The Elephant in the room

Raising the issue of the problem with allied static defences

Discussion about the game and its default mods.

Is there a problem with Allied static defences?

Yes
18
64%
No
10
36%
 
Total votes: 28

AMHOL
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 7:24 pm

The Elephant in the room

Post by AMHOL »

The problem

Having spoken with a lot of experienced players, the consensus seems to be there is a huge problem with Allied base defences.

Current static defence stats:
  1. Pillbox
    • $400
    • 15 power
    • 10 seconds
  2. Camo Pillbox
    • $600
    • 15 power
    • 15 seconds
  3. Turret
    • $600
    • 40 power
    • 15 seconds
  4. Flame Tower
    • $600
    • 20 power
    • 15 seconds
  5. Tesla Coil
    • $1200
    • 100 power
    • 29 seconds
As you can see from the list above, an Allied player can build a pillbox and a turret for $1000 in 25 seconds consuming 55 power units. This is $200, 4 seconds and 45 less power units that a single tesla coil for a Soviet player, giving Allied players a massive advantage when it comes to base wars; couple this with superior AA, artillery and easier to control air units, a Soviet player has no chance vs an Allied player, especially when you consider how bad flame towers are and that pillboxes, like a fine wine, only get better with age - which is a shame for people who enjoy playing Soviets.

The problem also extends to Allied vs Allied match-ups, where pillbox spam has become the new camopill spam, you can build a wall of 5 pillboxes in 50 seconds at a cost of $2000 and 75 power units, this will obliterate $2000 worth of infantry in no time at all, meaning that defensive play is the better option, offence just begets losses. The defensive advantage is just too much...

The (possible) solution(s)

A few suggestions have been made for this:
  • Increase cost/build time/power consumption of Allied static defences
  • Don't allow the unit inside of the pillbox to gain veterancy
  • Don't decrease the build time of defence structures with multiple construction yards
Personally I think a combination of these is in order to fix the problem with game, but obviously there will have to be some trial and error to see what combination of values works out best.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, please leave a comment stating your opinion on the matter so that we can gauge the consensus of the community.

User avatar
Smitty
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:33 am
Location: Oklahoma

Post by Smitty »

I get destroyed by base crawlers from both factions equally. :(

User avatar
IronScion
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 12:56 am

Post by IronScion »

I hadn't realised that base defences build quicker with more MCVs. Making base defences build at a consistent rate regardless of MCVs might be a viable nerf to base-crawling.

User avatar
Aaron_Lloyd
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 5:34 am

Post by Aaron_Lloyd »

Crazy idea, how about making pillboxes (and maybe turrets) crushable by Mammoth Tanks?

AMHOL
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 7:24 pm

Post by AMHOL »

Aaron_Lloyd wrote: Crazy idea, how about making pillboxes (and maybe turrets) crushable by Mammoth Tanks?
I don't think that fixes the problem as people hardly ever build mammoth tanks, and even with the speed buff and IC they're too slow to even make an impact crushing walls as you can't follow up with an army when there are a couple of artys behind or vs a good player that micros their base defences.

AMHOL
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 7:24 pm

Post by AMHOL »

IronScion wrote: I hadn't realised that base defences build quicker with more MCVs. Making base defences build at a consistent rate regardless of MCVs might be a viable nerf to base-crawling.
Yep, everything builds quicker with more production facilities, not sure of the exact amounrs per facility but it stacks to 7 at which point you get a 50% reduction.

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

Post by Murto the Ray »

TD doesn't suffer from this issue. It's defences have a very long build time but are still potent enough to be useful.

Christian
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:34 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Christian »

Base walking is strong, very strong. But it's not just base walking it's too easy to turtle
as well. The issue is bigger on high eco maps than low eco maps since you need $$$ to
sustain pressure.

I think the issue is mainly that you can build defensive structures too fast.

I'm in favor of trying out static build time for defensive structures - with just 2 MCV's
the defensive structures will be build 15% slower than now and the difference will be even bigger with +3 MCV's.

The price for some defensive structures could be adjusted a bit as well.

User avatar
FiveAces
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:22 pm
Location: Vienna
Contact:

Post by FiveAces »

Totally agree on the issue with defensive structures, but instead of nerfing their potency I'd settle for a cost and build time increase,
possibly coupled with the static build time you mentioned.

Static D is supposed to be placed in key locations, not spammed all over the place to turn half the map into a no-go area.

How about $500 pills, $700 turrets/camos and a build time closer to Tiberian Dawn (Guard towers take 23 seconds to build IIRC) ?

Blackened
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Post by Blackened »

Murto the Ray wrote: TD doesn't suffer from this issue. It's defences have a very long build time but are still potent enough to be useful.
I think TD doesn't suffer the same issue in part because of the build time, in part because of less potent structures, but also because army mobility is much higher in TD than in RA.

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

Post by Murto the Ray »

Blackened wrote:
Murto the Ray wrote: TD doesn't suffer from this issue. It's defences have a very long build time but are still potent enough to be useful.
I think TD doesn't suffer the same issue in part because of the build time, in part because of less potent structures, but also because army mobility is much higher in TD than in RA.
Thats a valid point. TD units generally have a higher view range than firing range too, meaning you are more likely to see a defence before you run into it

User avatar
MustaphaTR
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:38 am
Location: Kastamonu, Turkey

Post by MustaphaTR »

I doubt increasing power for defences would have much effect against Turtles and Base Crawlers but increasing Allied ones for balance may be good.

I'm not a fan of removing more CYard, speedier build effect for it may ne nerfed (2CYard will do same change to defences that 1 does to normal Structures.) Also their normal build Time can be increased by 50%-75% and cost by 20%-25%.

Balancing those would require a lot of testing so it would be good if someone makes some test maps.

klaas
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:38 am

Post by klaas »

I agree with the allied base defences being to easily spammable. Whenever I play allies, I also just cue endless pillboxes. It just works, effortlessly. This kills some of the strategic sneak attack parts of the game, its hard to attack an allied base with a smallish squad of infantry. All in all, spam of static base defences makes the game less fun, which is an important reason to change it.

Making allied base defenses more expensive (600 for a pillbox, 700 for a turret/camo sounds OK to me) would increase their build time too, which makes sense IMHO.

I think Soviet base-defences are OK. Testlas are also pretty strong, but it takes far longer to spam them, and they need a lot of power.

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 529
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

Im sure frustrations must double in teamgames because RA doesnt have wait time between placements so an entire team can drop their structures anytime
Image

User avatar
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Post by JOo »

since the problem here arent allies defense-structures being cheaper but allies being better at basewalking because of cheaper defense-structures

The (possible) solution(s)
  • Change the "Start-unit" (MCV) to a "Start-structure" being the Construction Conyard , add new lobby option to "lock" Construction-Conyards from getting undeployed once they are deployed
  • Make it impossible for all defense-structures to target "static structures" (that includes enemy defense structures)... so they can only attack moving targets ... units
that would help massively against early baserushes

because increasing the price for allies defense structures wouldnt out of the sudden stop people from baserushing ...

instead of making allies and soviet "equally" good at baserushing ... we should make it harder to baserush overal
Last edited by JOo on Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Post Reply