RA Current Balance Discussion

Give your thoughts and feedback!

Discussion about the game and its default mods.

How balanced do you think RA isat the moment?

Everything is very balanced!
14
45%
Soviets are underpowered!
10
32%
Allies are underpowered!
7
23%
 
Total votes: 31

Murto the Ray
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm

Post by Murto the Ray »

Allied artillery cant simply be nerfed without buffing another allied unit(s). Artillery forms the backbone of many allied strategies and nerfing it would make allies quite weak. For such a change something has to be considered: what should Allies be about? Then the focus of allied balancing should be based off of this. For example: Allies is all about cheap, fast units that can hit & run but dont really pack much of a punch on their own (this is pretty similar to allies atm). So the arty should have it's damage nerfed and the speed of other units (such as the medium tank) buffed to continue this theme. Simple but game changing but again this is only a crude example :\

Its clear that longbows being buffed will help liven things up for allies but it wont be game changing since they are so damn expensive. I'd like some more discussion on this as arty spam is so powerful vs new players and isnt very exciting either which can disuade them from playing RA :\

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

The strengt of the artillery is strongly situational. On team games or close encounters with map chokes, more often than not the artillery is a deciding factor. On most 1v1's or on open-ended maps the artillery is weak and a liability.

The Allied faction is an early favorite among new players because 1) they play mostly team games, for the sociability and safety in numbers 2) choked maps are preferred because they are more straight forward. These add up to regularly siege'ey clusterfuck games. Unless a player moves on to try other matchups this isn't going to change.

This isn't unique to OpenRA. Most RTS have an early favorite faction or strategy because of its' straightforward nature.

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

If something is considered over-powered you dont need to make changes to other units unless it is changes to deal with the OP unit (eg. shock troopers + yaks). I legitimately feel the arty range is way too long. I implore people to look at the arty from TD, it has a significantly smaller range but more damage and it works for its situational work. Im not suggesting to use TD stats but it shows that you dont need the incredibly massive range the arty currently has.

The current arty range is incredible when you compare mods and sure they are "completely" different mods it still doesnt make sense why RA needs almost double TD's range. It promotes leaving your units in your base and just focusing on vision. You can also nerf V2 range if you want to keep that particular aspect of their distinctiveness however I think the fact one shoots missles and one shoots artillery bullets is the distinctiveness as they both do more damage to particular targets.
Image

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc »

Murto the Ray wrote: I'd like some more discussion on this as arty spam is so powerful vs new players and isnt very exciting either which can disuade them from playing RA :\
I'm not sure it's a good idea to change things because new players find it very difficult to deal with. They would also find it very difficult to deal with a couple of APC filled with flame troops. That will seem way overpowered to new players and it isn't fun to lose your mcv early in a game from a rush tactic!

Murto the Ray
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm

Post by Murto the Ray »

zinc wrote: -Snip-
Thats not quite the same. Something like a flamer rush can quite easily be stopped if scouted; if it goes badly then that often spells the end for the attacking player. (Also a double flamer rush is pretty unrealistic as it would drain economy massively and come at a time when the opposing player would have enough defence + army to stop it dead in it's tracks. But lets ignore that since the point is that rush/all-in tactics could be considered OP)

My argument for arty spam isnt so much that it is OP and that new players hate it but that it encourages boring and non-varied gameplay that wins matches.

I dont mind leaving things as they are because at the end of the day the game is pretty well balanced at the moment but i would really like to see more active gameplay encouraged for allies instead of giving them a unit that can reliably win games with little help while they sit back in their base.

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

Post by epice »

Reduce arty range (I'd say to 2/3rds what it is)+ make V2 missiles targetable by anti-aircraft weaponry, like the V3 in Red Alert 2.

Reduce AA Gun range so you cant so easily hide arties behind a single AA gun when base camping/walking.

Bring back the artillery chain explosion so you have to actually micro them or risk losing all of a group to one attack.

Butt... reducing arty range give you even less ways to deal with naval attacks but I think navy shit should be changed a lot anyway.

Murto the Ray
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm

Post by Murto the Ray »

epicelite wrote: Reduce arty range (I'd say to 2/3rds what it is)+ make V2 missiles targetable by anti-aircraft weaponry, like the V3 in Red Alert 2.
I understand the range by why the aa targeting? Can you explain your reasoning?
epicelite wrote: Reduce AA Gun range so you cant so easily hide arties behind a single AA gun when base camping/walking.
Don't know about this one; allies dont have good ground aa and dialing back the aa gun's range may just make this more noticeable and easier to exploit.
epicelite wrote: Bring back the artillery chain explosion so you have to actually micro them or risk losing all of a group to one attack.
I think this still exists but isnt as potent
epicelite wrote: Butt... reducing arty range give you even less ways to deal with naval attacks but I think navy shit should be changed a lot anyway.
Navy vs land isnt greatly balanced but then they also dont affect each other much. I dont think this should have too much say in whether artillery is changed or not.

User avatar
Graion Dilach
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 5:57 pm

Post by Graion Dilach »

Beware of suggesting destructable RA2 V3-alike projectiles! The RA2 V3 was a joke, because neither the damage potential nor the range justified it, and the projectile speed was too slow to actually reach anyone who had a basic AA. (The ship missiles still had potential though.)

(We also don't have the logic for that atm.)
Image
Image
Image
AS Discord server: https://discord.gg/7aM7Hm2

yellow (theRaffy)
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:24 pm

Post by yellow (theRaffy) »

Spies should be given to solely Britain
I support that suggestion. Spys are damn powerful. and should be a subfaction special

Mammoths are underpowered
I noticed that nobody is building them atm.
autoheal and anti air, makes them strong.
hmm. they still rock in mass, with some dogs to eat rocket inf., but,
Mammoths are a hint and run unit in my opinion, because they can heal. So ya, maybe slightly increase of speed could help more mammoth to get out of base def. trouble

Allied late game is underwhelming, something to make allied tech have a bigger difference should be introduced

chrono and gps is good enough in my opinion.

longbows are underpowered (Fire too slowly, dont do enough damage vs armor)
I agree they should be the allies flucktruck. good vs air but bad vs ground units.

Migs should have anti-air capabilities
not needed, if missle subs have some.

Missile subs should have an anti-air capability
Agree"!! I also could think of a sub, just dedicated to that job, with a flaktruck turret on top

gunboats should have an anti-navy role
neutral to this suggestion

More untis/buildings should detect spies
na, not needed. but make them more expensive. 500

MAD tanks, nuff said
There were great suggestion. I like that 1madtank idea like the tanya and the other stuff. additionally Im stilll suggesting that he should be able to pass water like a narval
(just slow) would make him even more mad.

devilslayersbane
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:42 am

Post by devilslayersbane »

Suggestions for the Arty:
-Make it more expensive (as well as a price increase for the V2)
-Make it fire slower
-Make it a force-fire only.

newwe
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:07 pm

Post by newwe »

devilslayersbane wrote: Suggestions for the Arty:
-Make it more expensive (as well as a price increase for the V2)
-Make it fire slower
-Make it a force-fire only.
Force-fire only - lol. A slight nerf to artillery could be ok (one of cost/rate of fire/slightly more explodable/slightly less range). V2s definitely don't need a nerf imo.

Murto the Ray
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm

Post by Murto the Ray »

Bump - What about making Migs/Longbows as cheap as hinds/yaks or just cheaper in general. They'd have to be flying mammoth tanks to be good enough to be built enmasse atm.

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

I noticed that grenadiers do very little damage to a pillbox (camo pillbox is what i saw specifically)
10 grens were having a lot of difficulty
Image

Murto the Ray
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm

Post by Murto the Ray »

Greadiers and flamethrowers have the least damage vs defense structures of all infantry although i think that its justified by the fact that they rip through buildings

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

thats a fair point for the flamethrowers, but l just did some testing and it took 10 grenadiers 33 seconds to kill a pillbox.
if thats intended then i understand but its a really long time for units who are meant to destroy buildings, especially compared to 10 rocket soldiers which takes 1 second
Image

Post Reply