So, this has been discussed several times on the BTT streams and between most players in the corners of this forum.Defenses at the moment are the same cost as most basic vehicles yet are able to do damage which you have to trade armies to overcome.
Also, because of their cost-effectiveness they can be used as a substitute for units by simply parking an MCV close to an opponent's base and snaking into them with defenses and cheap units.
Personally, i feel as if base defenses can be massed too easily (especially for allies players; but that's me being biased to soviets :p). I prefer big army style games where early harassment is possible and happens Although, with further thought, i believe it may just take time for counters to be created for base pushing.
Any significant change made to defenses will put red alert gameplay on it's head, so take some time to come to a final conclusion. Discuss below!!......
Last edited by Murto the Ray on Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
scorp wrote: ↑is it really a problem of base defenses being too strong or, rather, of base walking being the only best allied strategy in competitive MP?
Base walking can be used by either faction, its powerful no matter who uses it. I'd like to see an expansion on your initial opinion though There is nothing holding allies back in terms of army vs army combat, if that is what you are implying.
then let me rephrase it: stationary defenses are IMHO only OP in the context of basewalking. For their original, intended purpose, i think they're mostly okay. Maybe the AA gun is OP but that's always open to debate.
so rather than nerfing base defenses, the mechanic of basewalking should be tweaked, otherwise, the nerf might affect too much of the game.
Thinkable are cooldowns for base defenses to be build in the radius of a freshly deployed conyard, cooldowns for additional MCV's on deploy/undeploy, build radius limitations on additional mcv's, etc.
the question i want to raise is whether instead of nerfing certain base defenses, a general nerf for basewalking would favor the game more. But that's just my two cents
If ways of tweaking the game so that base walking is much more difficult to pull off were found, id be fully supportive Its just such a general topic with so many factors affecting it that it can be difficult to determine what should be changed. Perhaps defenses shouldn't be able to be placed in an opponent's build radius, but then it means the player being base walked cant use defenses either. I don't have a good idea to stop basewalking in RA, aside from increasing the price of defenses so that they aren't as spammable or just increasing their build time if that is possible.
higher Price or custom build times (takes longer to build with the same Price tag) wouldn't help much i think. Players usually prepare these defenses before they deploy the MCV in a tactical advance. With higher Price or custom build time, they'd just wait a few seconds longer for their push, but the push would be equally effective.
I think the rule changes would have to be more drastic to have an effect. Like you could only place structures in the build radius you had when you begun building the structure in question instead of being able to place anywhere in your current build radius. That way, you couldn't prepare the defenses in advance. On the other Hand, such a change would also cause a few weird results.
It's certainly easier to change the balancing of defense structures, true. But it'll offset the gameplay in many other situations, so i think it's pretty hard to get it right.
scorp wrote: ↑
It's certainly easier to change the balancing of defense structures, true. But it'll offset the gameplay in many other situations, so i think it's pretty hard to get it right.
Indeed, and i'm sure others will want to share their opinions and their own solutions too
Another thing to bring up is what is the main counter to static defense? Long range Artillery/V2. Maybe it's worth discussing ways that Artillery/V2s can be more effective at their job.
I made this post in another thread which hasn't gotten a response but again it relates to this topic so I will bring it up here.
avalach21 wrote: ↑On the current release, one of the most annoying things is how an artillery or a V2 will drive to the location of a targeted structure that you tell them to shoot at if it still appears in the shroud (from your POV) but it is actually no longer there. I'm not sure if this is intended behavior or an oversight, but I for the life of me could never imagine why you would want your slow, fragile, critically important long range V2s/Artillery to drive right up into the enemies base/ line of defense just because the targeted structure has been destroyed or sold in the meantime
Logically, they shouldn't even know if the structure is there or not if you don't have sight, so IMO they should behave the same and just shoot at the target area as if it is there until you verify otherwise with sight. If anything it's kind of a cheat to tell you whether the structure is there or not based on their behavior when you don't actually have sight, but obviously in a game such as this where every millisecond counts, you (at least, speaking for myself, I) dont have time to click a target, wait and closely watch to see how it behaves, and then make more adjustments, meanwhile you have 50+ other things that need ur immediate attention.
It's your responsibility to pay attention and listen and wait for the structure explosion sound effect, or to do some estimation and math in your head as to whether the structure is destroyed or not, or simply ensure that you have proper sight of the target. I shouldn't have to force attack the target area for them to behave that way, it should be the default behavior IMO, as I can't imagine any circumstance where you would want your unit to drive right up to that location.. If this is not the proper place to discuss lmk and I will open a separate thread.
So basically, Defenses are powerful. The best counter is artillery/v2s. I find that i click to target a tesla or turret or whatever because everyone is base creeping, but i end up losing sooo many artillery because I target a tesla or turret etc that has since been blown up or sold and my artillery drives straight into their line of defense. This makes countering base creep a painstaking exercise in meticulous micro and I end up losing so many fragile long range units because my artillery/V2 decided for one split second to move up into their defenses range, and by the time they respond to my inputs to cancel their stupid decison, with all the lag and their awfully slow turning speed, theyre already long gone.
But regardless of my struggles with micro, maybe there's other considerations we can discuss to making the direct counter to base defenses more effective as a solution to this issue.
I think large army plays should be a bit more viable, a few tanks should really be able to "tank" the defences and get to the arty. IMO arty and v2s don't need buffs, they are used excessively as they are and making them stronger only makes base pushing stronger.
Also, i think the v2s/arty should just not shoot at the buildings under the shroud if they are not there, buildings remaining under shroud incentives scouting.
defenses build to fast. Pillbox is 10 seconds. Turrets are 15 seconds. and camo pillbox is 15 seconds. The AA gun is 20 seconds. Flame turret is also 15 seconds and the Tesla is 29 seconds. Samsites are 18 seconds.
In TD the build times are much higher. Turrets are 24 seconds and so are Guard towers. The Advanced guard tower is 47 seconds. Obelisk at 50 seconds.
In fact several patches ago (About a year or more) AGT in TD used to build much faster. But it was increased in build time due to quick base defenses.
All the tanks and vehicles build way to long compared to defense structures. While in TD its the opposite. Units build much faster then defenses. So placing your defenses down in TD requires more precision. Because if you make a mass amount of AGTs or otherwise you will get outnumbered with units. This can't happen in RA.
I would like to see how longer build times for turrets/coils play out.
I'm unsure of nerfing PBs/FTs as I think BARR walking would be harder to defend against - mainly for sovs. Allies have hinds, artys, tanya and PBs to push back infantry, sovs only have FTs and V2s really...
Either that or have MCVs increased in price by $500 - $1000 but with the same build time. At the moment $2000 for an expansion is crazy cheap considering a newly placed REF can make up that amount in four dumps in just over a minute.
What makes AA-guns ûber powerful is that they are capable of firing into shroud without seeing their targets. For example, they make a couple of shots at a Mig, then the Mig escapes outside of AA's vision (but not range) and the AA gun still keeps firing at it and successfully kills it. The AA gun should not fire at something it cannot see, even if it is in its range. I think AA guns have a ridiculous range for their cost.
It would be pretty hard to balance defense structures, but I would fix the issue I mentioned and probably made them more expensive and longer to build, leaving their range. The main idea is to prevent spamming them and use them more tactically. Soviets have to place their SAM-sites very carefully (especially the initial ones). The same should work for Allies.
Summarizing on AA guns:
* fix the bug
* boost price to $1200 so it is equal to the coil's price
* boost production time to 29s so it is equal to the coil's time
* leave range as it is
Yes, "base walking" and arcade long-range exchange of fire (Artillery, V2) are very annoying.
But nothing will be changed in core rules until someone will make new map-mod with better gameplay.
We need one HERO, who can take lading role in creating this map-mod and we all will support him.....
New map-mod can be developed in two ways :
1) More fun and relaxing gameplay
2) More strategic depth gameplay
Some ideas for crazy radical mode:
- Remove Artillery and V2
- Create new effective good armoured short-range anti-infantry units
- Remove All turrets except AA.
- Rule against "fast rush": Give to the players at the start unique unit what can transfer to unique "Defence center" building. "Defence center" allow to create anti-infantry turrets. But after 3-5 minutes of the game all Defence centers will be destroyed using LUA-script. So no new turrets can be created
Although, with further thought, i believe it may just take time for counters to be created for base pushing.
