~techlevel.infonly, ~visible_architect, ~gotarchitect
		BuildDuration: 500
		BuildDurationModifier: 100
This is how Fortnight did it in his mod. It's not exactly sleek and if we could condense it with an upgrade modifier that would be preferred. But I think we can extrapolate from there.
I'll look into this when I have some free time. It's an interesting workaround, that's for certain.
WhoCares wrote: Got the map and the replays.

I'll find some random fools to test it out with me and i'll give you my feedback.

Just for the curiosity, does the programming possibility that you have access right now allow you to make this a reversible state pressing a hotkey ? (Not that i ask you to do it, just wanna know the limits)

edit i watched the replay : As you say is not entirely representative but i like what i'm seeing (personal opinion with 0 valor on a balance scale). It feels wierd because the dynamic seems different but it look more logical to see invading units not shooting at everything like idiot and cleaning what has to be clean until, receiving precise order to destroy that or that. Give me the feeling (just the feeling) that mobile forces will prevail on tank building and static defences. For the rest, let's go testing !
As far as I know, there's no way to add another stance or a hotkey without digging into the base code, which would require help from the developers and/or playing on a separate version of RA, There might be a chance we could do a workaround by assigning some pointless building GrantCondtionOnDeploy and have the F key function as a hotkey for that stance. However, this workaround is more complicated than it sounds and I haven't had the chance to fully explore and figure out the limits of the new condition system. The map I posted was a very simple change I could do in 2 minutes.

With regards to the replays, I saw a bunch of potential problems that I will let other people figure out on their own for now. From a first impression, this change seems to cause more problems than it solves. Please do let me know how your games turn out.

User avatar
Smitty
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:33 am
Location: Oklahoma

Post by Smitty » Fri May 26, 2017 8:00 pm

mechANIC wrote: Hey all. I think we doing same mistake as developers of SC2. Look at SC:BW - how many patches and balance tweaks do we have ? And how many of SC2 ? Who plays base pushing 1 year ago ? Answer to all of this question - let's do players to make their own strategies, don't do any changes - as Lorry said we need to improve our skills - how much players do we have like of SC2's Master or "B" rank in SCBW ? "First to get here" - and how much players are scouting their enemies in mid-game game (before air) to determine timings and army position ? Same problem - low quantity and quality of players.

We need some normal auto ladder, more streams and VODs, more advertisement. SoS's RAGL and 5a's VODs contibutes more to OpenRA than constant balance changes for "how to make OpenRA more casual friendly" and "how to remove some OP tactics like Arty/pillbox/MCV/whatsoever spam".

Some newbie IMHO.
Finally someone with more conservative views on balance than me!
AoAGeneral1 wrote:
IE: Build duration increase -- Never tested.

Shocktrooper damage scale vs infantry changed -- never tested.

Economic value changes on ore trucks to prevent floating/broke scalings -- never tested.

A small list here are things that aren't tested. The build duration on defenses is something im confident would work.
We've actually tested the build duration. It fell into the problem of hurting the defender as much as the attacker.

And with shocktroopers, I'd have to actually believe they are unbalanced in order to want to nerf them. I've seen many good players lose an even match because they poured too much money into shockies.

I don't see what you're going for with the ore truck values. Preventing floating is on the player to do. I haven't seen too many problems with scaling but any build rate can be tweaked. You want to do that instead of change how much money a truck can carry.
AoAGeneral1 wrote: A gradual radius increase would cause problems. IE: moving your MCV in your own base to prevent arty shells or the undeploy/deploy trick to erase it from the fog. By then you have to wait for its radius to pop up to its normal size before you can place anything near the attackers. Would effectively cause issues for inbase defenses.
I've considered this and you may very well be right. I'd still like to be able to test it though.
"Do not trust the balance tzars (Smitty, Orb). They are making the changes either for the wrong reasons, for no reason at all, or just because they can and it makes them feel good." - Alex Jones

zoidyberg
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:14 am

Post by zoidyberg » Fri May 26, 2017 8:17 pm

What about temporary restrictions/nerfs on "Base Pushing MCVs" ???

"Max 2 barracks within the first 30 seconds of deployment."

User avatar
WhoCares
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:28 pm

Post by WhoCares » Fri May 26, 2017 10:30 pm

Ok, i had some game and made some people play, not much to say so far exept that it feels odd to almost all players. I'll play along with this playtest and will try to conduct it to retreave pertinent informations for you and any people really involve in balancing to analize.

I'll need few little things if it's not too much to ask, can you expand this modification to behind the veil and green belt. I feel that depending the kind of map the result and feeling would be different.

If you can send me by pm all your thoughts and concerns about it or simply some aspect you want me to spot so i have a base of information and things to look for during this playtest other than my own (limited by my skill and experience).

And finnally, i'll create another topic to not bother more this one when i'll have enought information to report and let people comment/debate on the material i'll brought.

Even if i like this mechanic at first glance, i'm not conducting this to try to make it accepted, i'll not defend it neither deny it.

Edit : I understand the complexity of the switchable, I'll not ask you to waste your time on that but if by any mean you come by a way, it would be interesting to manage both behaviour in a same game (quick random example : rifle on ignore, tank on ignore and rocket on wreck everything).
Last edited by WhoCares on Sat May 27, 2017 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ZxGanon
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Post by ZxGanon » Fri May 26, 2017 11:12 pm

kyrylo wrote:
OMnom wrote:
Talking to you is impossible. Your posts make no logical sense, your responses go off-topic, you bring up unrelated subjects
If you want to follow logic, then this statement isn't true at all.

@AoAGeneral1's first response was to your original post:
http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... 462#302462

It looks very related and on-topic to me.

In turn, your response to that was...
OMnom wrote: ....

I have self restraint. I will restrain myself from blowing up your post. I can do this.
...which doesn't suggest a friendly and productive conversation at all. So how do you expect people to stay on-topic if you show them that you're not interested in their feedback at all?

P.S. I'm not siding with anyone.
Omnom just doesn´t like it when TD players are trying to commit ideas/help to RA thats all.

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Fri May 26, 2017 11:26 pm

Smitty wrote:
AoAGeneral1 wrote:
IE: Build duration increase -- Never tested.

Shocktrooper damage scale vs infantry changed -- never tested.

Economic value changes on ore trucks to prevent floating/broke scalings -- never tested.

A small list here are things that aren't tested. The build duration on defenses is something im confident would work.
We've actually tested the build duration. It fell into the problem of hurting the defender as much as the attacker.

And with shocktroopers, I'd have to actually believe they are unbalanced in order to want to nerf them. I've seen many good players lose an even match because they poured too much money into shockies.

I don't see what you're going for with the ore truck values. Preventing floating is on the player to do. I haven't seen too many problems with scaling but any build rate can be tweaked. You want to do that instead of change how much money a truck can carry.
The build duration conflicts with infantry plays as its the stronger asset of RA. If the defender player is having some issues in the early game some infantry scouts can help deter this. Currently the only scouts placed are at crucial locations for expansions or possible base creeping. Placing infantry in a spread out line makes a border for units to be spotted. The original problem if memory serves correctly was flamer drops and grenadiers caused major issues and a change on defense structures was done. Personally leaving a few units behind to deter this or seeing this ahead can stop this.

What sort of issues happened when this was tested?

Shocktroopers one shot infantry. I have a personal problem with them vs Tanya in one shot kills. Im under the strong belief that RA96 had this right. I do agree testing would need to be done.

The economy system in RA is something that would need TONS of testing. TONS. The start would be to change around the values of the ore patches on the ground so ore trucks don't scoop them up instantly much like they do with gems. Gems because of this have slightly lower value in comparison. (Though this may be untrue. A look at the gem mines is needed to see if they grow slower or faster then ore mines.)

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

Post by Doomsday » Sat May 27, 2017 9:17 am

AoAGeneral1 wrote: Shocktroopers one shot infantry. I have a personal problem with them vs Tanya in one shot kills. Im under the strong belief that RA96 had this right. I do agree testing would need to be done.

The economy system in RA is something that would need TONS of testing. TONS. The start would be to change around the values of the ore patches on the ground so ore trucks don't scoop them up instantly much like they do with gems. Gems because of this have slightly lower value in comparison. (Though this may be untrue. A look at the gem mines is needed to see if they grow slower or faster then ore mines.)
I don't understand how these are relevant to this topic.
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
-Sun Tzu

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew » Sat May 27, 2017 10:05 am

Doomsday wrote: I don't understand how these are relevant to this topic.
About as relevant as both of these post.

But seriously, economy is relevant in most discussions (idk about shockies). RA's economy is quite unpredictable and as such it allows players to build an army AND defences which in turn allows them to turn these into offensive defence with an MCV. Most RTS games punish players for turtling with defences by not allowing them to make a ground force (or at least a lethal ground force) but in RA you can have your cake and eat it too.
Image

Lorrydriver
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:55 am

Post by Lorrydriver » Sat May 27, 2017 12:43 pm

AoAGeneral, I got the impression that you very well know how you'd like RA to be and have good ideas how to get to that. However, some of your suggestions make me believe that you don't really know where the game is at right now. In general theres a lot of theorycrafting going on here and everyone has his own thoughts about how to fix everything and this forum is the place for it, I get it. I must say though I fail to comprehend how most of you guys believe to qualify for having useful information regarding the balance of this game. I understand why OMnom would think he could improve this game: He's playing it on the highest level and has invested a lot of time into creating playtest maps etc. and did a good job at it.
I'm not saying everyone else should shut up about the balance but rather than just throwing random ideas out, get some own testing or some data to support your claims. I don't even understand how shock troopers or Tanya became a topic here.

Post Reply