OpenRA

My data is it hasn't been tested.

What is yours?

Just a thought, but isn't base pushing a thing because it's so hard to break into a well defended base?

If so, if it's nerfed, without base defences being nerfed too, couldn't that just lead to more drawn-out or stalemate games?

I'm thinking maybe it's worth trying nerfing mobile bases, as in add some sort of build delay, or make buildings start initially weak, as has been suggested, which will shift the advantage to the established base. Also maybe slow the MCV, or make it cost more.

Then, to allow for more dynamic play, buff tanks against base defences, and nerf base defences vs base defences.

If anyone thinks this is worth a try, I'll try and set up a test map to see how it works

AoAGeneral1 wrote: ↑My data is it hasn't been tested.

Can someone else translate this shit? Cause to me, it sounds very similar to "My data is that there is no data, so therefore, I have data (except you just said that you have no fucking data)"

What is yours?

$600 PB, $700 PB, $800 PB, 100% build time increase of static defense, 25% scaling cap static defense, Refinery/Barracks/Tech to defense tab, $2500 MCV price increase, 75 speed MCV, 71 speed MCV, 40s build time MCV, 48s build time MCV, 8s BuildRadius Delay, 3s BuildPlacement Delay, $1600 WF, cheaper tech buildings, static defense damage adjustments, 10%/15%/25% increased tank damage, 4+ months of daily testing starting in December of 2016, comments from top tier and low tier RA players, and other various maps that I have made for people in the past.

So, to reiterate my previous message: I'm not going to get into any theorycraft argument with you because it ALWAYS ends up being a stupid discussion that drags on for way longer than it needs to, brings in multiple subjects that are out of the scope of the thread, and always ends with "needs more testing."

maceman wrote: ↑Just a thought, but isn't base pushing a thing because it's so hard to break into a well defended base?

If so, if it's nerfed, without base defences being nerfed too, couldn't that just lead to more drawn-out or stalemate games?

I'm thinking maybe it's worth trying nerfing mobile bases, as in add some sort of build delay, or make buildings start initially weak, as has been suggested, which will shift the advantage to the established base. Also maybe slow the MCV, or make it cost more.

Then, to allow for more dynamic play, buff tanks against base defences, and nerf base defences vs base defences.

If anyone thinks this is worth a try, I'll try and set up a test map to see how it works

Please do so and post the map in this thread for other people to try. I've played on maps with some, but not all of the changes that you have mentioned. One recurring theme is that there is a very thin line between overly buffing the defender/first person there, and a overly nerfing the first person there. All of the changes you mention apply to both sides; as such, it is not easy to aim a direct change at "only" one side. This results in games that are extremely chaotic, as was the case in the 100% increased static defense build time, or games that teeter on the edge of slow-stalemate / complete snowball, as was in the case of the 48s MCV. I've only tried a few combinations of the aforementioned changes, but you might stumble across a better combination than I used.

"This could possibly work in that situation alone. If someone has made a drop of grenadiers in the base or a flamer drop in the main base you are out of luck. Dropping a defense structure to prevent this with a HP reduction is then instantly killed. I like the handicap idea but the handicap can be placed in the wrong situations too."

I had this in mind; I've tested this and my gut instinct was right: the pill or flame tower structure wins handily against five grens or flamers, even at 60%. Against 5 rockets, however, it goes down - so long as they all shoot first. That seems acceptable to me.

"When you mention about buildings inside the radius are the buildings giving faster ammo regen to the conyard itself?"
Yes.

"Do defense structures count as that ammo regen?"
No

"Does this nerf base expansions a bit to much in the sense that you expand and a small scout force happens to spot it. But you can't deploy a defense structure because you have no pips. Would this cause issues?"
Only for players who send MCVs unprotected. I'd argue that's a feature.

"Moving your MCV inside your own base or the fog of war trick undeploy/redploy cause to much issues with this? "
Yes. There's then more of a penalty to undeplying your MCV, meaning you should probably only undeploy if you actually plan to retreat or set up a new base.

I've found a way to implement my first and third suggestion using the current engine. I've tried it on Green Belt, as that's very push-friendly.

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21694/

The idea of a dynamic cooldown is much harder as, for instance, the BaseProvider trait can't be conditional and isn't selective about the types of buildings it provides for.

crlf wrote: ↑I've found a way to implement my first and third suggestion using the current engine. I've tried it on Green Belt, as that's very push-friendly.

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21694/

The idea of a dynamic cooldown is much harder as, for instance, the BaseProvider trait can't be conditional and isn't selective about the types of buildings it provides for.

Played a game on it. The good thing is that it looks like this definitely nerfs aggressive basepushing into an enemy base. I didn't tech up on purpose to see if it was possible to hold off a T2 army with just buildings and defenses, and it's definitely a lot harder... I quickly realized that I needed arty to fend the blob off, but I wasn't able to get enough arty in time to stop the death blob.

The "bad" thing, one could say, is takes away options from the game without replacing it with something else. When you see something that is OP/too strong/ruining your experience, everyone's natural instinct is to go "nerf that to the ground." This methodology is what caused SC2 to fail because eventually, some other OP strat is going to take its place. What ends up happening is that you're just going to be playing "Whack-a-mole" with the nerf hammer, which I guess could work, but its definitely not fun to do.

I'm more interested in seeing if we can expand the game to allow more options to defeat basepushing, not just using the nerf hammer on one thing and expecting the game to magically become better.

OMnom wrote: ↑ I'm more interested in seeing if we can expand the game to allow more options to defeat basepushing, not just using the nerf hammer on one thing and expecting the game to magically become better.

Maybe a new defensive structure: Some kind of "static targeting jammer" that forces turrets (but probably not anti-air) within a certain radius into power down mode.

Ideally it would just lead to the creation of some kind of no man's land for turrets between very close enemy bases. But I guess it could be used in an offensive push against a base with lots of turrets.
Its effects would need to be tested, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be trivial to implement that idea after I took a quick look at the OpenRA Traits. (But I have no experience at all with OpenRA editing.)

bint wrote: ↑

OMnom wrote: ↑ I'm more interested in seeing if we can expand the game to allow more options to defeat basepushing, not just using the nerf hammer on one thing and expecting the game to magically become better.

Maybe a new defensive structure: Some kind of "static targeting jammer" that forces turrets (but probably not anti-air) within a certain radius into power down mode.

Ideally it would just lead to the creation of some kind of no man's land for turrets between very close enemy bases. But I guess it could be used in an offensive push against a base with lots of turrets.
Its effects would need to be tested, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be trivial to implement that idea after I took a quick look at the OpenRA Traits. (But I have no experience at all with OpenRA editing.)

Yeah...again, it all comes back down to "Does your change solve more problems than it creates?" CRLF's change works as intended, as does SoS's 71 speed MCV and many other changes. But every change or addition comes with its own trade-offs. RTS games are very much like ecosystems where altering one member within the food web could have a very large impact on the rest of the food web -- adding new members could be even more dangerous.

I'm currently experimenting with moving some T3 units to T2, which is just as dramatic of a change as what you're suggesting. I'm hoping that by buffing the scaling of other tech units, such as chrono tanks and tesla tanks, that they'll be able to control the scaling of artillery units and pillboxes.

Just out of curiosity omnom, what change do you think (regardless of it being yaml or just base code) is the best way to combat basepushing?

Blackened wrote: ↑Just out of curiosity omnom, what change do you think (regardless of it being yaml or just base code) is the best way to combat basepushing?

Beats me. I'm not all knowing; that's why I'm testing out multiple solutions. To somewhat answer your question, the solutions I tend to like the most are the ones that give me more options to defeat basepushing, not ones that limit me to currently existing options. As the game is right now, there aren't many ways to combat basepushing, let alone different ways to play the game. Most of the T1/T2 combat units are very one dimensional in usage; move, A-move, repeat. The MCV, on the other hand, allows you to create terrain with walls, defender's advantage with buildings, and static map control. A lot of people will think this is boring, but to me, this is what strategy is all about.

What this game is missing, in my opinion, are multiple ways to secure map control that scale on the same level as the MCV (i.e, gets built and gets stronger on the same level that the MCV is on). Aircraft does not seem to be a viable form of long-term mobile map control from my previous experiments, and the tank/infantry core's main purpose is to function as a fighting force, not a map control force.
I have some hope for my current experiment of moving some T3 units down to T2 in order to control the spread of MCVs, give players more options to deal with MCVs and V2/artillery, and to give them more map control tools to make strategic decisions with.

I am a new player but would like to add an idea. Omnom and others have pointed out, that every change done to production or the MCV backfires heavily.

Another approach could be to seperate the behaviour of extra MCVs (expansion MCVs) from the original MCV (main base MCV):

- main base MCV radius allows 100% max building health
- expansion MCV radius allow 80% max building health.

or:

- main base MCV radius allows 100% max production speed (primary facility)
- expansion MCV radius allows 80% production speed (primary facility)

By this the basepusher gets only punished when attacking the main base. No effect if the basepush aims at expansions (as defender would suffer the same restrictions). Basepushing your opponent's main base with an early MCV would be much more ambitious as the defender would always have a slight adavantage.


Just an idea.