TD balance thread

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

On a mod balance idea map. One of the chokey ones.

The APC has a list of things it can do but that doesn't mean it can kill tanks, shoot kill infantry, kill chem troopers, kill defensive structures (Unless this is still an issue),

It may have more roles then most units, but that doesn't make it the end all be all strategy to be. Tanks kill armored units much more effectively then APCs do as well as perform roles better then the APC.

The Nod MSAM is a better unit for AA then the APC in terms of keeping units away and destruction due to its AoE damage. Keeping one will steer 2 air units. Keeping 2-3 will steer 6-8 air units (Unless they want to suffer losses).

In a GDI vs Nod matchup and the Nod player is using air then that his the Nod players fault. Should realize to switch tech to a heavier tank force to kill the APCs or formulate a different idea (Such as tech to temple) instead of spending 2400$ on two air units.

The husk capturing is useful on several vehicles. The arguement is easier on light vehicles but any unit regarding heavy armor is in bad example in terms of how useful it is. Close call games such as the one presented by FiveAces with GDave and Hi is one such example where capturing any sort of vehicle would have been a great idea. (As mentioned the situation all be it rare.)

If the debate about APCs being stronger in numbers then it should be looked at by economy. As several games turn into a large pool of early game units with ease of early income. Changing a price on the APC is just a bandaide fix.
Attachments
OpenRA-2018-03-11T200050Z.orarep
(571.62 KiB) Downloaded 41 times

User avatar
ZxGanon
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Post by ZxGanon »

Loving the support of Mesacer for TD.
Nobody of us wanted to release our made up experimental changes anymore but you pulled through.

Maybe you will get people to play TD again.

GDave
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:42 am

Post by GDave »

AoA, that's a single 7-minute game on a map that:
- isn't available on the resource centre
- featured unspecified balance changes
- was 'chokey' [a poor test of whether APCs are OP given their manoeuvrability]
- was played by two players rarely seen online for months [so are less au fait with the current meta].

You're hearing from a broad cross section of players that they aren't happy with the balance. They've been saying so for some time. There's probably something in that.

If the APC is too strong then slowing down the economy will not fix that. It will merely slow down the game.

If the game has become too spammy then perhaps the economy should be looked at, but I caution that slowing down the harvester unload time (from 7s to 14s, as I have heard you'd like to do) will have side effects, such as making harvesters more vulnerable to, e.g. recon snipes and will make recovering and countering a rush harder (e.g. if your GT/turret build time is limited by the harv unload time).

Changes proposed for testing by people like Mesacer are the result of many games, both within TDGL (the replays of which are available to you) and without.

Regarding light husks, their longevity is an issue early on. If a player gets caught with e.g. a buggy husk in front of his ref and no units to clear it (perhaps lost in battle) then that's a lot of harvesting time lost. A scenario that occurs exceedingly infrequently (the capture by engineer of a light vehicle) isn't a good argument for long-lived light husks. The game you referred to between me and Hi was an anomaly (and it was a medium tank). A benefit of long-lived husks that I've seen is that they can somewhat hamper Nod tier 1 spam as they block the vehicles.

Something that I've thought for a while now: you're at risk of losing the confidence of the player-base. If you are to continue being chiefly responsible for TD balance then the player-base needs you to be approachable and ready to listen to their points of view, not to be told why they are 'wrong' with responses of, at times, flawed logic and theory-crafting. You don't seem to play with the online community anymore and are rarely online. I say this not as an attack, but in the hope that you'll think about doing something about it.

I think it's worth considering removing APCs' ability to target air (and making them weak vs heavy armour). GDI can counter apaches (which are weak anyway) with rocketmen, APCs deploying rocketmen, orcas and (in base) AGTs. Some thought would be required as to how that'd affect GDI mirrors.

Regarding blocking (ref and WF), how about letting harvesters do slow damage to light vehicles and husks? That'd reduce the chance of an early block being a 'gg' and may remove the need to reduce light husk lifetimes.

User avatar
avalach21
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:01 pm

Post by avalach21 »

For what it's worth I think it's dumb and awkward having the APC shoot air and I am in full support of reverting this blasphemy.

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

@GDave:
---------------------

Good points to make for the person who modded the map.

That is presently why im going around asking about it. It happens to be that "APCs are OP because of price" is not a good reason with me. I have already explained the reasons why being that in a start game match you would stream line the build orders to have mass harvester counts in the early game.

As proposed before in the comment before this, changing the projectile bullet type on the APC will fix this. Leaning to a fix on both ways which is as follows:

Creates projectile hit delays.
Creates a more inaccurate hit type on its targets.
Creates inaccurate hit types on air units.
Becomes a delayed hit based unit instead of instant hit unit.

The game has become to spammy. That is the reason for looking at the economy. Im aware of the side effects of changing any number of any type involving unload speeds, movement speeds, and capacity storage will have a large number of effects. Thus, if the unload speed is slowed down, then changing its capacity to return more quickly will negate this problem. (This is theoretical at this point as they could easily cancel each other out. This is such one example of a need in testing) But it is a spam problem with light tier units. Which is why its being looked at.

The game is an anomaly as I stated once again, a very rare situation. I go with the current debate however that husks do prevent infantry destruction and/or crushes. Units such as buggies and humvees without a husk drop will prevent them from needing to drive around their own husks to reach the infantry and instead can funnel in by a clump. Having the husks in will create a traffic jam which is a good thing for the player defending/attacking with an infantry army as the player with the vehicles needs to move them around and coordinate better.

Removing the APCs ability for air causes the mobility problem again. Using e3 as a staged drop and shoot tactic not only costs money and time but time in deployment of the infantry as well. E3 being the slowest units in the game, and air units being fairly quick can see either:

A) APC deploying infantry I can snipe the APC and run before the E3 stops moving.

B) I see an APC, I can kill it before it deploys or I can just run safely.

I have actually had discussions in the past about vehicles crushing other vehicles. (IE: Harvesters crushing bikes.) But devs mentioned and I agree that crushing a vehicle and a husk popping up under it looks ugly. However, crushing husks is something that hasn't been considered and possibly could. (IE: Harvesters and tanks able to crush light tier vehicle husks.)

If you guys do have the solution and wish to test them out then go for it. Im not saying you shouldn't because reasons. But that is what modding and testing is about. (This also includes the idea of removal of AA. I just speculate to what happens/frustration levels of vsing specific situations and fighting against mechanics of the engine.)
---------------------------

On a seperate note, I have been wanting to speak to you as the last thing I remember is you mentioned something about adjusting power on structures. What did you have in mind about that?

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 543
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

AoAGeneral1 wrote: If the debate about APCs being stronger in numbers then it should be looked at by economy. As several games turn into a large pool of early game units with ease of early income. Changing a price on the APC is just a bandaide fix.
Id argue this is the wrong way around. The APC is still strong on its own, it can effectively kite tanks and you only need an equivalent number to bikes to start doing eco raids, you dont need an obnoxious amount. The problem right now is an outperforming unit and I'd argue that changing the economy to counter this is a very large bandaid.
AoAGeneral1 wrote: The game has become to spammy. That is the reason for looking at the economy. Im aware of the side effects of changing any number of any type involving unload speeds, movement speeds, and capacity storage will have a large number of effects. Thus, if the unload speed is slowed down, then changing its capacity to return more quickly will negate this problem. (This is theoretical at this point as they could easily cancel each other out. This is such one example of a need in testing) But it is a spam problem with light tier units. Which is why its being looked at.
This will obviously decrease the rate of tib being refined, slow down the eco and reduce the number of harvesters able to efficiently dock but it also has the unintended side effect of increasing the priority of harvesters raids. And my assumption is that any attempt to fix the economy will just result in people attempted to get around it. I know for certain if these changes came in, id just build more refineries so i can handle more production. Essentially all it does is slow down the inevitable and inadvertently make it harder to recover from economy raids.
AoAGeneral1 wrote: Having the husks in will create a traffic jam which is a good thing for the player defending/attacking with an infantry army as the player with the vehicles needs to move them around and coordinate better.
The opposite is also true. Husks can be used to block infantry from getting to your real damage dealers (bikes). And arguable it works better against an inf army because they are much slower to get around than a vehicle army.
AoAGeneral1 wrote: Removing the APCs ability for air causes the mobility problem again.
I actually really liked the MLRS AA suggestion and APC machinegun but the problem is that the MLRS is usually the intended target for air attacks.
AoAGeneral1 wrote: changing the projectile bullet type on the APC will fix this.
Would you be changing it be the equivalent of how a tank misses? Or just adding inaccuracy and delay. Because if it shoots like a tank, it will be inadvertently nerfed against bikes etc, since they can just out run that shit. If its a straight up delay and inaccuracy, it could help but I certainly dont think they will stop the problem, especially the delay. The APC can already kite tanks so the delay is effectively null unless it attacked like the tanks projectile (which makes it weaker to bikes)
Image


Mesacer
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:03 pm

Post by Mesacer »

AoAGeneral1 wrote: @GDave:
---------------------

Good points to make for the person who modded the map.

That is presently why im going around asking about it. It happens to be that "APCs are OP because of price" is not a good reason with me. I have already explained the reasons why being that in a start game match you would stream line the build orders to have mass harvester counts in the early game.

As proposed before in the comment before this, changing the projectile bullet type on the APC will fix this. Leaning to a fix on both ways which is as follows:

Creates projectile hit delays.
Creates a more inaccurate hit type on its targets.
Creates inaccurate hit types on air units.
Becomes a delayed hit based unit instead of instant hit unit.

The game has become to spammy. That is the reason for looking at the economy. Im aware of the side effects of changing any number of any type involving unload speeds, movement speeds, and capacity storage will have a large number of effects. Thus, if the unload speed is slowed down, then changing its capacity to return more quickly will negate this problem. (This is theoretical at this point as they could easily cancel each other out. This is such one example of a need in testing) But it is a spam problem with light tier units. Which is why its being looked at.

The game is an anomaly as I stated once again, a very rare situation. I go with the current debate however that husks do prevent infantry destruction and/or crushes. Units such as buggies and humvees without a husk drop will prevent them from needing to drive around their own husks to reach the infantry and instead can funnel in by a clump. Having the husks in will create a traffic jam which is a good thing for the player defending/attacking with an infantry army as the player with the vehicles needs to move them around and coordinate better.

Removing the APCs ability for air causes the mobility problem again. Using e3 as a staged drop and shoot tactic not only costs money and time but time in deployment of the infantry as well. E3 being the slowest units in the game, and air units being fairly quick can see either:

A) APC deploying infantry I can snipe the APC and run before the E3 stops moving.

B) I see an APC, I can kill it before it deploys or I can just run safely.

I have actually had discussions in the past about vehicles crushing other vehicles. (IE: Harvesters crushing bikes.) But devs mentioned and I agree that crushing a vehicle and a husk popping up under it looks ugly. However, crushing husks is something that hasn't been considered and possibly could. (IE: Harvesters and tanks able to crush light tier vehicle husks.)

If you guys do have the solution and wish to test them out then go for it. Im not saying you shouldn't because reasons. But that is what modding and testing is about. (This also includes the idea of removal of AA. I just speculate to what happens/frustration levels of vsing specific situations and fighting against mechanics of the engine.)
I did a bummer when I deleted that map with the balance changes.

You mean that by increasing the APC price would force the player to mass harvesters? Instead of building early APC?

This debate about the APC is starting to remind me about the movie Pentagon Wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

When you say that the game has become to spammy, do you only mean on light units or the game as whole?

Also I'm not sure if introducing heavier vehicles crushing smaller is a good idea, could make light units even more vulnerable in late game.

Mr Cloudy
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:37 pm

Post by Mr Cloudy »

This debate about the APC is starting to remind me about the movie Pentagon Wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

This is amazing! ^^



Way I see it is we have 3 options.

1. We could increase the price of the unit, making it harder to spam, keep everything else the same, it is always going to have it's uses due to the fact it's a super strong AA unit all side everything else.

This IMO is the best chose to make, however I understand it's up to everyone.

2. Take away the AA, make it like the old APC.

Interesting and it would make nod mobile anti air stronger, I'm not 100% for this, but I would be open to trying it for sure, I'd rather have this then current build.

3. change the games Eco, I really don't think this is a good idea, you'd still have the same problem, as people have pointed out.


I could talk about all of those with much much more depth, however at this point I feel we've had this issue for far to long now, and I am personally sick and tired of the APC spam, so let's pick something and roll with it.


If you ask me I like what was presented by Mesacer but made by ZxGanon, VoidWalker and anjew

and AoA we are not ganging up on you, I could see how it may look like that, but as Dave said you are not on that often, and the majority of the players here complaining about APC's etc, are the players that do still play the game, this is why it can be frustrating for us when we make a suggestion, and tell you about something in game we think does not work, like APC's, and then you come back with arguments that don't add up.

we do all appreciate your time, and I thank you for taking the time to read this.

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

anjew wrote:
Id argue this is the wrong way around. The APC is still strong on its own, it can effectively kite tanks and you only need an equivalent number to bikes to start doing eco raids, you dont need an obnoxious amount. The problem right now is an outperforming unit and I'd argue that changing the economy to counter this is a very large bandaid.
Kinda why it comes into the idea of changing the projectile. I have heard feedback about the economy is fine, but I still strongly dislike a two refinery build supporting six harvesters. Some maps you are able to do this off one field. Common practice is move the MCV after deploying a refinery with 4 harvesters and expand quickly to get your second refinery. If there are easier ways to counter this that I am unaware of then im all for it.
anjew wrote: This will obviously decrease the rate of tib being refined, slow down the eco and reduce the number of harvesters able to efficiently dock but it also has the unintended side effect of increasing the priority of harvesters raids. And my assumption is that any attempt to fix the economy will just result in people attempted to get around it. I know for certain if these changes came in, id just build more refineries so i can handle more production. Essentially all it does is slow down the inevitable and inadvertently make it harder to recover from economy raids.
I am aware of the side effects. But ultimately killing one harvester from either 5-6 does not dent the economy at all and becomes a very bad choice/idea to make such raids. This becomes a very tight set number to make your attacks otherwise its a bad idea.
anjew wrote: The opposite is also true. Husks can be used to block infantry from getting to your real damage dealers (bikes). And arguable it works better against an inf army because they are much slower to get around than a vehicle army.
True. This is something that hasn't been takened into consideration. Removal completely of husks might not be the best idea but perhaps reducing the spawn rate of the husk for light tier units only or add an ability for tank type vehicles to crush light tier husks.
anjew wrote: I actually really liked the MLRS AA suggestion and APC machinegun but the problem is that the MLRS is usually the intended target for air attacks.
Two problems come to mind (One of which you specified already):

It becomes a unit that shoots both air and ground. This can be a problem as distractive air fire can lead to ground units coming in and making the attack.

The other is also the opposite. If the MLRS shoots at the ground targets it is then on reload and air units can then swoop in and make their attack.
anjew wrote: Would you be changing it be the equivalent of how a tank misses? Or just adding inaccuracy and delay. Because if it shoots like a tank, it will be inadvertently nerfed against bikes etc, since they can just out run that shit. If its a straight up delay and inaccuracy, it could help but I certainly dont think they will stop the problem, especially the delay. The APC can already kite tanks so the delay is effectively null unless it attacked like the tanks projectile (which makes it weaker to bikes)
Its projectile would actually be slower. Almost samiliar to the artillery with inaccuracy but not as bad. This would also fix some complaints about the APC being to effective vs air as it then has the chance to slightly miss air targets. Granted, it would have a slight AoE damage but nothing extreme.

The humvee has started becoming the role of bike/buggy killers with enough numbers due to their damage. So mixing in a few APCs and a larger number of humvees will do the job as well. In the past it used to be APCs were the better choice. The main mechanic of the APC is their large numbers to deal damage quickly. This sort of change would fix this en mass number problem.

A suggestion a dev made as well is reducing their turn speed as an alternate idea.

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

Double posting to seperate individual debates and not a GIANT paragraph response page for the readers.

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

@Mesacer:

Light type units. Also may include infantry such as the E1 and E3 combos.

Increasing the APC price would stream line (Meaning another build order type becomes a bad choice.) larger harvester builds and not early drop plays. The power change on the structures few releases ago was to promote open infantry plays. Not factory first builds.

Heavier vehicles crushing husks. Not light vehicles.

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

@BigBadBain:

What would be the price point suggestion? Something like 700 imo is outrageous.

The problems that can happen here is giving the APC the machine gun makes it an infantry killer that can both shoot and crush infantry. Dropping additional infantry would make E3 plays much more dangerous as the APC can both tank and kill infantry protecting the E3. While the E3 kills the tanks.

The other problem is GDI loses a mobile unit type for AA. (Chinook plays?)

Is there a better suggestion perhaps to prevent 3 harvesters gathering effectively off one refinery?

As for me not being on often all you have to do is contact me on Discord. We all live in strange timezones and im more active at night (In my time zone. PDT). My night life allows to sync up with people such as in Germany who wake up in the morning to do games there, or on my days off during the afternoon time when it is night/nearly sleep time for Germany.

Leave me a message of interest for playing test builds, normal games, etc, and I will respond.

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

Feel free to send any test maps or ideas on the thread. If you want to test some games let me know on Discord.

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 543
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

Just some more notes on economy:
AoAGeneral1 wrote: I still strongly dislike a two refinery build supporting six harvesters. Some maps you are able to do this off one field.
... ultimately killing one harvester from either 5-6 does not dent the economy at all and becomes a very bad choice/idea to make such raids.
I feel that unless you change the pricing of every unit to be much cheaper, a game will always end up like this anyway. It would be like doing the same change in RA, people will still get to that 5 harvesters sweet spot, all that is effectively done when you slow this down is you slow the game down

I cant remember or not, but was the APC buffed in health a long time ago to stop orcas swooping in? I seem to remember there was a buff given to APCs a long time ago
Image

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

Under some debates with Anjew on Discord a few problems were found out about the APC.

I recently saw about a few weeks ago that the vision range on the APC is 7. Scouters (Buggies/Hummers) have 8 and tanks have 6. Knowing this I had plans to reduce the vision of APCs to 6. However, as the discussion went on we soon found out that APCs have a range of 7 for AA.

This is insane and explains the reason why aircraft is getting decimated seeing as Orca's have a weapon range of 5 and Apache's have a range of 4.

APCs ground range is 5.

Another closer look following with the Devs input is the turn speed. With a speed rate of 8 and the buggies/bikes/hummers being 10, medium tanks being 5, mammoths being 3, its a bit more clearer that a reduction for this may be needed.

So the listed idea for the APC is as follows:

APC turn speed reduced from 8 to 5. (Not movement speed. Turn speed.)

APC AA attack range reduced from 7 to 5. (Try 6 for testing purposes.)

APC vision range reduced from 7 to 6.

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

Following another discussion further I am currently dropping the ideas of economic changes. Reason being is as stated from before and in Discord, that changing around the economy can be fixed to prevent a 3 harvester per refinery issue, but the over all pace of the game would change.
Last edited by AoAGeneral1 on Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mesacer
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:03 pm

Post by Mesacer »

AoAGeneral1 wrote: Under some debates with Anjew on Discord a few problems were found out about the APC.

I recently saw about a few weeks ago that the vision range on the APC is 7. Scouters (Buggies/Hummers) have 8 and tanks have 6. Knowing this I had plans to reduce the vision of APCs to 6. However, as the discussion went on we soon found out that APCs have a range of 7 for AA.

This is insane and explains the reason why aircraft is getting decimated seeing as Orca's have a weapon range of 5 and Apache's have a range of 4.

APCs ground range is 5.

Another closer look following with the Devs input is the turn speed. With a speed rate of 8 and the buggies/bikes/hummers being 10, medium tanks being 5, mammoths being 3, its a bit more clearer that a reduction for this may be needed.

So the listed idea for the APC is as follows:

APC movement speed reduced from 8 to 5.

APC AA attack range reduced from 7 to 5. (Try 6 for testing purposes.)

APC vision range reduced from 7 to 6.

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

Following another discussion further I am currently dropping the ideas of economic changes. Reason being is as stated from before and in Discord, that changing around the economy can be fixed to prevent a 3 harvester per refinery issue, but the over all pace of the game would change.
I could update my maps with these changes, but one problem that I see is that I could output new maps faster than the community in the current form can test.

So do anyone have a suggestion how to make the best of it?

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

Insert Name is amazing at modding maps. I could try asking him.

The other thing though is probably best to make a new mod map file, changing the current ones could mess up the replays. Only once they have been tested and got answers from it they can then be deleted from the resource site.

Post Reply