Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

I have played this game a couple of months. I saw that the developers want the communities opinions on matters on the Red Alert mod. Here are mine, summarized in a big and well structured post.

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
User avatar
Graion Dilach
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by Graion Dilach » Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:16 am

In RA2, the Chrono—MCV tactic was counterbalanced by the terrain — most maps don't have enough place to transport and able to deploy an MCV properly or if yes, the defending player might have spread the defenses good enough to prevent the attacker keeping it alive.

It is still a sneaky tactic, but it's a lot harder to pull it out there.

eskimo
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:59 pm

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by eskimo » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:03 am

I've found myself some time to reply to this thread now. I saw yourself in a lobby twice, so it's nice to recognise names and even better to hear you're enjoying the game. I wish more people would come forward and give their opinions as i think the only ones coming forward are the ones with concerns about balance, yet balance to me and many other does seem relatively fine (without a major overhaul).
Que_Boi_de_Rasa wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:21 pm
Here are some of the things I think are balance related issues. I am mainly a 3v3 and 4v4 player, which probably might give a different perspective on some things.
Try some 1vs1s if you want to see the other side, they will change your perspective on some units. I think the team games currently are mostly won by which team can co-ordinate a little, because mostly there is so little team play in these games (i play them a lot atm), and i can often hold up 2 players solo because they simply just cannot co-ordinate well. Also the chosen maps are very much based upon chokes, and therefore a-bomb efficiency. This is why some things will feel stronger than compared to 1vs1 or 2vs2 games on maps such as doublestep.
Que_Boi_de_Rasa wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:21 pm
Allied AA-turrets
Of course you can still stay out of the range. But this leads to very stale games, where a cautious player would never attack near the allied enemies bases with aircraft, it is simply too risky. This also makes base pushes more problematic in team games. Because you cannot use aircraft to snipe of enemy artillery when an AA-turret is near.
That's not entirely true but i get your point. Stagnant team games tend to come from chokey maps and players who prefer to tech play and/or high eco maps with large distances in between. The AA gun just allows allies to nullify air attacks with little effort. It's been argued before that the main cause of stale games is generally all of the allies ingredients combined. Long range artillery, static jammers, weak tanks, high map awareness, etc. Whereas soviets are brute force and require a little more micro. This all kind of changes from map to map, and 1vs1 to 4vs4 etc.

As with all games, if they reach T3 tech, abombs, IC, or chrono is simply the easiest way to push through the turtle/camped base. Yaks do still snipe off artillery with ease, even if you're trading at 1 yak to 2 artillery you're doing well as it buys you time in order to get the IC, whereas the Allies have to wait a long time to get their GPS up. In 1vs1 games sniping a few artillery is generally all you need to do to get a little attack profitable.

Regarding your Mig suicide, was their abomb up first? If it wasn't and they were allies, it doesn't matter. And as Sovs you can just IC yours anyway, giving you a free nuke advantage essentially. One could argue that the IC is therefore OP because allies cannot do that. Which relates to the ADV Chrono also, you can defend with your IC still, wall up your abomb and a few tesla take care of 13 arties anyway, if they can even squeeze that many in your base. France do have the advantage of building fakes. Anyway back to Migs, no 1vs1 player will ever ever send in Migs to an allies base for the reason you state. 8 Migs sounds like overkill also, personally i'd just go with a paradrop + 5 yaks. Or as a team you can co-ordinate these kind of things.

Taking the above, this leads me on to the point of without team play you're gonna lose. And because of that, taking team games as examples currently for balance purposes has holes in its arguments because as soon as people start really working together (not spamming beacon i mean), we'll start really seeing strong play.

However i agree the AA gun is a bit meh, but imho, without a serious overhaul it feels quite meaningless to change it up, because on the other side of that AA gun you've got the strength of the IC.
Que_Boi_de_Rasa wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:21 pm


Advanced Chrono shift on naval maps

I think Advanced Chronoshift is a bit too strong on some naval maps (like Bombardment islands).
Agreed, but it's a fun feature. In 1vs1s i can't recall a game that was decided upon a ADV chrono swinging the game. Typically it's the GPS or IC that wins it. A buff to other factions is my opinion of fixing this. And that helps France stop becoming a meme. We've also seen a massive reduction in people playing as England due to the Phase Transport indirect nerf.
Que_Boi_de_Rasa wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:21 pm
Chrono MCV
I know this is a widely debated problem. First of all I don't think it makes any sense. You cannot chrono demo trucks, they will explode immediately (probably killing your own or your team mates units when you attempt it for the first time).
Personally i've not heard it discussed before, but i've only been around about 1.5yrs.

Agreed a bit annoying, but i do it too. Realistically if people are going to play chokey maps with high eco, how else would they prefer to break enemy lines? I believe altering the MCV chrono is going to cause even longer drawn out games. If it isn't supported correctly it always fails anyway. Just like the regular basepush in 1vs1s. And also overly committing to it can be waste of resources and time anyway.

You can chrono M.A.D tanks btw, paired with an IC which is hilarious. Not good bang for the buck, but who cares in a non competitive game. And the M.A.D tank requires attention anyway, the range is shorter than the original. And could easily be buffed by making it 1 tank per player (like Tanya), give it a bigger range and same current damage so it's used a support weapon.
Que_Boi_de_Rasa wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:21 pm
Naval gameplay

I think that there is a problem with naval warfare. Usually the player who gets naval units first will easily be able to camp the enemies water, and kill any naval structures as they are built. I don't know how to solve this. But I think that it makes naval gameplay a lot less dynamic and more boring.
Naval needs attention and everyone knows it. But it seems Allies keep on getting attention to change them from what i can tell.
Que_Boi_de_Rasa wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:21 pm
Artillery
Indeed, but your suggestion as with others makes allies a soviet mirror. Nerfing/buffing them to any level either makes them OP or allies weak.
Que_Boi_de_Rasa wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:21 pm
GPS

I suggest that the GPS work differently. In its current state it is very strong, as it will allow you to pick of enemy artillery without having vision of them. It also allows you to see where enemies are planning to attack. All in all GPS is very strong, usually to the point that a team without Allied players in 3v3 or 4v4 will be at a big disadvantage late-game, because the enemy will always have a "greater picture" about what is happening on the battle field when GPS is online.

I propose changing the GPS so it works like a spy plane, but on the whole map at regular intervals. So when activated, the GPS will reveal the entire map for like 30 seconds. Then the player needs to wait a couple of minutes until they can use it again.
Hate to say it, but if you can't see an IC coming you're doomed. Sure you can hear it, but RA doesn't have surround sound :p
If the GPS works like a spy plane it gives Soviets the increasing advantage. Spy Plane is T2, GPS requires 200 power + radar + defence.

Que_Boi_de_Rasa wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:21 pm
The Soviet Hind thing
One thing that would be nice though would be to implement cargo planes, which are the Soviet equivalent to Chinooks, which can transport units by air. They need to get loaded on the airports, and will drop off units with parachutes mid air. This would solve the balance problems where on some maps, there are areas which are not accessible by Soviet players.
See some maps called "UOE". Sircake made this available to Soviets and are the best mod maps i've played for RA. Balance is iffy but it's mega fun.




I would like to ask if you feel there's anything wrong with Soviets? As the devs stated they want the game to be fun for all so it's good to see a team player's input on this. But imo removing key features of the fun isn't doing it any favours. And doing huge overhauls is a gamble. Hopefully we'll continue to meet on the battlefield.

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

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by avalach21 » Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:10 pm

Graion Dilach wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:16 am
In RA2, the Chrono—MCV tactic was counterbalanced by the terrain — most maps don't have enough place to transport and able to deploy an MCV properly or if yes, the defending player might have spread the defenses good enough to prevent the attacker keeping it alive.

It is still a sneaky tactic, but it's a lot harder to pull it out there.
I think the biggest difference is that there is no fog of war in the old C&C games, so you can easily see it happening and nip it in the bud before your enemy's chronoed MCV base gets entrenched. I think it's actually really easy to counter if you see it happening and respond to it quickly enough. So rather than suggesting to change the game mechanics I recommend people at this late in the game, get visibility around their base and get static defense to stop it.. also you can also use your Iron Curtain in a variety of ways to counter this.
eskimo wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:03 am
I would like to ask if you feel there's anything wrong with Soviets? As the devs stated they want the game to be fun for all so it's good to see a team player's input on this. But imo removing key features of the fun isn't doing it any favours. And doing huge overhauls is a gamble. Hopefully we'll continue to meet on the battlefi
Now that you mentioned it, he does complain pretty much exclusively about Allies strengths.. He must be a Soviet player lol. Just because things are effective/strong doesn't mean they are imbalanced. The chronosphere is a poweful tool that can be used effectively, which is sometimes annoying to the person it is being used against. Should we also talk about all the annoying, potentially imbalanced things that can be done with an Iron Curtain? Trust me.. there's quite a few.

User avatar
Wippie
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 12:41 pm

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by Wippie » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:01 pm

Dont forget he plays teamgames a lot. In teamgames the mechanics are different. Usually its rake a central position and base push from there. Allies do havr better tools for that, but thats mostly due to map design. Lots of popular maps have small chokes.

eskimo
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:59 pm

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by eskimo » Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:40 pm

I honestly think Sovs are better for team games. The IC is insanely good.

Printer
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by Printer » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:05 pm

Chrono MCV
Chrono MCV really is unique feature of RA and it would be sad to see it go. It's annoying to counter but a great part of the game's mechanics. Please don't remove it. :cry:

Naval gameplay
I think that there is a problem with naval warfare. Usually the player who gets naval units first will easily be able to camp the enemies water, and kill any naval structures as they are built. I don't know how to solve this. But I think that it makes naval gameplay a lot less dynamic and more boring.
One strategy I've not seen employed much (which I've tested and works) is Radar Jammers. As they effect Destroyers Missiles and Submarine Torpedos- just build a well placed Naval Yard and position a few Jammers nearby. I only wish the Soviets could also build these great, under-utilized support units as it's hard to deal with camping Destroyers if you're Soviet.

camundahl
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:36 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by camundahl » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:45 am

Yeah Chrono MCV is pretty easy to counter anyways unless you are out of eco or the enemy team is playing better together.

I saw the radar jammer vs destroyer trick the other day actually, too bad he had a cruiser also lol.

camundahl
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:36 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by camundahl » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:46 am

Didn't know jammer worked versus torpedoes also, that's a very useful tip!

eskimo
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:59 pm

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by eskimo » Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:20 pm

I didn't think it did, but i guess it's never come in game for me!

Que_Boi_de_Rasa
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:31 pm

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by Que_Boi_de_Rasa » Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:06 am

eskimo wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:03 am
Try some 1vs1s if you want to see the other side, they will change your perspective on some units. I think the team games currently are mostly won by which team can co-ordinate a little, because mostly there is so little team play in these games (i play them a lot atm), and i can often hold up 2 players solo because they simply just cannot co-ordinate well. Also the chosen maps are very much based upon chokes, and therefore a-bomb efficiency. This is why some things will feel stronger than compared to 1vs1 or 2vs2 games on maps such as doublestep.
I think you make great points regarding chokey maps. I don't have experience with non-chokey maps. I remember playing some custom 4v4 map called "Daybreak" (if i remember correctly), which was very open and played differently, in a very fun way. When writing this I considered my personal experience of the maps currently normally played in 3v3 and 4v4, all of which are quite chokey. Would be nice to see some mapping contest or something to promote new, more open maps for team games, and see how it goes.
eskimo wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:03 am
Hate to say it, but if you can't see an IC coming you're doomed. Sure you can hear it, but RA doesn't have surround sound :p
If the GPS works like a spy plane it gives Soviets the increasing advantage. Spy Plane is T2, GPS requires 200 power + radar + defence.
IC can make a very big difference. I also feel vulnerable playing Allies, because there is no way to save a nuke silo getting nuked with IC. But I don't think the IC:s potential compares chrono MCV. A coordinated chrono MCV attack, where all team mates place queued turrets and barracks immediately after deploy in the enemy base, will usually end the game almost immediately. Luckily people don't cooperate much.

Power consumption of Allied Tech Center could be lowered. My opinion is a bit bad that one faction-specific passive ability can have such a huge impact on the game. In my opinion the games are very different after GPS is up, you don't need to check enemy position of artillery, you just force attack ground. You will pretty much never be surprised, as you always know their army position. Stopping a GPS from launching is probably of the same value as stopping a nuke from being launched.

Another idea I didn't write was that maybe the GPS update frequency could be lowered. So you cannot quite predict a units exact location using GPS, while having it give you a good general idea of their army position.
eskimo wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:03 am
I would like to ask if you feel there's anything wrong with Soviets? As the devs stated they want the game to be fun for all so it's good to see a team player's input on this. But imo removing key features of the fun isn't doing it any favours. And doing huge overhauls is a gamble. Hopefully we'll continue to meet on the battlefield.
Yeah, there are a couple of things about Soviet I didn't mention.

I find parabombs very inconsistent, depending on the location the plane comes from. Sometimes you get lucky and kill an entire army because it took the shortest route, other times it is a complete waste because it flies over the entire map (or over enemy base with AA-guns). I think it is hard to change, because if it was more predictable, it might make Ukraine too powerful. Maybe it could be made more predictable and the bombs could fly/drop more slowly (like original CNC Red Alert), so the enemy still has time to react when the bombs drops, but make it less of a gamble.

Demo trucks are also very hit and miss. Either it does huge game ending damage in one blow, or it does almost nothing, or it damages your own. Here it is about much more than luck though, it depends on how good the enemy is at scouting ahead, and how you position your own army in a way that it doesn't die of the blast, without raising suspicion of the enemy. Still I think it is stupid that one single unit can have such huge impact in the game. Don't have any suggestion on how to improve it, maybe lower blast radius while keeping high damage output.

I also think it would be better if the Allies also had the APC. You can do a lot of fun and nice early game tactics with it using Soviet (one of the reasons I prefer Soviet). It is a bit sad that the Allies don't have the same option. It is also be in the spirit of original Red Alert for them to have it too.

User avatar
ZxGanon
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by ZxGanon » Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:48 am

I like all the proposed changes ny the thread creator and I share almost all of the solutions since they seems healthy and well thought out (also I have proposed same changes in the past aswell).

The only point Im not sharing the the MCV teleport that the Conyard gets teleported back.
In my opinion this should not be touched since RA1 Chronosphere is way weaker that that of the "modern" cnc´s like RA2 and RA3 were rehsifting was removed and it still wasnt that strong in those games even though it had stronger assets like Prims Towers on T2 in RA2 or Multi Que in RA3.

There are even more arguments against the change of this mechanic. I could count them later.
One point of view I share though is that it is kind of a bug that a Conyard does not get teleported bakc in terms of coding but it is such a nice gameplay feature that should not be changed to keep the Chronosphere strong and fearsome. It is already way too inferior to the Iron Curtain.

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

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by SirCake » Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:46 pm

I like the PR (obviously).
Imo ihe idea of support (super) weapons should be that you get a limited time bonus from it. IC does that, the soviet has 20 seconds or so to make something happen. The chrono-mcv is a permanent bonus which is so strong, unscoutable, unpreventable and annoys so much if it is done properly. With this PR chrono-basing is still possible (WF+mcv in queue) but much harder (3600$ more expensive + vulnerability of the undeployed mcv).
Or just chrono and deploy a defense+a Building like a ref somewhere remote and get a reasonable advantage.

With this chrono-basing is not dead but sanitized. And the chronosphere will then be used with other units more often (like arty/tanks).

It should be playtested on team maps, too. (Maybe just a checkbox option for next release?)

User avatar
Sleipnir
Posts: 711
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 11:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by Sleipnir » Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:48 pm

Quoting my comments from the PR which remain relevant here:
@ZxGanon Most of the complaints I have noted over the years have been from the wider community: comments in reddit posts, third party articles, our news post comments, etc. I can't reasonably go back and find these, so I will paraphrase what I felt was the key point behind these complaints: In team games you have two factors that combine to scale the effectiveness at an almost-quadratic rate. A 1v1 is fine because the build and repair rates have been tuned such that there doesn't seem to be a legitimate balance problem here. In a 2v2 you double not just the building rate, but also the repair rate. So you have more things to kill, and each thing is also harder to kill. This scaling increases super-linearly with larger teams.

You are welcome to dismiss my motivation here as hearsay because I can't provide sources, but I would like to think that most reasonable people in the community would trust that I am trying to act based on my 8 years of experience shepherding this community and monitoring feedback.

Ultimately, the thing that motivates me the most with this PR is consistency. You can argue all you want about balance one way or the other, but this is all hot air sitting on top of an inarguable technical bug. OpenRA's Iron Curtain and Chronoshift game mechanics are simple and very well defined: you use the power on a group of units, and they become invulnerable / teleport somewhere else for a fixed amount of time, before returning to their original state.

These behaviours apply to MCVs just as well as other vehicles. If you object to fixing this bug, then you need to justify why it is correct for a MCV that is left idle to remain invulnerable / return to origin like a normal unit, but for a MCV that is deployed and then immediately undeployed to lose its invulnerability / not return to the origin. From a gameplay perspective these cases should be identical, so how can we justify the difference?

Similarly, in all other aspects we try to make sure that there is no distinction between construction yards and MCVs: they are supposed (aside from a handful of bugs) to be seen as different states of the same unit – this is a well established fact across all of the games' lore. If you object to fixing this bug then you need to justify why it is correct for a unit to lose invulnerability / requirement to return when it changes state. What is special about MCVs? Why shouldn't this apply to MAD Tanks deploying, or to submarines when they submerge/surface, or to aircraft when they take off/land? The fact that this happens for MCVs only because of limitations in the transformation code is something that is irrelevant for players, and is what this PR solves.

Yes, this changes balance. Yes, this will break some long standing strategies, but also potentially opens new ones. This is how OpenRA has always worked: we fix bugs, and then adapt the balance to compensate for changes in the gameplay they introduce. It's absolutely fantastic that we have a dedicated 1v1 scene, but OpenRA is not PUBG or TF2 or some other "finished" game that is in maintenance mode. Core mechanics are still being worked on as contributors time allows, and this means that the gameplay will continue to evolve in the default mods. We expect players to either embrace this philosophy in good faith, or to find another game to play. It is unfortunate that OpenRA became much more popular at a time when development started to slow down, because many players became invested without realizing that this was part of what they were getting themselves into. I find myself having to explain this far too often to people who have already made up their mind that I must have a personal vendetta against them because I am trying to change things that they want to keep the same.

The moral of that story is not "you have no say in what is going to change so go away" it is "if your feedback is "I will not accept any change, so you go away" then you are not contributing to the discussion, and things will move forward without you". If we can start from the premise of "lets find a way to fix these bugs without ruining the balance" then we can find a compromise that more or less works for everybody.
A simple option would be to scale the return delay based on the number of units being teleported. The standard Chronoshift footprint contains 5 cells, so we could maintain 20 seconds as the baseline if all cells are occupied. If the player chooses to shift only 3 units, then we could increase the delay to 20 * 5 / 3 = 33 seconds, or if they want to teleport a lone MCV then it could stay for 100 seconds – long enough to build a small supply base that could then produce its own MCV if the player wanted to.

Edit: Of course, the base 20 second delay was balanced based on old assumptions. The changes in game mechanic from this PR might be enough to justify revisiting that choice completely. The original game had this much longer, at something like two minutes IIRC. The original game also only allowed a single unit to be shifted, so this actually fits well with my suggestion above to scale the delay based on number of units.

eskimo
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:59 pm

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by eskimo » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:38 pm

Thanks for reposting, i don't tend to read the PRs.

If a change is done i'd just like to highlight a potential few issues, so if you see fit you can adjust again.

A chrono mcv plus WF still allows a demo truck and/or mcv out of the mcv, regardless if that mcv teleports back. And in 1vs1 games a mcv that chronos back may open a new strat where people place a turret and barracks with a few rockets troopers, with no loss to that mcv. Or an AA gun under some Longbows. Paired with GPS it theorises as strong. But i'm not saying if it's good or bad, just highlighting it.

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

Re: Thoughts from a player playing Red Alert for a couple of months

Post by avalach21 » Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:20 pm

SirCake wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:46 pm
Imo ihe idea of support (super) weapons should be that you get a limited time bonus from it. IC does that, the soviet has 20 seconds or so to make something happen. The chrono-mcv is a permanent bonus which is so strong, unscoutable, unpreventable and annoys so much if it is done properly.
I'd like to make that point that having a nuke advantage all game is a rather permanent bonus.. In my opinion a much more drastic advantage than a chronoed MCV which vs a competent player should end up being a temporary distraction/nuisance.

How is it unscoutable or unpreventable? At this point in the game, you should have many resources to scout the map with. Leave some units in the vulnerable areas around your base as scouts. Also put some static defense in the back of your base in areas where they could potentially chrono an MCV (or drop paratroopers, or sneak a transport copter or plain old chrono artys/tanks etc. etc. There are a lot of reasons to do this so it is cost effective). This is just plain common sense.. people should have to make an effort to counter such a powerful weapon. And lucky for you that is a rather easy situation to prevent vs invincible units doing whatever they want and there's literally nothing you can do against it.

For anyone complaining that the effects of superweapons can be devastating if they are coordinated by teammates and that is somehow "unfair," the obvious response is that you also have all the same opportunities to communicate and coordinate with your teammates as well... that is the name of the game in team play. You can chat with your teammates.. set up some voice chat if you need a better ability to communicate.. whatever you need to do it. It's on you to properly communicate and coordinate with your team and I think it's silly to make balance changes based on the fact that people can't coorrdinate with their allies in a team game and come to the forum to complain about it. Any chrono MCV. iron curtain. nuking combo done to you can also be done to the other team's base, or to the chronoed MCV base itself to eradicate it through proper communication and team play with your allies.
Sleipnir wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:48 pm
Quoting my comments from the PR which remain relevant here:
@ZxGanon Most of the complaints I have noted over the years have been from the wider community: comments in reddit posts, third party articles, our news post comments, etc. I can't reasonably go back and find these, so I will paraphrase what I felt was the key point behind these complaints: In team games you have two factors that combine to scale the effectiveness at an almost-quadratic rate. A 1v1 is fine because the build and repair rates have been tuned such that there doesn't seem to be a legitimate balance problem here. In a 2v2 you double not just the building rate, but also the repair rate. So you have more things to kill, and each thing is also harder to kill. This scaling increases super-linearly with larger teams.
Sleipnir wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:48 pm
Quoting my comments from the PR which remain relevant here:
Ultimately, the thing that motivates me the most with this PR is consistency. You can argue all you want about balance one way or the other, but this is all hot air sitting on top of an inarguable technical bug. OpenRA's Iron Curtain and Chronoshift game mechanics are simple and very well defined: you use the power on a group of units, and they become invulnerable / teleport somewhere else for a fixed amount of time, before returning to their original state.

These behaviours apply to MCVs just as well as other vehicles. If you object to fixing this bug, then you need to justify why it is correct for a MCV that is left idle to remain invulnerable / return to origin like a normal unit, but for a MCV that is deployed and then immediately undeployed to lose its invulnerability / not return to the origin. From a gameplay perspective these cases should be identical, so how can we justify the difference?

Similarly, in all other aspects we try to make sure that there is no distinction between construction yards and MCVs: they are supposed (aside from a handful of bugs) to be seen as different states of the same unit – this is a well established fact across all of the games' lore. If you object to fixing this bug then you need to justify why it is correct for a unit to lose invulnerability / requirement to return when it changes state. What is special about MCVs? Why shouldn't this apply to MAD Tanks deploying, or to submarines when they submerge/surface, or to aircraft when they take off/land? The fact that this happens for MCVs only because of limitations in the transformation code is something that is irrelevant for players, and is what this PR solves.

Yes, this changes balance. Yes, this will break some long standing strategies, but also potentially opens new ones. This is how OpenRA has always worked: we fix bugs, and then adapt the balance to compensate for changes in the gameplay they introduce. It's absolutely fantastic that we have a dedicated 1v1 scene, but OpenRA is not PUBG or TF2 or some other "finished" game that is in maintenance mode. Core mechanics are still being worked on as contributors time allows, and this means that the gameplay will continue to evolve in the default mods. We expect players to either embrace this philosophy in good faith, or to find another game to play. It is unfortunate that OpenRA became much more popular at a time when development started to slow down, because many players became invested without realizing that this was part of what they were getting themselves into. I find myself having to explain this far too often to people who have already made up their mind that I must have a personal vendetta against them because I am trying to change things that they want to keep the same.

The moral of that story is not "you have no say in what is going to change so go away" it is "if your feedback is "I will not accept any change, so you go away" then you are not contributing to the discussion, and things will move forward without you". If we can start from the premise of "lets find a way to fix these bugs without ruining the balance" then we can find a compromise that more or less works for everybody.
I strongly disagree with your perspective on this topic. Right off the bat.. the MCV is an absolutely unique unit in that it transforms into a structure.. No other unit does this in the game.. Units and Structures are separate. Once the MCV transforms.. it is a new entity.. it is a structure now and follows the rules of structures. Let us also remember that in the original RA1 this was permanent... the MCV literally goes through a metamorphosis, sheds all of its old traits. and becomes a new entity entirely - a structure.

Now let me make another critical point.. the chronoshift does NOT return everything to their original state at the time of chronoshift. Units that are destroyed during the chronoshift go through a "state change" - as in they used to be in a state of existence , but now after being destroyed, they are in a state of non-existence. The chronosphere does NOT return these units to their original state and respawn them "back in time" at their point of origin - They are permanently effected by their state change and are dead forever. In the same way, the MCV has had its state changed... the MCV has gone through a metamorphisis state change from a unit to a structure. From all perspectives of game logic/lore/common sense... structures CAN NOT, DO NOT and HAVE NEVER chronoshifted. It makes PERFECT SENSE from a game balance, game logic and game lore perspective for the Con Yard to not return after the chronoshift period is over. The current functionality of this is NOT A BUG. On top of this logical conclusion, it also matches the way it functions in the original game(s). I really think you need to reconsider your perspective on this issue.

If you want to tweak the code, I would say that yes, if the MCV is deployed, then undeploys and returns to the state of being an MCV at the end of the chronoshift period, then it should be returned (This would open up a plethora of new strats). The Chronosphere returns things back to their original teleport location but still in their current state. If the MCV is in a deployed state, then for "consistency" it needs to be returned to its point of origin in its current state. The Chronosphere literally can't handle returning it in it's current state "(Chronospheres can't teleport structures... never have they ever) so the structure stays there. Again, this is logically consistent, game-wise, lore-wise and balance-wise.

Thanks for your time if you read this.

Post Reply