TD balance thread

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

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 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: 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.
While an upgrade to the factory is a solid plan it leaves several problems:

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.
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.
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: 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?
Yep lol. Ive done some tests in bleed and the HP is getting a very subtle change to 340.

psydev
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:49 am

Post by psydev »

Could you please increase the rocket speed of bike rockets and increase the speed to at least 298? (Currently they're at 213, and really slow).
I really can't stand how slow the missiles are. They are so useless it's painful. Against a medium-skilled player controlling orcas, the recon bikes just can't hit 'em.

I think we should still preserve the "units running away can avoid missiles" mechanic, I just think it needs to be tweaked so that missiles can still have a good chance at hitting.

There are a couple of other units I noticed that also had slow missiles. Maybe they should be looked at too.

User avatar
jaZz_KCS
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: Bremen

Post by jaZz_KCS »

psydev wrote: Could you please increase the rocket speed of bike rockets and increase the speed to at least 298? (Currently they're at 213, and really slow).
I really can't stand how slow the missiles are. They are so useless it's painful. Against a medium-skilled player controlling orcas, the recon bikes just can't hit 'em.
Second this.
It has always bothered me that the Recon Bike Rockets do not feel in anyway more powerful (speed/damage) compared to their foot troop counterparts. They take a long time to lock on and do not travel fast enough to be viable against Orcas in the slightest, if the other player isn't just a-moving them into their doom that is. Of course, they are not Nod's main antiair, yet they feel so vulnerable due to their lazy weaponry.

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

There was a new mechanic added to missiles that inadvertently makes them shoot faster in the bleed version. So go check that out.
Image

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

As Anjew posted the new mechanic in bleed makes all missiles travel faster. So everything firing rockets/missiles has been buffed. This is the reason why the MSAM got its missile trajectory nerfed to help compensate this.

I have Sunday off (14th) so I will be looking to make the changes in the bleed version. Any other discussions or concerns post here! =D

User avatar
Graion Dilach
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 5:57 pm

Post by Graion Dilach »

[08:26:16] <Psydev> perhaps there could be invented an "armored building" subclass of armor.
[08:26:50] <AoAGeneral> Thats what im thinking of. Graion says he implemented the wood armor as a natural for all structures to prevent base crawling. However this causes an issue because now GTs are tanky as all hell

What? Graion never said this.

Graion said two things:
1) All buildings default their armor to wood, This isn't what I did. This is there probably since day 1. For the record the actual two lines where this is set in defaults.yaml are unchanged since Sept 2011 when their line-ending got changed.
2) Graion participated in the armor "subclassing" implementation. Asin the engine-side implementation - https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/9007 -, it's still unused in the default mods. Except that in OpenRA these exist as multiple armors and it's only a setup of usecase which armor would be used as primary which as the subclass of said primary.

May you tell me how the hell you merged the two statements together into a spaghetti?

I'll now assume that you cannot read the yamls (otherwise you could have found 1 out on your own via checking out the Inherits tags yourself) and just do random changes as you feel you should.

Makes me wonder how did you tested your GT changes. You "changed" GT armor to wood (again, check back the Inherits tags yourself, GT inherits Defense which inherits BaseBuilding whch inherits Building which says it has wood armor), edited the other defenses against-wood setting and fired them against each other, without checking the other defenses against other buildings at all? Because if you did, then my suggestion (to introduce an armor subclass to GT and balance the other defenses against the GT via strictly using this armor subclass) would be exactly the way the game should be changed after your tests.

Seriously, I'm all fine with being dismissed if I see a legit reason. What I so far seen isn't a legit reason, but the fact that you lack the necessary skills to even read the yaml to understand what the hell I'm talking about and just want to defend that via some shitty business justification.
Image
Image
Image
AS Discord server: https://discord.gg/7aM7Hm2

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

"That is the reason why. Im not good with this coding business so that will require a lot of trial and error to get done. While the solution was lobbied about half a year ago may have worked it created a loophole issue vs GT of defense structures and created a bottleneck issue. As for reverting I have no idea on how to do this and will close the PR and recreate."

Please read https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/10761 for the following line in explanation of lack of coding skills.

If you wish to use criticism then do so. Not attacks. The above statements clearly can be made errors or otherwise. But do not take attacks in hand when someone wishes to make contributions to the mod.

If additional armor types are being added you never said so in the first place. You posted a work around code for individual units. No one is out to get you for blood Graion. So take it easy please.

"Makes me wonder how did you tested your GT changes. You "changed" GT armor to wood (again, check back the Inherits tags yourself, GT inherits Defense which inherits BaseBuilding whch inherits Building which says it has wood armor), edited the other defenses against-wood setting and fired them against each other, without checking the other defenses against other buildings at all? Because if you did, then my suggestion (to introduce an armor subclass to GT and balance the other defenses against the GT via strictly using this armor subclass) would be exactly the way the game should be changed after your tests. "

Tests were not made via against other structures because the other structures had a no line armor code on it (With the exception of Construction Yard using wood armor listed.) I was unaware of a universal yaml line that based all structures off from wood. Had I have seen this I would have worked the yaml around differently. But seeing wood under Construction yard and then no other structure makes it a viable reason to assume that no structures used wood. Otherwise why does two lines use wood on wood for multi layer armors? O.o

"May you tell me how the hell you merged the two statements together into a spaghetti? "

Which two posts?

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

What the fuck does this have to do with TD balance specifically? This has more to do with coding.
Graion, don't come onto the forum post and put bullshit as well as attacking AoA just because you are butthurt over something.
Keep your bullshit on github where i don't have to read it, offer your coding suggestion and then piss off back to:
Graion wrote: the sole reason why I'm around
Image

User avatar
Norman_
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:39 pm
Location: TD Server

Post by Norman_ »

Image

heavily armored graion elite infantry armed with important notes. Special ability: Can detect bullshit. Strong vs wood armor Weak vs spaghetti
req biolab
Image

AmericanBlunt_
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:42 pm
Location: Mars

Post by AmericanBlunt_ »

[align=center]CODE:[/align]

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

The following is currently in the bleed version:

Increase power of AGT to 50 from 40.

MSAM faster reload to 45 from 100.

Increase APC damage vs light target to 105 from 100.

MLRS attack speed increase to 100 from 140.

Rocket Infantry damage increase to 35 from 30.

MCV Price increase to 4000 from 2000. Build time increase from 0:48 to 1:36.

MCV unit HP increase to 950 from 750. armor type Heavy from Light.

MCV now requires both Command Center and Repair Pad to produce.

Construction yard HP increase to 2000 from 1400.

Repair pad HP increase to 600 from 400.

MSAM trajectory speed to 300 from 341.

Grenadier damage vs light increase to 80 from 75.

Increase APC HP to 210 from 200.

Guard Tower damage vs heavy reduced to 30 from 35.

SAM damage increase to 35 from 30.

Light Tank movement speed reduced to 110 from 113.

Light Tank Cost increased to 700 from 600. (Build time increase to 17 seconds from 15)

Light Tank HP Decreased to 340 from 350.

Rocket Infantry damage vs none decreased to 30 from 50.

NOTE:

The trajectory missile mechanic turned out to be a bug and has be revert back to the original format. (IE: Currently how the missiles work in release). However, it is possible to add that mechanic back into TD. With the help of the devs hopefully can recreate this back into TD to help buff a lot of the missile units (IE: Recon Bikes.)

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

looking good
would be nice to test these
Image

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

Ideas and thoughts on GDI Guard Towers using infantry to garrison to replace weapon type?

IE: E3 inside a GT shoots rockets.

This would allow turrets to be Nod only and Guard Towers to be GDI only.

Main post link here: http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... 82&t=19511

User avatar
Norman_
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:39 pm
Location: TD Server

Post by Norman_ »

really like this idea. just tested the pillbox thing on a modmap and its fun to experiment with different garrisoned weapons for each unit.
its all about finding settings for the nod gt e3 rockets and maybe even adjusted 2nd weapons for all other infantry units too, but i guess it would be best to only have a gt for e1 and e3 first and playtesting that until it works good.
that new anti vehicle gt need some powerful rockets compared to normal e3 rockets and compared to turret gun damage because the tower has only wood armor and it just needs to be useful vs vehicles for that price. the new e3 gt rockets together with e3, which is able to get out of the tower before it gets destroyed, should be stronger than a gun turret. maybe + firerate, + dmg vs heavy, other speed settings or 2 rockets instead of just one for the e3 gt.
the (gdi) turret gun needs 12 shots to destroy one e1 unit, that must be improved then too i guess.
Image

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

Aye as far as the infantry goes I would like to start with E1 and E3 for the GT. Once that is implemented and well balanced then can start looking into other combinations. (Chem Towers anyone?)

Although keeping in mind this is to make the GT GDI only and the gun turret Nod only. I feel the gun turret should do a bit more damage then E3 GTs but I think that can make up for it due to their attack speed. Some altercations will be needed I agree to make the E3 GTs do more damage but also needing to consider --- Should it also shoot air?

The primary problem right now is working the armor for the GT. Once that is done can start looking into the garrionsable GTs.

Post Reply