MCV Balance Playtesting

[OMnom]

Juicebox:

The point is moot because you can't prove that the majority dislikes the tabedits, and I can't prove that the majority likes the tabedit. You assume that 50% like it and 50% hate it, but there's no solid evidence proving or disproving either one. This is a debate that will never end until someone goes and surveys every single person in openra, a task which no one is willing to attempt.

As a result, that argument is derailing the main purpose of the thread. I don't want to talk about who should be in charge of what; you can go make your own separate thread for that. I will ask you kindly one last time: stop bringing this moot, nonconstructive argument into this thread. Yeah, wasn't your fault, someone else brought it up, fine. I get your point, its been heard, and I'm trying to get more casual gamers to voice their opinion.

To address the two relevant lines in your post:
Nerfing basepushing to oblivion has been brought up by many people and is longstanding point. I'm going about this in a carefully planned manner:

Phase 1 - Pillbox prices vs dome/tech center to defense tab, with SD as prereq
Phase 2 - MCV cost increases vs SD/dome/tech tabedit, with ref / WF as prereq
Phase 3- 40s MCV + TabEditWF versus 40s MCV + Tech cost decrease
Phase 3.5 - Tech buffs versus no changes in combination with phase 3
Phase 4 - Direct MCV/basepushing nerfs/alterations versus results of phase 3
Phase 4.5 - Adjusted MCV/basepushing nerfs/alterations versus results of phase 3
Phase 5 - Final edition of the MCV playtest edit versus other playtest edits
All games will be compared to the current version of OpenRA as a second control.

There is structure to how I am going about this. I'm not glancing over anyone else's suggestions. I've organized them accordingly and I've come up with a way to compare and contrast what changes we want to do. You're more than welcome to help me get started with phase 4, since I can only do 1 thing at a time.

@Kyrylo

I'm sorry I keep posting walls of text, but its the easiest way for me to convey all the information...I will try to consolidate and make everything shorter and easier to read at the end of the playtesting.

[AoAGeneral1]

@Juicebox:

This is going by numbers only. However:

The MCV got an increase in build time. Instead of 32 its now 40.

The war factory went from 48 to 38. You need a war factory for an MCV.

You need a service depot for the MCV. However, if this is in the defensive tab edit you can build this while building a ref. While the ref is building you can get a 2nd ore truck out. (Probably why in some of the past tests people were able to get quick ore trucks out.)

Service depot is 29. Ref is 34. Not much of a time difference. 5 seconds. Still faster then the nerf of the MCV timer.

Depot is placed build the MCV you now have 3 ore trucks at start. Main tab can build another ref while teching and building an MCV. This is all while having a barracks out. So you both have much stronger economy and a quick MCV still being produced.

This isn't even mentioning about the WF being built faster to get to the MCV faster/tech unlocked.

As said this is going by numbers and I haven't even touched it yet. However, its up for someone else to read. Im a theory crafter and I love to create builds (Much like the ranger/E3 rush tactic).

Your theory is correct, and I've already seen people try to do this. The MCV comes out around 3:30 with 3 harvesters, around 4:00 with 4 harvesters. This will beat a pure tech rush most of the time, but the opposing player will have ample time to scout the service depot and opt to do a strong timing attack, before the fast MCV starts producing money and before they start making infantry in large numbers.

All in all, it doesn't seem like the fast MCV is something that is absolutely uncounterable or only counterable by going for a fast MCV as well. With that being said, I will be on the lookout for to see if fast MCVS are a problem and see if the $1600 WF is something that needs to be taken out.

Scouting the service depot and prepping attacks means that it better work then because if it fails they will fall behind. Not by a little either. You can get 1600$ worth of infantry for protection without a base defense (Although you could drop it to 1000$ if feeling creative) and go with that. You can even go low power if you want to skip the power plant for the 2nd ref and sell the ref. (Which will net you 300$ with civis and infantry)

Also you are incorrect on the timing. I can get 3 harvs out at 2:20 with infantry standing around. Which means MCV construction can happen at about 2:40-3:00 timing. For someone who is going to do a timed heavy attack push this will be difficult because by the time units start moving across the field they will reach the base (Depending on map size) at about 3:30-4:00. (I tested this without the tab edit. With WF at 0:38 I bet you could shave the 3 harvs pumped out at about 2:10.)

I have some dislikes on the tabedit and heres the following why:

Aircraft becomes to strong. --

MCV builds become stronger --

unit production becomes stronger -- (With the lack of soviet firepower/armor that will cripple soviets)

Tech rushing is a little to fast --

Multiple ref builds becomes stronger -- (A sort of problem TD has been facing)

Money gets spent faster -- (The RA economy is unstable)

-------------------------------------

A lot of your dislikes are understandable, and I had a lot of the same worries, especially about aircraft and artillery. However, after multiple playtest games, a lot of my worries about the same issues you brought up have been quelled.

-Aircraft has indeed become very strong, which has prompted soviet reliance on flak trucks for AA and vision, and allied reliance on blobbing+vision to get rid of them. However, using them requires a lot of attention, which makes the player vulnerable to multiple attacks and, more often than not, causes them to float a lot. In addition, the aircraft player is usually behind on MCVs and/or static defense, making him even more vulnerable to other attacks.

This is dependant on player skill. If a player can score the above cap APM 30 it means this can be pulled off. Im known to have the slowest APM in the community averaging either 10-15. Starcraft its a different story. 80-100. This means its dependant on APM skill and you can pull this off easily.

-The 1st MCV out of the WF is stronger, but now, it's really difficult to get a 3rd or a 4th MCV. You need earlier tanks to stop the artillery from reaching a critical mass and you need the artillery to stop mass infantry since base pushing has a huge opportunity cost now. On top of that, there are so many other threats that basepushing is not going to work 100% of the time. For instance, if i decided to start a basepush, but my opponent has fast arty, i'm not going to win that engagement. I have to scout exactly what he's doing and respond appropriately.

This is true. Does this mean who ever gets the 1st one out first has a higher chance of victory due to expansion?

-Unit production in RA is mostly infantry based, and the WF units are mainly there for support. TabEdit doesn't touch any of this, and its too early to tell if the cheaper WFs have made a significant impact yet (there's been only 1 game where there's been multiple WFs). Soviets don't lack firepower -- it's all in T3, which has been made more accessible by the TabEdit. Their T2 is also surprisingly good, its just really slow to build.

RA is infantry based because infantry are stronger then tanks and more cost effective. Losing a tank is a big blow compared to losing infantry (Based off how many numbers you lose.) Soviets do lack firepower and the armor based off alies vs soviet games due to the strengths of the infantry.

Regarding the state of tank vs tank battles in RA, there are very few instances where it's purely tank vs tank.; almost all army compositions involve rifle/rockets. Even the tesla, chrono, and mammoth tanks, which are the only ones capable of reliably killing infantry, are very expensive to build en masse. I've been massing light tanks for a few of these playtests, and they just melt to rocket soldiers and any type of anti-tank. The mass medium tanks still works, as they always have, and heavy tank spam is pretty good after the 2nd WF. I've also seen mammoths being built, which is a rarity.

Tank vs tank battles don't exist due to the above explained. As mentioned above RA is infantry based due to their strength as you mentioned here via tesla, chrono, and mammoths. (Although chrono can mass crush so this part is debatable). Mammoths are only seen as good for their builds because they can kill infantry easily with a longer range then their main guns. Its also good to note the following:

MammothTusk missiles:

Reload of 60 (Medium tank is 50 heavy tank is 70)

Range of 8 cells. (Compared to canons of the tanks hitting only 4c768. Thats right not even 5 cells.)

Damage of 50. vs none is 100. (50 damage compared to the main guns doing 60.)

As mentioned firing faster with a higher damage makes them worth a lot more. Mammoths backed with infantry will kill other infantry easily. More notes:

Gun turrets range is 7 cells. <<< This means static defense is much tougher because they out range a lot of tanks.

The speed of tech rushing in the tabedit can easily be toned down with buildtime adjustments. I'd be okay with this; longer tech times means less static defenses and longer timing windows to attack.

You could. Same could be said with static defenses and MCV too.

2ref builds maybe better for early tech rushes, but i've been doing WF first builds in all of the prior and current TabEdits. Both builds are viable, and the advantages/disadvantages of both builds are not significantly different from what they are now. One concern though, is that the tabedit allows for the constant spamming of refineries, but all my competitive games involve refinery spamming anyways, so I'll have to see some more games to determine if this is an issue.

People are also still toning their builds and skills. This is true in needing to see more games.

RA economy is unstable...i think I know what you're getting at, but I don't think anyone is willing to touch the RA economy. You're right about this, but with the unstable RA economy, it's best to spend the money as quickly as you can, which is why the basepush/mcv spam is so effective. What the TabEdit does is it brings the tech scaling closer to the scaling of static defenses, so now both tech and basepushing can spend and earn money on a more even pace. If we can get this to happen, then there will be more room for T3 to influence the game and less T1/T2/base defense spamming.

If we could fix the RA econoomy, how would you go about it?

People wouldn't like it. So I suggest it shouldn't be done in preparation for next release:

Drop the bounty. I can understand the reason behind it in making units more precious and wanting to keep them alive but it can turn into a snowball fight. An added reason why people go base pushing is it saves money in terms of cost/effective ways.

Ore nodes generate ore to slowly. Another reason behind this is with its current generate ore is it pushes people to scout out and expand more quickly. This also causes the emphasis on saving money by base pushing and getting MCVs out as fast as possible.

Harvs bale loads cause income spikes. Harvs dump 500 normal ore with 1000 gem ore. This creates a huge influx in money where you can often times have games where you are either flat broke or floating like the emperor himself. However, I wouldn't bother touching this until looking at the other two above. (Bounty and ore nodes)

-----------------------

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

As mentioned above I wouldn't touch the economy at this time. A lot of people like how it is now but they do cause issues on these factors. Fixing on the defenses and MCV itself will help balance the game out and fix the problem more precisely. When changes happen like this everything needs to be accounted for. Sometimes when players play on the maps such as edits it takes them several games to get acquainted to it. Its also hard for some players to break out of their comfort zones of "Doing this works so I do this."

[OMnom]

Also you are incorrect on the timing. I can get 3 harvs out at 2:20 with infantry standing around. Which means MCV construction can happen at about 2:40-3:00 timing. For someone who is going to do a timed heavy attack push this will be difficult because by the time units start moving across the field they will reach the base (Depending on map size) at about 3:30-4:00. (I tested this without the tab edit. With WF at 0:38 I bet you could shave the 3 harvs pumped out at about 2:10.)

We have a misunderstanding here about the timing: i meant that the fastest MCV pops out of the WF around 3:30 with 3 harvesters, and around 4:00 with 4 harvesters. You are right that I have 3 harvesters at around the 2:20 mark, factoring SD build time and mcv buildtime, that makes the quickest MCV possible, around 3:20, around 3:10 if you sell a ref.

You are correct that there will most likely be a 4th harvester around 3:30 and 5th harvester around 4:00, right around where the MCV is about to pop from the WF. However, there's not a smooth way to put that 3rd Ref up at the expansion due to travel time and money problems. You would either have to wait 20 seconds for travel time, or you would have to deploy your mcv at the new expansion and wait 20 seconds to place teh 4th refinery there. This is a very vulnerable period of time where your eco can get raided, with the proper scouting of course.

Also, I messed up some of the edits, so most of the techcost edits have a normal WF.
Good thing about that is that we get to see a 38s WF versus a 48s WF and its effect on the early game.

Regarding aircraft:

Having the apm to use aircraft effectively does not make it any less difficult to execute. The reloading and the fragility of air units makes it so that you have to constantly babysit them in dangerous locations, or you have to retreat them to a safe place. The former is extremely difficult to do while trying to expand and to eco up, and the latter defeats the purpose of going for fast air.

Regarding the 1st MCV out of the WF in the TabEdit:

So far, it seems like the first MCV in dome first vs SD first games is a deciding factor. The Dome first player has the superior force to fight with, but it's difficult to push back with because the aircraft has taken money away about 3.5-5k needed for infantry, tanks, and basepushing. As a result, the SD first player typically has weaker forces with more map control, while the Dome first player has a stronger force, but is constantly trying to take back map control. Reload time and a limited ammo pool also might have something to do with this.

If it's just 2 SD first builds going head to head, the game develops rather normally. Getting the 3rd MCV is easy enough, but getting multiple MCVs is very painful. The 4th MCV in particular is painful because that is around the time where artillery/v2 starts hitting the minimum effective mass, so the 4th MCV does not help you there. In order to build that MCV, I need a pre-existing superiority in map control or army strength, whereas in the current version, the extra MCV would expand my map control and army strength.

Regarding the balance of infantry versus tanks:

I'm slightly confused by the argument that Soviet Armor is worse than Allied armor. Could you clarify on what you mean by Soviet's lacking firepower and armor because of the strength of infantry? Are you saying Allied armor does better against infantry, or are you saying that Soviet armor is weaker because they die more easily to infantry?

As far as the damage goes, I did some playtests involving buffing tank damage to only pillboxes. A 25% increase was very drastic, so I toned this down to 10% in the v3 edits. Hopefully, the changes I made in the v3 edits will be mostly independent from one another, so we might be able to see if the buffed tank dmg vs static defense will improve the flow of the game.

Regarding the economy in RA:

I do agree that the RA economy causes a lot of problems, especially regarding the MCV and its supporting cast, and if there's a way to address it slightly, now's a better time than never. Even if all my playtesting won't affect the next release, we can at least use the data for later releases.

I will see if getting rid of the bounties and increasing the ore generation will have a positve effect on the game in a future phase of playtesting.

Regarding the playtesters:

You're right that a lot of the playtesters aside from the master level are still refining their builds and skills. There's a good amount of playtesters who are doing what feels comfortable to them, but many players choose to just play how they normally play. It's also very difficult to match players by skill level, and it's even more difficult to get 2 players of the same caliber to play more than 1 game.

[das krapital]

Casual player here. I've been playing the 2v2 and 3v3 TabEditWF maps a bit.

I really like the chance to try some different builds and use wider range of the units.

I pasted the TabEditWF for Seaside 2 to expand the map pool a bit http://resource.openra.net/maps/18330/

I have some replays, let me know where to upload them if it would be useful.

I would support at least a tickbox for TabEdit in the next release, and would treat it the way I treat Explored Map at the moment.

[Fortnight]

I would support at least a tickbox for TabEdit in the next release, and would treat it the way I treat Explored Map at the moment.

Tickboxes are nice. There's always the concern about splitting the community though, imagine suddenly you have half the people preferring TabEdit and half preferring regular. Normally this would be fine but in a game where there aren't that many players online at any given time it just means less people to play with.

I was for example thinking about whether or not an "Infinite Power" checkbox would be a fun game mode; to play without having to manage power at all. However power management is a big part of Red Alert since you become vulnerable if a plant gets taken out. If some people play a lot without thinking about power they might eventually stop enjoying playing the regular mode, which would divide the playerbase.

Until OpenRA gets more players it's risky to add too many options that change the core gameplay a lot. It's probably better to (somehow) agree on the best compromise until then.

[Sire]

I messed around a little with TabEdit on Sidestep (against AI). I want to try it on a larger map (Pie of Animosity), so I'll look for something on the Map Center or make the edits myself to see how it plays with more players.

It definitely does make games go by faster and allows for more options earlier on which does make gameplay more enjoyable in some ways. However, long term, I see TabEdit being used as a "checkbox" instead of being the new evolution of OpenRA. While gameplay is faster and there are more options, it still doesn't feel like C&C to me and I want to retain classic progression from Refinery -> Radar Dome -> Tech Center.

As for the original C&C using multi-production, I am fine with that as multi-production has been used in the C&C franchise (even if it is in the later installments.) I did play a bit of the original RA and C&C, but never in multiplayer and barely touched skirmish back then.

Off-topic, but speaking of "checkboxes / tickboxes," any reason why there is no "Unholy Alliance" or "Tech Share" in OpenRA yet? Sometimes it is nice to mess around with all of the technology available for one side, or utilize both factions.

[Materianer]

I would support at least a tickbox for TabEdit in the next release, and would treat it the way I treat Explored Map at the moment.

Tickboxes are nice. There's always the concern about splitting the community though, imagine suddenly you have half the people preferring TabEdit and half preferring regular. Normally this would be fine but in a game where there aren't that many players online at any given time it just means less people to play with.

I was for example thinking about whether or not an "Infinite Power" checkbox would be a fun game mode; to play without having to manage power at all. However power management is a big part of Red Alert since you become vulnerable if a plant gets taken out. If some people play a lot without thinking about power they might eventually stop enjoying playing the regular mode, which would divide the playerbase.

Until OpenRA gets more players it's risky to add too many options that change the core gameplay a lot. It's probably better to (somehow) agree on the best compromise until then.

Hmm i think you are right with what you say, and i suggested this option before because i didn't want to destroy Onoms dream of leading this game into a better direction.
It would be even harder to get a game started with a checkbox, if the one half of the players like me dont like the changes and go to another lobby.
Or if someone checks this tabedit box before the game starts but you dont want it, some may leave then in game and so on. There are some good reasons why a checkbox may be not so good.
I am thinking about how a good compromise could look like without changeing the game too drastic, this is hard to make i think.

I think the best solution is already given, make modmaps and play them as you like, that is also a good solution for the toxic maps for example, if you want to play a tabedit game just load a map and there is no problem.

Maybe it should be made possible so paint the letters of the map.

Seaside 2 - TabEditWF

Toxic Waste

For example , then Omnon could make one colour for tabedit and people know what game they join, also longer mapnames should be visual in lobby of course.
Must post a ticket for this later.

"Please give me a list of what maps you want. I currently have Tourney island, Doubles, Haos Ridge, Asymmetric battle, Operation Goldmine, and Tandem. "
Its okay daskrap already uploaded 2 more team maps, i didnt find the other maps on resource center (they are also old versions i think or ) and only saw the sidestep and warwind editions thats why i was asking but nvm.


However i made another map with some mcv changes to test if someone is interested in the thread topic:
http://resource.openra.net/maps/18350/

[OMnom]

TabEdits for 2v2+

Pie of animosity: http://resource.openra.net/maps/18013/
Haos ridge: http://resource.openra.net/maps/17854/
Tandem: http://resource.openra.net/maps/17855/
Tournament Island: http://resource.openra.net/maps/17857/
Asymmetric battle: http://resource.openra.net/maps/17851/
Operation Goldmine: http://resource.openra.net/maps/17858/
Arctic Shelf: http://resource.openra.net/maps/18017/

___

From now on, I'm going to bump the thread with a full summary of the playtesting, and also put a more concise version on the OP for players who don't have the time to sift through and read the entire thread. I've already taken the liberty to do that, so feel free to check it out.

@Fortnight

As far as dividing the playerbase, I think there would only be a small minority who absolutely refuse to play one edit over the other. The biggest divide would be in the 1v1 circle, and most of us have been switching back and forth between normal games and playtests anyways.

[zinc]

Assuming that this would fix a major problem with the game, and it's the best way to fix it, then I think you want something more than modified maps. Now that's a big "If" of course.

The tox maps are intended to just be a different style of play. They aren't there to fix a game problem. You don't want to just fix a game problem in a few specially modified maps.

Not everyone likes the faster speed option. It hasn't destroyed the community yet...

Also, why would modified maps create less issues than a tick box? If people were playing the maps you could still have other people asking for it to be changed... "Original version please, no tab edit", "Change the map". If it ever got popular, I don't see what difference it makes in terms of splitting the community, whether it's maps or a tick box. People can still walk away to a different server because they don't want to play it.

[OMnom]

Playtest replay selection #4 https://www.mediafire.com/?gyhwi10q4egiyoe

I've been mostly playing the TechCostEdits in order to find out how it fares in comparison with the TabEditWF.

As of now though, I can confidently say that $1600 WF in conjunction with the 40s MCV is a great change. The early game is more interesting, the 2nd MCV timing doesn't change by much, the 3rd and 4th MCVs are slightly nerfed, and there are opportunities to build additional War Factories late game.

Updated OP with changes that will be added to the next round of playtesting along with some notes.

[Smitty]

As of now though, I can confidently say that $1600 WF in conjunction with the 40s MCV is a great change. The early game is more interesting, the 2nd MCV timing doesn't change by much, the 3rd and 4th MCVs are slightly nerfed, and there are opportunities to build additional War Factories late game.

Completely agree. Tab edit vs tech edit aside, if there's one thing that comes from all your tests i hope it'll be the $1600 War Factory. (Fully endorse the $2500 40s MCV as well)

The impact a faster war factory has on the early game alone makes this change for me, and the later wf's are nice as well.

[SoScared]

I do feel there’s a divide concerning play-testing between European and American players just based on the available time we can play together.

Omnom, myself, Barf, Medium Tank and German night owls Lorrydriver and km compose the core group of players I get to have competitive games with. We’ve spent a good deal of time on Omnom’s playtests as of late, not because those are the changes we agree with but because that’s where the games are.

I hope to see sort of a melding of the minds on these playtests soon, taking the results of both and seeing how well they work together.

Eh I don't think there's much of a divide really. Afaik OMnom is the only one who's provided some serious test maps the past month. Try getting some Euro players more intrigued and willing to host the playtest maps but in that case you might need to settle on some set of values for a longer period of time. Up until now OMnom's playtest progress has gone forward extremely fast, like seriously lightning-speed fast! In all likelihood this have prevented others from gaining valuable insight into the changes as once they've gotten to know them properly they're already several versions behind the focus of the balance thread. The map versions has literally been uploaded on almost nearly daily basis!

http://resource.openra.net/maps/uploader/1201/

Compare that to FL's or mine back in 2016 where a batch of maps were available for about a month at a time, sometimes more, where balance changes where tried out with thousands of games and information between the playtest maps, reviews and balance discussions were in constant flux, influencing the next batch of playtest maps.

My best suggestion is to agree on a set of values you think are best and would have a reasonable chance getting through to the community and then stick with it. The players will come.

Just wanted to tack this onto here.

If not already on the agenda it probably is a good idea to eventually bring forth a set of balance changes with some exposure over a longer period of time in order to bring aboard more players and start to form a consensus on various topics. As I understand it the process is currently like a meteor racing past the sun, with a core of playtesters moving at astronomical speeds and the community at large observing mostly the icy dust dragged behind it.

The work on this thread has been phenomenal but risks being shortsighted by the lack of availability for regular forum dwellers and its' playtest maps lacking continuity in the multiplayer lobby.

[OMnom]

I do feel there’s a divide concerning play-testing between European and American players just based on the available time we can play together.

Omnom, myself, Barf, Medium Tank and German night owls Lorrydriver and km compose the core group of players I get to have competitive games with. We’ve spent a good deal of time on Omnom’s playtests as of late, not because those are the changes we agree with but because that’s where the games are.

I hope to see sort of a melding of the minds on these playtests soon, taking the results of both and seeing how well they work together.

Eh I don't think there's much of a divide really. Afaik OMnom is the only one who's provided some serious test maps the past month. Try getting some Euro players more intrigued and willing to host the playtest maps but in that case you might need to settle on some set of values for a longer period of time. Up until now OMnom's playtest progress has gone forward extremely fast, like seriously lightning-speed fast! In all likelihood this have prevented others from gaining valuable insight into the changes as once they've gotten to know them properly they're already several versions behind the focus of the balance thread. The map versions has literally been uploaded on almost nearly daily basis!

http://resource.openra.net/maps/uploader/1201/

Compare that to FL's or mine back in 2016 where a batch of maps were available for about a month at a time, sometimes more, where balance changes where tried out with thousands of games and information between the playtest maps, reviews and balance discussions were in constant flux, influencing the next batch of playtest maps.

My best suggestion is to agree on a set of values you think are best and would have a reasonable chance getting through to the community and then stick with it. The players will come.

Just wanted to tack this onto here.

If not already on the agenda it probably is a good idea to eventually bring forth a set of balance changes with some exposure over a longer period of time in order to bring aboard more players and start to form a consensus on various topics. As I understand it the process is currently like a meteor racing past the sun, with a core of playtesters moving at astronomical speeds and the community at large observing mostly the icy dust dragged behind it.

The work on this thread has been phenomenal but risks being shortsighted by the lack of availability for regular forum dwellers and its' playtest maps lacking a sense of familiarity among all kinds of players in the multiplayer lobby.

Yes, I agree with what you're saying. I'll do my best to prolong the tests so we can get more people testing it out, but as of now, I've yet to come up with a final version of the TabEdit and a final version of the People's Edit (lets call it that). Most of these builds are a work in progress, and the collective input has already told me what they would like to see. I'd like to get through these changes as quickly as possible so we can figure out what's each change does, rather than trying to determine if the change is good/bad for the game in the long-term.

Once I figure out what each change does to the flow of the game, I'll combine them in a way that works, and then I'll aim to get the word out to the community by mass producing the final edits in all sorts of maps...including god's divide >.>..of course, if people dislike certain changes, I can get change the numbers, but at least we won't have to worry about dealing with adding or deleting changes that we have already tested out.

[SoScared]

That sounds like a decent process. Only thing I'm not sure I'd want to take into account the effect on massive custom multiplayer maps such as God's Divide. These are very popular maps but they also are very adaptive (see: http://resource.openra.net/search/divide) I don't think it's worth taking these into account when balancing They will survive regardless. Considering the effect on more traditional team maps, such as those in the official map pool, should be more than enough to secure the casual player base.

[OMnom]

Updated OP with playtest findings. I've been away for a bit, so playtesting has slowed down considerably.

I've completed enough preliminary balance changes to figure out what each change does, and I've put together all of my findings into creating a final version of the TabEdit. Each change I've put in this has been tested briefly amongst the master level players, and I'm confident that these changes will make the game more enjoyable for the community as a whole. I'm currently preparing these final edits for the community to playtest thoroughly.

I've split these changes up into 3 different versions. Version A is the barebone version of the final TabEdit where we will be able to see if my proposed changes have a positive effect on the state of the MCV. Version B contains the Tab changes from version A , as well as the viable suggestions from this thread and the people who have helped me playtest. Version C is a compilation of the viable suggestions from this thread and from the playtesters, but without the TabEdit changes.

I will be working on making 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 maps with these changes over the next few days. I will post a link for all of the maps once I am done. In the meantime, I will be releasing them slowly on the resource site.

Version A
-Allied defenses +$200
-Barracks HP to 600
-MCV costs $2500 and 40s to build. Speed Reduced to 75
-WF costs $1600, 39s to build
-Service Depot, Radar Dome, and Allied/Soviet Tech centers can be built in both Defense and Production tabs.
-War Factory is a prerequisite for Service Depot, Dome, and Tech center in the defense tab. Refinery is the prerequisite for dome in the normal building tab.
-Tech in building tab have reduced build times, but same price.
-Service depot price increased by $400. Build time is 40s in defense tab, 29s in buildings tab (same as current bleed)

Version B

All of version A, with the following changes:
-Pillbox requires a 2s reload after 4 bursts
-Flame Turret has reduced rate of fire, but increased projectile speed and splash damage
-Service Depot can now rearm aircraft
-Soviet Air support powers buffed. Parabombs will only appear from South
-Yak AoE damage increased. Can now attack air. Does 10% damge to heavy armor.
-Hinds and Longbows can now change stances. Initial stance is ReturnFire.
-Migs now do 100x2 damage. Can attack air. Burst logic adjusted to be more consistent
-Longbow AG does 200% damage to heavy units. AA range increased from 5 to 7 cells
-Rifle Infantry can now attack Air. Hind, Longbow, and MiG armor changed to Heavy. Other AA damage sources changed to keep values consistent
-SAM site has same range as AA gun
-Iron Curtain and Chronosphere cost $1000 and takes 12s less to build.
-Chronotanks can now attack air.
-Teslatank do 2x damage to light units.
-Artillery and V2 explosion death damage has increased AoE.
-Medium and Heavy tanks do 20% increased damage to heavy armor.
-Mammoth tanks do 50% increased damage to heavy armor and 33% increased damage to wood, and light armor.
-Jeep can now carry 2 passengers
-SoS Radar Jammer, Rocket soldier, Light Tank, and Spy changes added
-Flak Damage increased by 50% against infantry and 25% to light armor.

Version C

Same as version B, but without the tech buildable in the defense tab.

Incoming Wall of Text

Quick recap:
From analyzing many games, from playtests and normal games, the power of basepushing comes from two primary reasons: 1) You can use both MCV production queues to help you fight, and 2) the players do not have the tools nor the time to deal with basepushing. As such, the most optimal way to fight basepushing is with counter basepushing.

To address the MCV and basepushing:

-$200 increase on all allied defense structures, and 600 HP barracks. These changes have been extensively tested by SoS, Frame Limiter, and myself, and are going into the next bleed.
- 40s, $2500, 75 speed MCV. This slows the pace of the game down and allows players more time to scout and react to basepushes and MCV movements. No other side effects from this change.
-$1600 WF, 10s build time reduction. In combination with the 40s MCV, this brings the pace of the game back to it's original speed for the first 7 minutes of the game, but delays subsequent MCVs. The side effect of this change is that scouting vehicles can be built earlier, and that engineers won't have time to capture 2 oil derricks in succession.
-$1600 Service Depot, no build time change to production tab (29s), 10s increase in defense tab (39s). This takes the money removed from the War Factory and puts it on the service depot. This also slows the MCV/basepush option when built out of the defense tab.

To address the issue that players don't have ample time to deal with basepushing:

-Allow Service depot, Radar Dome, and Tech Center to be built out of the defense tab and the normal building tab. The Radar takes $1800, 44s to build, and the tech center takes $1500, 36s to build. This allows players to tech and eco before the 5-6 minute mark, which is the period of time where players rush to secure their spots with the MCV. This allows for more opening builds, which gives players earlier access to tools that they did not previously have.
-Reduce the build time of Radar Dome and Tech center in the building tab by 15s and 10s, respectively. Cost remains same. This change allowed for a more fluid transition into T2 and T3, similar to how the build time reduction affected the War Factory. This also allows players to tech and defend more easily.

To address the issue that players don't have the tools to deal with basepushing: (note: most of these are experimental changes, especially regarding the numbers)

-Change the pillbox to a burst effect (4 shots, 28tick reload, then 60tick break). Increase flame turret spread by 50%, reduce rate of fire by 50%, increase projectile speed by 25%. This should reduce the potency of mindlessly spamming static defenses.
-Allow Service depot to rearm aircraft. This should make it less annoying for early aircraft to have to rearm and be repaired
-Force parabombs to appear from only south. Reduce spy plane to 90s countdown. Double paradrop load. This was proposed in order to make Soviet air rushing more attractive.
-Hind, Longbow, and MiG armor type changed to Heavy. Adjusted Anti-air damage sources to keep current values.
- Yak AoE increased, allow yak to attack air, reduce damage done to heavy units to 10%. This is part of a series of experimental changes to allow other units to attack air, but not be "anti-air". A single yak will only be able to take out 70% of a Hind's health.
-Rifles can now attack air. By changing the Hind, Longbow, and MiG armor type to heavy, air units can now function as mini-tanks for infantry blobs.
-MiGs now do 100x2 damage. Can attack air. This allows 2 migs to kill a normal pillbox/flame turret in 1 strafe.
-Longbow AG does 200% damage to heavy units. AA range increased from 5 to 7
cells. This allows 1 longbow to take out 2 pillboxes/flame turrets without having to reload.
- Tesla tank does 200% damage to light units. This allows Tesla tanks to one shot most light armored vehicles.
-Artillery and V2 death explosion radius doubled. This is to make it less attractive to spam arty/V2.
- Medium and Heavy tanks do 20% increased damage to heavy armor. This increases the damage of the heavy tank by 40% with the double barrel.
-Mammoth tanks do 50% increased damage to heavy armor, and 33% increased damage to wood and light armor.
- Ranger can now carry 2 passengers
-SoS Radar jammer, Rocket soldier, Light tank, and Spy changes added.
-Flak truck damage increased by 50% against infantry, and 25% against light armor.

Changes that have been discarded

-TD build times on static defense. This created a pure rush centric game. Early infantry was too powerful without the static defenses. WF first builds were suicidal.
-All buildings into single tab. This was not tested due to the results of the TD build times on static defenses.
-Max building cap on barracks. This was found to have a marginal effect on basepushing and was more of an annoyance for players. It also had the side effect of encouraging players to play more passively.
-Putting refinery or barracks into defense tab. This allowed for players to build refineries and barracks at the same time, which allowed players to have 7 barracks near the 4 minute mark, causing the game to be extremely sped up.
-Putting a Construction Yard into the defense tab. This was deemed as too drastic of a change by the players and spectators. It allowed for super expansion builds when given to the radar dome, but it was not useful enough when the Tech Center was the prerequisite.
-Putting a build radius delay on the MCV upon deployment and upon placing a building. This was determined to have the opposite effect on basepushing, as the build delay affected the defender's ability to deflect the base push. It was also found to be annoying for players to have to wait 3 seconds before they could place another building, and it was detrimental for players trying to use their MCV to expand.

Changes that have been put on hold

-Changing the economy of RA. This was not tested due to the widespread changes it would have on the game.
-Removing/capping scaling from MCVs. This was proposed repeatedly, but most players did not build more than 3 MCVS anyways, making the 25% cap mostly pointless. Removing scaling completely would be interesting to see, but I suspect that this will have a similar effect to the 48s MCV, where the eco and infrastructure were significantly slowed down. If there is enough support and reasoning for completely removing the scaling, I will put in the B and C versions.
-Removing/capping scaling from Defense tab. Generally, players would not notice this change as most of them do not build more than 3 MCVs. Some testing was done on this a few months ago, and we found that this was great for Allies, but horrible for Soviets. This is definitely a change that is worth considering adding to the final list of changes, but for now, it has been benched in favor of other solutions.

Recurring concerns regarding these playtests

-Not enough casual gamer support for the TabEdit.

These are the final versions of the playtest and is ready for long-term, public testing. Everything that is added or removed to these final edits will be minor changes. Over the next few days, I will be releasing versions of these edits to the casual gamers so that the players can choose for themselves which edit they like the most. By expanding the number of viable builds, I hope that the casual and the competative gamers will both benefit -- casual gamers get to try out fun builds, competative gamers will have more tools at their disposal, and conservative gamers will still be able to keep their old mainstay builds.

-The changes go away from classic C&C / game loses the nostalgia value.

I started playing this game for the nostalgia, but I continued to play this game because the developers have done an amazing job improving a classic RTS game. I concede that these changes will make the game feel more foreign to some players. But by that same token, I feel that these changes will make the game more appealing to all gamers.

-Why are you doing these playtests?

Because I think this game has untapped potential, and that it would be criminal to not at least try to make the game better than what it is right now. At the very least, we will have information going forward for future balance changes.

-I don't see my change / Why did you reject my suggestion?

If I did not mention your suggestion, please post it again. If I rejected or tabled your suggestion, I did so for good reason. I am willing to listen to any counter arguments to my rationale for tabling/discarding them.

-What about a $3000 MCV ? / Did you try a 20% cap max ? / What about a 8 barracks cap?

I'm only one man, and there are only a handful of people who are willing to help me playtest these games repeatedly.