[OpenRA] Limit base-walking by reducing freedom of building

The same solution as in OpenCnC - applied to OpenRA?

Discussion about the game and its default mods.

Should it be only allowed to build near the deployed MCV?

Poll ended at Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:05 pm

Yes! Let us have this as default option! It should be possible to switch it off, however.
4
50%
No, keep it as it is!
4
50%
 
Total votes: 8

wusche1
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:44 pm

[OpenRA] Limit base-walking by reducing freedom of building

Post by wusche1 »

Right now, many games in OpenRA suffer from the fact that excessive base walking is used to overpower a player. I propose to implement an option, switched on by default, that limits the building behaviour of the player to the one currently observed in OpenCnC - possibly even with a smaller build radius.

Why this will not eliminated base walking, it will for sure make it more work intensive. As a side effective, exsessive artillery attacks under cover of base-walking and air defenses will not be as deadly as before.

Scott_NZ
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:09 am

Post by Scott_NZ »

I have already implemented this and it's resting in a PR at https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/3894, but it currently lacks a lobby setting to enable/disable it. If enough people want a setting I could bring it in too. It also has some general balance changes to round out the baseprovider introduction, but they need testing and feedback.

Tirili
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:02 am

Post by Tirili »

To add this as an OPTION sounds good, so I voted for yes.

Still I don't like this style, because as soon as you lose your conyard in one base and it is being attacked you cannot even place defense buildings there any more (assuming you still have another conyard somewhere).
It would require some familiarization to spread conyards across wide bases, but people like me don't like to change. :D
I am lobbying for solutions that make it impossible to build near enemy bases.

What about radio buttons in the game lobby to choose between several (i.e. even more than default and cnc style) modes?

User avatar
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Post by JOo »

the main reason why im not playing cnc "is" because of the mcv-buildradius ...

i dont think we should get rid of "basewalking" , because even in "new" rts-games (cnc/ra) its still there , but not removed ... i did some research about cnc3 , and i see no problems to "basewalk" ... theres even 3 options to expand , deploy mcv , basewalk "and" the Surveyor that act as a outpost ...

i think the reason why there is no talk about "basewalking" in cnc3 is because :

- you "cant" build off ally conyards (there is not even a rule for that to change it)

- the powerplant is bit more expensive then a barrack ... (but you can build it faster)

i tryed 3-4 times a game with "build off ally conyard << off" ... and i hate it ... but thats because im too familiar with the current gameplay ... (on default)

set that thing as default , will make the game harder (even for the pros) ... but it would change things in the future ... specially about basewalking ...

NO : because it makes no sense for me ... basewalking (to expand forward to the next ore patch) is a essential element for me ... and its more important to work on the "basic problem"
i wanna play a game on default , without the basewalk problem (using it as attack) ...

and i tell you , it will give soviet some advantage , because actually it was possible to defend a "v2" by pp-turret , or even pp-pillbox forward to the v2 ... (mostly "after" the first pp gets down) ...
and in general , the soviets have the "rush units" ... that will make turn the "allies" into a turtle faction ... (im expecting it will turn into this) ...

basewalk has to be nerved not removed <----- that is , what we have to do

ddd
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:04 pm

Post by ddd »

I don't think that quick workaroud would be well in that case. I like the idea of building husks:
http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... 82&t=16272
Building husks with timeout like several seconds would be good. This measure and walls + nice maps may solve that issue nicely. People should basewalk from their allies even if theirs ally doesn't have conyard at all. A lot of tactics are related to it (buildings diversification, allies protection etc.).

User avatar
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Post by JOo »

i suggest " build of ally conyard > off " ... by default ... so the player get familiarized with that gameplay ... ( same as in tiberian sun , tiberian wars ... )

that will avoid the (atleast) 2-player basewalking together ...

but in general "basewalk" in form of "expanding" has to stay !

ddd
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:04 pm

Post by ddd »

I don't like your idea. How do you like to protect a team in big maps in case like 3 people attack your teammate? Even your aviation won't be in time to help. If your teammates will build conyards around their enemy bases then that won't help you from basewalk too and so on. Basewalking should be eliminated by actually blocking it: 1) by the map features like garbage around bases or narrow passes + 2) building walls for protection by every teammate 3) by building husks blockers for some quick time in case basewalk attacks.

User avatar
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Post by JOo »

ddd wrote: How do you like to protect a team in big maps in case like 3 people attack your teammate?
i dont know winston , how do you do that in tiberian sun ? ... in tiberian wars ?
these games have no "build in your enemys buildradius"

and obviously , thats the reason why they do not have "serious" basewalk problems...imo

so that was my first thought , there must be something wrong in Open"RA"s gameplay and a "mcv buildradius" or "husks" is a completly different way then in new rts- games

(i know there is different oppinions about "new cnc" games , specially since EA handeling it , but thats mostly about the Cnc -Genre changes ... )

epice
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:39 am

Post by epice »

I'm still firmly behind the building debris idea. We simple need a generic building dabri(es?) tileset for buildings that do not have custom made destroyed frames. It still allowed freedom to build as you please, but you can easily be stopped from simple walking into enemy territory because you can't just re-build where you stuff was just destroyed.

On that note, I vote yes simply because ANYTHING is better then how it is currently.

ddd
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:04 pm

Post by ddd »

I think current development build radius is too short. It will be pretty awful to play.

User avatar
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Post by JOo »

epicelite: a buildradius will create "balance" problems , thats my oppinion , so you can make the game more worse then it is right now ... probably

edit : meh , we can try it ... but then buff the mcv ... so it gets not pwned by jeeps and yaks

xan2622
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:27 pm

Post by xan2622 »

The original question was to provide (or not) an option for basewalking or not.
Some players like basewalking, others don't. An option will be good because it will please everybody (those who want basewalking can have it and those who don't want it can be happy too).

And I voted YES also because I think it's a bit strange to be overpowered all the time by extended bases. To me, the map seems to be filled by ivy.
Somehow, it doesn't look like a natural way to win a battle. In another hand, it brings strategy in the game...

So I think an option will be interesting. Let's add an option for all mods :)

PersianImmortal
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:04 am

Post by PersianImmortal »

Basewalking isn't hard to counter at all. I see no issue with it.

User avatar
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Post by JOo »

the point here is :

a turret/tower/box/tesla is a "defense" structure .... not a "attack" structure ... for "attacking" a player , we have units ...

wusche1
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:44 pm

Post by wusche1 »

PersianImmortal wrote: Basewalking isn't hard to counter at all. I see no issue with it.
The question is not only whether one can stop a coordinated/sophisticated base walking attack, but also if it is this type of gameplay what defines the OpenRA gaming experience.

It is far from easy to defend against basewalking attacks that are well executed. The problem is not that basewalking allows for the massive use of defensive structures for offensive purposes, but also provides cover for long-range weapons like artillery or V2.

Also, I would like to remind you how much the engineer ninja whore tactic was considered as an exploit before the building capture was changed. It allowed the rapid building of production and defense building in the enemy base. Of course there was a way against it - but it was so effective that I used engineers even in the late game.

Post Reply