If hinds were returned to soviet...

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
User avatar
Happy
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:50 am
Contact:

Post by Happy » Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:27 pm

Jur wrote:
avalach21 wrote:
Jur wrote: Why would be good to give hind back to the soviets?
lmao, cause it's a soviet helicopter. it's where it originally was in the original game and where it belongs. And for all the talk of it "breaking" gameplay, maybe it would actually enhance the game by making games more dynamic/interesting with some added variation.
then we shoulden't be adding cobra, because it was not in the original

and thread should "If game would returned to original..." , and we would need to discuss APC and flak truck
And tanya and demo truck to both factions. Also if you wanted true authenticity then Soviets don't get rockets like the campaign? Also minelayers need to be anti personal for soviets and anti-tank for Allies (unsure if this has been touched or not because I don't think I've ever bothered with that unit. Also the reintroduction of the theif to allies.

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc » Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:50 am

Blackened wrote:
avalach21 wrote: Just adding another random thought too.. instead of assuming the Hind would get unlocked at tier 2 with a radar dome for Soviets as it currently is for Allies, for balancing would it help at all to push it back to tier 3 and require a tech center? Out of curiosity is that how it was in the original RA?

If I remember correctly I don't think the helipad could even be built with out a tech center..
For allies yes, but for soviets airfield and helipad were unlocked after radar tech.
One possible problem, (speculating), would be giving Soviets hinds when they also happen to have a mobile counter to the enemy helicopters with the flak truck. Maybe Allies could counter the flak trucks in practice with other units; or maybe giving Soviets both would result in them often having air supremacy, at least where two mobile armies engage.

Assuming this were a real issue, if you put Soviet Hinds to tier 3, then Allies tier 3 would have mobile AA themselves with the Longbow at that stage. Whether it would work itself out at that level...

But there might be a lot less potential for it to negatively impact 1v1 competitive games that way. I'm assuming you couldn't/wouldn't see Hinds built by Soviets at anything like the same frequency for a start. If they aren't being built at all in most competitive 1v1 games, and only at a later stage for some games, you would think there is less potential to imbalance things.

And that's even assuming that Hinds combined with flak trucks may be OP vs Allies, which is just a hypothetical guess.

User avatar
avalach21
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:01 pm

Post by avalach21 » Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:29 pm

barf_openra wrote:
avalach21 wrote:
Jur wrote: Why would be good to give hind back to the soviets?

lmao, cause it's a soviet helicopter. it's where it originally was in the original game and where it belongs. And for all the talk of it "breaking" gameplay, maybe it would actually enhance the game by making games more dynamic/interesting with some added variation.
"Maybe" it would, "Maybe" it would be awful, but for sure we will never know because id wager none of the people who think this is a good idea would ever put in the required effort and time to test it. This zombie thread will rightly die in the very near future and hopefully you all go back to the naval balance thread where you can do no actual harm to the game.
I agree completely. We have no clue either way without doing some testing. On that same note I hope you would keep an open mind to the possibility that the game could actually get better by moving the Hind to the Soviets, not just for "muh red alerts" but also in gameplay dynamics. I would gladly contribute to testing but I assume we would need the highest caliber players such as Happy, Smitty etc. and apparently yourself doing balance testing for it to be of any value.

The reason that this topic and the naval balance discussions keep coming up over and over again is because they are clearly issues to a large portion of players. People who consider themselves awesome at any type of game are going to tend to be biased towards any type of change to the rules. I'm glad that you think the game is perfect as is now but it is clearly not in the eyes of many other people. Not to say that isn't great already.. I would assume it is to the people who bother coming here to talk about it.

Jur wrote:
avalach21 wrote:
Jur wrote: Why would be good to give hind back to the soviets?
lmao, cause it's a soviet helicopter. it's where it originally was in the original game and where it belongs. And for all the talk of it "breaking" gameplay, maybe it would actually enhance the game by making games more dynamic/interesting with some added variation.
then we shoulden't be adding cobra, because it was not in the original

and thread should "If game would returned to original..." , and we would need to discuss APC and flak truck
I agree, after the discussion in this thread I am now leaning more towards the Apache / Longbow as 2 separate unit solution as it makes logical sense and both units would look and function as they did in the early C&C games.
Happy wrote:
Jur wrote:
avalach21 wrote:
Jur wrote: Why would be good to give hind back to the soviets?
lmao, cause it's a soviet helicopter. it's where it originally was in the original game and where it belongs. And for all the talk of it "breaking" gameplay, maybe it would actually enhance the game by making games more dynamic/interesting with some added variation.
then we shoulden't be adding cobra, because it was not in the original

and thread should "If game would returned to original..." , and we would need to discuss APC and flak truck
And tanya and demo truck to both factions. Also if you wanted true authenticity then Soviets don't get rockets like the campaign? Also minelayers need to be anti personal for soviets and anti-tank for Allies (unsure if this has been touched or not because I don't think I've ever bothered with that unit. Also the reintroduction of the theif to allies.
Lol I mean I'm not quite sure if you are being facetious but yes I agree with trying a lot of if not most of what you mention. I think all of these things should be looked into and considered if they can feasibly be balanced. For example... why not have thieves? The spy should show you your opponents current Cash reserves/cash flow like the original and the thief should steal the credits.. I don't think that's such a ridiculous idea.

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:41 pm

I think Tanya and demo trucks to both factions was more of a balance decision (whether or not needed) for multiplayer. It's not the same thing as a core Soviet unit having switched sides. The hind switching to Allies would be much more like having destroyers or cruisers switched over to the Soviet side. Some people would think it just a glaring error over the original game.

The APC is a better example, as that was an Allies unit... But Soviet had a little bit of use of them in missions?

Anyway, you can think that something is annoyingly non-original, without wanting OpenRA to be a pure copy of the original. Personally I have got used to Allies having hind, and I wouldn't say it really bothers me, but I can still see that--in principle--it would be like destroyers going over to Soviet; and that doesn't seem right at all.

There is no perfect option here. Hinds to Allies is a glaring mistake over the original game. For anyone that hasn't just got used to OpenRA units anyway. You can't just switch it back without messing up the established gameplay and balance. Coming up with a new Cobra unit means a non-original unit with no history in the game. Borrowing the Apache is still somewhat non-original, even if it has a history in C&C. Also there would need to be a little bit of non-original design change to make them easily distinguished. Maybe cockpit colour or something. (Slight change to the body to reflect different armaments?) Then would it look good to have two units that were rather close in design? (If you could get the design work looking good for Apache/Longbow variants, then imo it would be preferable to a completely new unit.)

You could let both Soviets and Allies have hinds, but then it might still be thought that Allies shouldn't have it. And it's probably not a good idea to borrow a plane from RA2...

As for the APC, I wouldn't mind giving it to France for example, (in addition to Soviets), to give Allies some access to it. Assuming it doesn't destroy balance of course.

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:27 am

Actually thinking of what Westwood did with Tanya, (Tanya to both factions), is that they were willing to artificially double-up units for the sake of multiplayer balance. That's distinct from artificially switching units for the sake of multiplayer balance.

So rocket troops to both sides would be in keeping with that principle. (Can't remember if the original multiplayer actually did so.) And so I guess replicating a helicopter so both sides can have it would be in keeping with that principle.

User avatar
Inq
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:48 am

Post by Inq » Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:58 am

zinc wrote: Actually thinking of what Westwood did with Tanya, (Tanya to both factions), is that they were willing to artificially double-up units for the sake of multiplayer balance. That's distinct from artificially switching units for the sake of multiplayer balance.

So rocket troops to both sides would be in keeping with that principle. (Can't remember if the original multiplayer actually did so.) And so I guess replicating a helicopter so both sides can have it would be in keeping with that principle.
Tanya was Allies only after Aftermath's introduction of the shock trooper.

User avatar
netnazgul
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:32 am
Location: Minsk
Contact:

Post by netnazgul » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:22 am

they were willing to artificially double-up units for the sake of multiplayer balance. That's distinct from artificially switching units for the sake of multiplayer balance.
Giving everyone the same units is a poorman's solution for balancing stuff. Imagine how the games like StarCraft, WarCraft, Dawn of War and Company of Heroes looked like if they followed this route.

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc » Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:20 am

netnazgul wrote:
they were willing to artificially double-up units for the sake of multiplayer balance. That's distinct from artificially switching units for the sake of multiplayer balance.
Giving everyone the same units is a poorman's solution for balancing stuff. Imagine how the games like StarCraft, WarCraft, Dawn of War and Company of Heroes looked like if they followed this route.
It may be a terrible idea if you did it with all units, or most units, but not a big deal in particular cases. Is it really a problem that both Allies and Soviet have rocket troops in OpenRA?

Anyway, even if we say it's not the best thing to be doing, it may still be thought to be a better idea than simply switching units to the other side.

CatGirls420
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:59 am
Location: Catia

Post by CatGirls420 » Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:10 am

Wow.

Chill pill everyone lol.

First, it is very pointless to comment saying "Hinds to soviets is bad" without explaining why. Saying "muh balance and ect" doesn't tell us anything. You need to provide an example, multiple ones, to prove your point.

I feel like it would be better as a nostalgia factor, for a mod or something, to be added to that.

Second, each unit may have a distinct role, but that's exactly the problem with the game's overall balance. The game is balanced around "the top players" which is great, I guess, if you have your own game. Because that balance, get's broken, in team games, which is the bulk of games that are played.

A happy-medium needs to be implemented to balance the game for 1v1 and team battles.

And, building the game around the top players, as well as certain strategies, effectively eliminates any creativity and diversity. It's like, okay, follow one of 10 build orders, then do this, then that, and win. Every other possible strategy can go f*** itself.

The game overall needs to spread it's wings a bit more to allow more creative and newer playstyles, as well as bringing back some old ones. Players should be able to make different strategies work in different situations. Adaptability needs to be more present.

Lastly, idk. Love y'all <3

User avatar
WhoCares
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:28 pm

Post by WhoCares » Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:21 am

I disagree, a top player is a player that will instantly see the potential of a new change and think to make the most of it. By acting that way, the top player will quickly come with a strategy/build that could reveal the new change like the only way to play because it becomes over powered. (Example of APCs in TD right now).

A medium/bad player will ignore the change because he will stick with what he already knows most of the time of out lazyness (It is just a game ...) and probably never notice the change unless and untill a better player than him bash his head with it on a game leading to a spectacular defeat.


RA is not a tower defense game, every move you intend, there is a hard counter to it. Most of the greatest games involve almost all the tech tree or an uniterupted and intense slaughter in low tier with spectaculars actions.

You can't resume the game as there is only 10 strategies. The truth is there is FEW way to play the game SAFELY by putting all the cards on your side. But there is countless of strategy High risk Hight reward. Alwais the same thing : Skill, Timing and a bit of luck.

Look closely how play the medium-bad player and wich map, you'll realize they don't won't to fight or to take any risk, they want to defend in the easyest way possible and counter attack to finish their opponenent once he lost everything trying to "break the turtle". "Now there is no more risk, he has no more army, i can leave my fort and finish him". So you'll see all the maps where the player start or on a isolated island or in a start location that can't be flank and have only one entrence to fortify. Or maps that are so simply designed they are divided in 2 distinct part with just one choke with a inscription "Put your arties here and wait for him to cross that line"

Medium to top player will prefere open map where they accept the risk to be surprised/flank in order to be able to do the same and create dynamic games.

A player becomes good once he understand and manage the balance between eco/production/mitary action. wich is the base of the game. You can't wish to have a solid opinion about details "AA mig" if you don't even manage the basic. How do you want people give you credits about migs if in 1V1 you re not even able to build one because you get killed before out of not controlling the basic.

So no, you can't rely on low level player that use 25% of the game to balance it.

But, you can alwais hear the idea and if does not sound that stupid, give it a test.

SirCake
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:40 pm

Post by SirCake » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:03 pm

@WhoCares: Unfortunately the players you call bad (I'd call them casual players or newcomers) make up 90% of the community.

It would be a very bad idea to make the game not fun for all of them just to fix a complaint from the top 10%. Good strategists always find a new way to exploit the current balance.

Good balancing imo should therefore aim to make as many strategies exploitable and couterable as possible. That benefits players troughout all skill levels as the game gets more exciting. RA also has other conditions like truthfulness to the original to consider, but other games have such tasks, too, for example ww2 games that aim to be realistic.

Check out Dune2k-Advanced on my moddb page!

User avatar
Happy
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:50 am
Contact:

Post by Happy » Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:26 pm

CatGirls420 wrote: Wow.
First, it is very pointless to comment saying "Hinds to soviets is bad" without explaining why. Saying "muh balance and ect" doesn't tell us anything. You need to provide an example, multiple ones, to prove your point.
Allies Hinds is the current reality and one that works. I have stated on many occasions in this thread why and so have others. It's not just "muh balance". How about explaining why we should ditch a tried and tested and reliable change for other reasons than nostalgia. So far as a result of this thread there has been one playtest map made (which already invalidated itself by giving hinds to Russia only and removing tesla tech - no data or evidence to support or disprove anything). Can we have some actual playtests and data to work with before this kicks off again.
CatGirls420 wrote: And, building the game around the top players, as well as certain strategies, effectively eliminates any creativity and diversity. It's like, okay, follow one of 10 build orders, then do this, then that, and win. Every other possible strategy can go f*** itself.

The game overall needs to spread it's wings a bit more to allow more creative and newer playstyles, as well as bringing back some old ones. Players should be able to make different strategies work in different situations. Adaptability needs to be more present.
There have been a lot of new innovations in the build orders and playstyles. However, to create new playstyles you must fully understand the game and why things are done to change an existing reality. For example the wave of tech rushers in the past few months.
To create a new playstyle and make it work you need to have the superb game sense to understand what you need, why you need it etc you can't just go right I'm making 4 barracks before war factory and if it doesn't work it the games fault for not letting me. A large number of players will follow existing build orders because they are the pinnacle of a top player's strategy, not because there are no options (if it works why not do it?). If you don't want to follow existing build orders or have the game sense to make one that works then go ahead and try and make your longbow rush at minute 4 work fine by me.It's not that every other strategy can go fuck itself and the only way to play is meta, it's that your strategy is shit and doesn't work :)

CatGirls420
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:59 am
Location: Catia

Post by CatGirls420 » Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:47 pm

@Happy yeah, I'm not saying "give Hinds to soviets" but it would be fun to see some map mods bring that back simply for nostalgia. I think air units for both sides in OpenRA are fine as they are. But, MiGs need AA ;)

Also, I've been playing RTS games, mainly C&C, since I was barely old enough to wipe my own ass. Okay? Lol. I know this game better than you ever will. <3 OpenRA isn't all too different from the original. It didn't take long to learn how this game differed/worked. I may have only been playing OpenRA for 3 years, but when you consider it only took a couple days to figure out all the differences for this game....I have more than enough experience to know what I am talking about.

@WhoCares I'm still not convinced :p

"So no, you can't rely on low level player that use 25% of the game to balance it"
Well, I guess it depends how actively engaged in collecting data you are. There's enough players that, that "25%" or whatever the actual percentage is, will cover the whole spectrum. At least, it should be.

User avatar
netnazgul
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:32 am
Location: Minsk
Contact:

Post by netnazgul » Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:34 am

CatGirls420 wrote: First, it is very pointless to comment saying "Hinds to soviets is bad" without explaining why. Saying "muh balance and ect" doesn't tell us anything. You need to provide an example, multiple ones, to prove your point.
Well, first, it is very pointless to says this, because it's the current balance situation and it is your duty to prove giving Hinds to soviet will work ok and won't break the game, provide multiple examples of that and do a thorough testing. Current situation does not need proofs because it's already proven by practice.
CatGirls420 wrote: Second, each unit may have a distinct role, but that's exactly the problem with the game's overall balance. The game is balanced around "the top players" which is great, I guess, if you have your own game. Because that balance, get's broken, in team games, which is the bulk of games that are played.
A happy-medium needs to be implemented to balance the game for 1v1 and team battles.
The game definitely benefits from being balanced for both 1v1s and teamgames, but first there needs to be a good example of what exactly is broken. Comparing casual teamgames against competitive 1v1 is not correct because you're swapping 2 variables at once here. Recent team tournament has a good chance to provide some evidence, but just saying "my no rush 30 min 3v3 teamgames are shit so game is unbalanced" doesn't really have a firm ground.
CatGirls420 wrote: And, building the game around the top players, as well as certain strategies, effectively eliminates any creativity and diversity. It's like, okay, follow one of 10 build orders, then do this, then that, and win. Every other possible strategy can go f*** itself.
You mix up the cause and the consequence here. It's not the game built around the top players and top strategies, but top players tending to adhere to certain strategies because they provide a higher chance of winning in current balance situation.

User avatar
Materianer
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:27 am

Post by Materianer » Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:25 am

Happy wrote: So far as a result of this thread there has been one playtest map made (which already invalidated itself by giving hinds to Russia only and removing tesla tech - no data or evidence to support or disprove anything). Can we have some actual playtests and data to work with before this kicks off again.
You are right the maps i made are not the best way to test the balance of this change.

My intension of giving only russia hinds and no tech units therefore was to compensate the strength of soviets a bit. They are already stronger than england and france since last release imo ( i know thats just my opinion and every player has his own worries about gamebalance ).
When i created these maps i wanted to give this thread a small push and give players the option to test and if needed improve the code.

I would have been willed to add more testmaps and discuss how they could be improved but nobody was willed to test the ones i made ( you can see from the played counter on resource center that nearly all the testgames was done by me ), so i just thought "why should i put more work into this if nobody is really interested in the topic?"

A new idea coming into my brain is to add catgirls aa migs and give the sovs hinds, therefore remove the flaktruck.
To compensate the missing flaktruck a bit stronger samsite could be added.

But most important here is that people are willed to test such maps, its not done by just a few testgames here. its a process of testing improving talking about testing improving and so on and it cant be done by just one person.

After a long testing row and working together here could be a way to do give hinds back to sovs, its not such a big thing to balance this imo.

But will this ever be implemented to openra if the corridors of power seem to lay in one hand? ( please correct me if that is wrong )

So it seems like we have to convince @smitty in the end with our modmap i have no clue what he thinks about the topic?

Post Reply