While reducing the frequency of the support powers would hamper on possible defense against spam units, the game is also considered around using units to counter effect units. Using support powers on structures is currently ill-advised due to saving them for more effective killing on units. (With the exception of the nuke). While the Ion and Airstrike better suits for army killing it also prevents attacks. An Ion charges every 3 minutes. Mammoth tanks are built in 36 seconds. Which means by the time you get five mammoth tanks an Ion is ready. Which can kill six mammoth tanks per shot (Including infantry around them.) I have made no decision to alter the timer on support powers at this moment but it is incredibly frustrating when dealing with GDI or GDI v GDI scenarios.psydev wrote: ↑Please, please don't reduce the frequency of the support powers. They're what make the game really dynamic, fun and unpredictable. They're also good counter-spam if you're getting out-macro'd but still have a lot of micro skill to defend yourself with.
While an upgrade to the factory is a solid plan it leaves several problems:psydev wrote: ↑Anyway, about tanks:
A possible solution to the tank rush issue would be to require factories to get an upgrade before they can produce tanks. The upgrade would delay the facility's queue for a time, or could cost money as well. This gives a boost to other opening strategies (like using infantry/artillery, or maybe even air) by making tank construction start later or cost a little more, without altering the stats of the tank.
The queue is held up meaning you cannot produce any vehicles. (Bikes, buggies, harvesters). The command center is already in charge of tech value and allowing access which is snipe worthy targets. The other issue is it didn't exist in the C&C95 scenarios. While it sounds good as a plan it has been tested with Insert Names maps and rather punished those who didn't tech which turns into games requiring tech to do several things.
The damage output of the tanks has been considered and using your stat sheet makes sense to do such. However, one critical problem is it becomes ineffective vs other vehicles. Buggies, bikes, APCs, Hummers, and even harvesters would abuse the light tanks low amount of rate of fire. A light tank vs an APC would take far to long to kill and it would drive around dodging its shots. This would require further testing.psydev wrote: ↑With that said, the LTNK could still probably use a nerf. In the games we played testing a lower-DPS LTNK, it didn't seem as broken. One thing to consider is slowing the bullet down to the same speed as the medium tank, because a faster bullet gives the LTNK better accuracy vs. moving targets, while the LTNK itself is harder to hit because it's so fast. It also shoots smaller shots more often, which results in less wastage of DPS from overkill. All these things, plus advantage of higher numbers due to low cost, probably add up to make the LTNK an efficient killer, even if it does the same DPS/$ as medium tank.
Yep lol. Ive done some tests in bleed and the HP is getting a very subtle change to 340.psydev wrote: ↑Edit: I take it back. I tried killing a light tank rush with tons of rocket soldiers, and they got run over. This might be the main problem, they're too fast/good at running things over. Lower HP might help reduce their effectiveness?