The Elephant in the room

[Materianer]

I say NO to this idea, because i don't think there's a problem with those structures.
Of course are they cheaper compared to the soviet ones. Remind that Teslas got much more range than Turrets or pillboxes.

You guys really want to tell me Soviets are the weaker race? That must be a bad joke oO

Soviets had the mammoth speed buff and the missilesub buff. Luckily the changes where not too big except of the sub change this seem to be annoying as an allied player, but have to test this more if you still got a slight chance with ships.
Was already hard before this change.
Also think about the arty range nerf and camo pillbox nerf.
I really don't see a problem with the defenses, and allies need a Taktik to win a game.
But i like JOo's idea wich would also hit the Soviets.
"
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

"

[AMHOL]

Check out these replays for demos of the issue, one is me vs Omnom in which I lost, but it was much harder than it should have been for Omnom, there's also Frame vs MT in which Frame won due to surrender

[Blackened]

Here's a silly idea, would it change anything if base defenses had increased power draw but also went offline when power was low(like Tesla and AA currently do)?

Sure base pushing is still going to be a thing but now power plays a bigger role in it. Right now as allies when you base push you can use rax+pill+turret and only need to build the occasional pp. If those all went offline when low power it would stall basepushing. It would also increase the time it takes to base walk as you would have to split your time between rax and pp's. I think it also brings in the possibility of sniping power with a hit and run detachment somewhere else on the map.

I think you see this in soviet vs soviet games with basepushes.

[anjew]

I say NO to this idea, because i don't think there's a problem with those structures.
Of course are they cheaper compared to the soviet ones. Remind that Teslas got much more range than Turrets or pillboxes.

So Soviet pay twice as much, wait twice as long and use up twice as much power for the extra 2 cells when a good allies player will just put another power plant or barracks down and then the turret next to the tesla coil, which is perfectly proficient at killing teslas.(for half the cost,half the wait and half the power)

Soviets had the mammoth speed buff and the missilesub buff. Luckily the changes where not too big except of the sub change this seem to be annoying as an allied player, but have to test this more if you still got a slight chance with ships.
Was already hard before this change.
Also think about the arty range nerf and camo pillbox nerf.
I really don't see a problem with the defenses, and allies need a Taktik to win a game.

Arguably those changes are incredibly benign. They have hardly altered battles at all yet you claim because of it Soviet are strong and Allies now have no tactic?
Basewalking + arty is hardly a taktik. May I ask what the Soviet tactic to win a game is? They don't have any tactic as straight-forward as build defence structures and artillery.

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

I like this idea but it's not a fix either, its more like sweeping it under the carpet.

[kazu.]

First of all, yes something is wrong about the basedefences of allied factions. But same goes for soviet factions.
I heavily favour a buff for soviets factions base defences rather than nerfing allied factions ... again.
We probably end up nerfing allied factions to a point where it is no fun to play them anymore.
I think the problem isn´t that allied D is too powerful, but soviets D beeing a joke compared to it. You guys already stressed out the point about buildtime/powerconsumption.
Even if there were no pillboxes to compare with a flamethrower would remain a lousy defence structure. So why don`t buff the flamethrower to make it a viable defence ?

I am really terrified by the idea of the mcv being static forever once deployed. Why dont we sweep that indea under the carpet ? Promptly.

And i agree that denying the whole base-push-concept wouldn´t fit it either.
I think we don´t wanna deny any options. Especially now that the competitive scene of openra is growing and developing so nicely.

#ProBuff #ContraNerf

[AMHOL]

First of all, yes something is wrong about the basedefences of allied factions. But same goes for soviet factions.
I heavily favour a buff for soviets factions base defences rather than nerfing allied factions ... again.
We probably end up nerfing allied factions to a point where it is no fun to play them anymore.
I think the problem isn´t that allied D is too powerful, but soviets D beeing a joke compared to it. You guys already stressed out the point about buildtime/powerconsumption.
Even if there were no pillboxes to compare with a flamethrower would remain a lousy defence structure. So why don`t buff the flamethrower to make it a viable defence ?

I am really terrified by the idea of the mcv being static forever once deployed. Why dont we sweep that indea under the carpet ? Promptly.

And i agree that denying the whole base-push-concept wouldn´t fit it either.
I think we don´t wanna deny any options. Especially now that the competitive scene of openra is growing and developing so nicely.

#ProBuff #ContraNerf

I agree that removing the option to undeploy MCVs is a bad idea, but I don't think that buffing Soviet defences solves the issue, you can still close off areas of the map by spamming pillboxes all over it.

A while ago I thought of adding "foundations" to defence structures, so rather than taking up a single tile they would take up a 3x3 patch, this would stop them from being spammed in one area, this alone could be a good solution IMO.

[JOo]

I am really terrified by the idea of the mcv being static forever once deployed. Why dont we sweep that indea under the carpet ? Promptly.

funny you say that .... i was talking with paul about this (one of our main-developers) an he was interested on this idea ...

he also said, that the original red alert had an option to "autodeploy" ... so there must be something to it ... regarding "deployed" ... or "fixed" conyards

@AMHOL :

i can see where this thread is coming from ... i recently (2 days ago) played also against OMnom (Barf) and got wrecked pretty hard with his agressive strategy

so basicly what he is doing , is building up a good economy ... starts producing infantry ... and then basewalks the shit out of you ... i did use the same strategy (not as good performed as barf) against OzzyOuzo ... and this got me +2 games which i should have actually lost ... ozzy is a very good player

dont forget that barf is playing in the masters ... so whatever he is doing ... this doesnt come out of nowhere , he is currently playing a lot of games (but i also saw him losing games this week) ...

simply choosing to use a basewalk , doesnt mean you gonna win with it 100% all the time

[klaas]

I like blackened's suggestion of increasing the power usage, and disabling at least turrets at low power.

I also think allied base def needs to be more expensive, buffing the Soviet defense will only increase base defense spam. #stopspam #pronerf.

Stopping MCVs from undeploying is a horrible idea. Let's shelf this asap.

[JOo]

lol turning off turrets on low power ... you guys are aware that allies should be different from soviets right ?

should spies then power down allies turrets too ? #stopkazu #klaassmells

this is an absolutely disgusting idea , lets quickly move on from this

#SovietDickSuckers

[Norman_]

stealth turret that explodes after 5mins countdown if theres no target, mcv should be able to fly and light tank should crush mammoths - just make mod maps, test stuff and see how stuff works

[AMHOL]

lol turning off turrets on low power ... you guys are aware that allies should be different from soviets right ?

should spies then power down allies turrets too ? #stopkazu #klaassmells

this is an absolutely disgusting idea , lets quickly move on from this

#SovietDickSuckers

JOo I'd appreciate it if we could keep this topic civil, it's OK to disagree but please feed back your opinion with logical reasoning rather than insults.

[AMHOL]

I am really terrified by the idea of the mcv being static forever once deployed. Why dont we sweep that indea under the carpet ? Promptly.

funny you say that .... i was talking with paul about this (one of our main-developers) an he was interested on this idea ...

he also said, that the original red alert had an option to "autodeploy" ... so there must be something to it ... regarding "deployed" ... or "fixed" conyards

@AMHOL :

i can see where this thread is coming from ... i recently (2 days ago) played also against OMnom (Barf) and got wrecked pretty hard with his agressive strategy

so basicly what he is doing , is building up a good economy ... starts producing infantry ... and then basewalks the shit out of you ... i did use the same strategy (not as good performed as barf) against OzzyOuzo ... and this got me +2 games which i should have actually lost ... ozzy is a very good player

dont forget that barf is playing in the masters ... so whatever he is doing ... this doesnt come out of nowhere , he is currently playing a lot of games (but i also saw him losing games this week) ...

simply choosing to use a basewalk , doesnt mean you gonna win with it 100% all the time

I don't see base walking as the main issue TBH, especially in an Allied vs Allied match up, the main issue is turtling IMO, because you can place 4 pillboxes in no time and, if micro'd correctly, the area becomes a complete no-go zone.

OMnom is not Barf BTW, he's a relatively new player but he is very good, he came from SC.

[OMnom]

Hi guys

I'm in favor of some slight cost/build time/damage adjustments to deter spamming the pillboxes, but I would also like to propose increasing the damage tanks to do pillboxes in particular. Clearly, pillboxes are meant to be anti-infantry, and they do an excellent job at that. However, the allies' supposed counter to pillboxes -- tanks and artillery -- are so slow at killing pillboxes that a handful of rocket soldiers is more than enough to clean up the tanks before the pillboxes are destroyed. I've tried busting through with radar jammers + tanks, but this barely breaks through the pillboxes alone, let alone the infantry/arty/tank support behind it. I would rather try to break through a line of mammoth tanks than a line of pillboxes...

As far as Soviets go, increasing projectile speed of flame towers is an absolute must. If infantry can dodge anti-infantry flames, why even bother building flame towers? Tesla coils are also incredibly frail for their time/power/cost; I wouldn't be opposed to a nerf to the coils in exchange for less build time/cost/power.


Also, on a minor side note, I think nerfing the sale price of static defense to 1/4 or something lower than 1/2 its value would make people think twice about massing static defense early in the game. A lot of people mention the value in dropping pillboxes/flame tower to snipe something, and then immediately selling off with minimal net loss.

This last suggestion is more of a gimmicky request, but would it be possible to have flames damage the unit inside of a pillbox? I mean, flamethrowers have been used in WWII to clear out bunkers and pillboxes...just saying hahaha

Also, I'm flattered that JOo thought I was Barf :3

[JOo]

my bad ... not barf ... their ips dont match ... fixed those lines

Hi guys

I'm in favor of some slight cost/build time/damage adjustments to deter spamming the pillboxes, but I would also like to propose increasing the damage tanks to do pillboxes in particular. Clearly, pillboxes are meant to be anti-infantry, and they do an excellent job at that. However, the allies' supposed counter to pillboxes -- tanks and artillery -- are so slow at killing pillboxes that a handful of rocket soldiers is more than enough to clean up the tanks before the pillboxes are destroyed. I've tried busting through with radar jammers + tanks, but this barely breaks through the pillboxes alone, let alone the infantry/arty/tank support behind it. I would rather try to break through a line of mammoth tanks than a line of pillboxes...

As far as Soviets go, increasing projectile speed of flame towers is an absolute must. If infantry can dodge anti-infantry flames, why even bother building flame towers? Tesla coils are also incredibly frail for their time/power/cost; I wouldn't be opposed to a nerf to the coils in exchange for less build time/cost/power.

That actually convinced me ...

This last suggestion is more of a gimmicky request, but would it be possible to have flames damage the unit inside of a pillbox? I mean, flamethrowers have been used in WWII to clear out bunkers and pillboxes...just saying hahaha

excellent idea ... i remember when i did work out the balance in the past together with Scott ... that i mentioned this ... to allow flamethrowers to make an pillbox "empty" ... the reason why this never got in ... is because people were worried that this could make apc-flamethrowers unstoppable ...

but the idea is a good one ... maybe we could add a chance for the pillbox-passenger to "ignite" when flamethrowers hit the pillbox ... a low chance ... and when he ignites , he will run out of the pillbox ( the burning frames) and die ... leaving an empty pillbox ...

there was the same idea with grenadiers ...

[Smitty]

I'm totally in favor of nerfing static, but I do agree with kazu that it's important to preserve as many play options as possible. I think a big part of this issue lies with map design rather than game balance. There just aren't that many maps designed for 1v1 play that discourage base crawling and/or turtling.
Not calling out map makers; I'm trying to make a couple myself and making my flowing map idea work is hard without leaving the thing cliff-less. What I would like to see is a tile in the editor that allows free unit movement but no building placement. I'm thinking lighter shaded grass or shadowed snow. Making the big water crossing shore up with the grass instead of water could make for "marshland" tiles which could serve the same function.