lucassss wrote: ↑Mentioned it in chat but will repeat here. Change pillbox's firing to be more similar to flame tower. It fires 5-10 volleys and then it has to recharge. This will still allow pillbox to stop early flame/grenadier/rocket rushes, but prevent then from being such a beast against larger blobs.
I'm confused as to what you are asking for. Right now, the pillbox fires 6 times per volley, with each volley doing 20 damage to infantry, and it's unable to retarget another infantry with the overkill damage; the only way it damage other infantry is if the infantry walks into the AoE. This happens every 30 ticks, not counting veterancy. The flame turret shoots 2 shots every 65 ticks, which is technically supposed to kill at the same rate as the pillbox does, with added splash damage. Are you saying you want me to put a burst and a burstdelay on the pillbox?
JuiceBox wrote: ↑I thought you were also going to test Removing the building build speed increase from multiple MCV's ?
SoS and Frame have made maps testing that part out, but only to defense queue. It was more or less the same thing as increasing the price of pillboxes, and because of that, I'm skeptical about applying that nerf to every building. If none of the aforementioned tests turn out well, I'll try this one next.
Last edited by OMnom on Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
I think this can be done using burst. Note that 30 and 120 are not the best numbers, I'm just using to demonstrate my idea, a pillbox that defends against small rushes, but not against massive blobs.
This is from a post of October 27 2016. I couldn't find the thread post on the forums about allied defenses but I will leave my thoughts here.
TD Guard tower takes 24 seconds to build at 600$ pricing. power of 10. It fires only one volley:
Guard tower:
Reload Delay: 25
Spread: 683
Damage: 30
Versus armor types:
None: 100
Wood: 50
Light: 70
Heavy: 30
RA Pillbox takes 10 seconds to build at price 400$. C.Pillbox takes 15 seconds at 600$. Both at a power of 15. They both fire six volleys:
Reload Delay: 30
Spread: 128
Damage: 10 (60 after volley)
Versus armor types:
None: 200
Wood: 50
Light: 60
Heavy: 25
Concrete: 25 (I didn't know they did concrete damage.)
With them firing volleys in six shots it reduces the damage over all to armor vehicles in compared to a straight 60 damage.
10 damage of 25 heavy = 12 damage.
60 damage of 25 heavy = 15 damage. (Unless my math sucks which is known to happen.)
They do not switch targets after a unit dies however. (IE: After 3 shots kill an infantry the other 3 are shot at the ground. Then targest a new target for the full 6 shots)
I've made a Warwind edit of your PB suggestion. I made it so that it shoots 4 shots before having to wait 90s to reload. I think that should be dramatic enough to see any change in their effectiveness en masse.
Feel free to test it out in game. Let me know if you want to try it out on a different map.
_____________
Quick update:
TabEditRef - Games are a bit too wild with the extremely fast tech. Still fun to watch though, and the games played normally after the opening builds, with respect to the current patch. Base pushing works just like it still does, but now there are other things to do besides base pushing that are also effective.
Some early game builds are suspect, such as fast hinds, fast yaks, fast tanya, and fast spies. However, these builds sacrifice a lot in terms of early game map control and safety, which leads me to think that the lack of rushes and map sizes also has something to do with these builds being so effective.
TabEditWF - games are much more under control than the TabEditRef playtests, but there is still a wide range of openings you can do, and the scaling is approximately the same as early base pushing. By the time the base push for eco occurs, the tech player will be able to use aircraft (or a different tech unit) to scout it out/gain vision control, and stall it accordingly. The major difference between the two was in the eco; forcing WF before tech allows for players to build the eco necessary to support their tech. Also, hind's won't come out at the same time as harvesters do in this edit. Overall, this edit seems to be a good middle ground; the new possibilities are not apparently overpowered as they are in the RefEdit, and the old style of play is still very much possible.
Both edits feature accelerated game pace, which reduced the number of stalemate situations that commonly feature static defense spam. Because of this increase in pace, the static defense spam in the mid game had decreased by a noticeable amount. I was expecting the late-game static defense spam to be a problem, but in general, it was more effective to be proactive on the map and gaining map control (attacking + mobility) rather than being passive and trying to solidify your map control (building pillboxes everywhere). Base pushing itself still proved quite effective, as always, but it is a relatively large investment of resources on to one spot. With increased mobility and pace of the game, it was more effective to stall the base pushing player and to secure a different objective with a mobile army.
$2500 MCV 40s build time - Games played out exactly the same as the current patch, with the exception that the base pushing does get toned down a little. It's slow enough to allow the player who does not base push additional time to react and position themselves. I felt that the games lasted slightly longer, but I appear to be the only one who felt that way. I'll have to average the game time durations and compare them with normal game times after I get enough replays.
$2500 MCV 48s build time - Base pushing is nerfed to the point where it is only useful for expanding, and too risky to use it for attacking. These are just my general feelings, as a lot of this has to do with the fact that I base push early and fast. Gameplay for most players was not affected by this change. Again, I was the only one who felt like the game lasted longer than usual. With the speed of the basepush severely nerfed, there are very few opportunities for the base push to go on the offensive. The large armies that built up because of the stalemates were often met with artillery units, resulting in the common artillery/aa gun wars.
TankEdit and TechCost edits were not very good. The numbers may be wrong, but in general, they didn't stop the effectiveness of base pushing or they were too effective in stopping base pushing.
First impressions:
- I like the flow and got the feeling scouting has become more important. Some matches play out like a chess match, trying to predict what is your opponents next step, and then try to prevent this.
- Building a tech building takes roughly about 40 seconds. During this time you are unable to build defensive structures, which is really a long time
- I like the flow from low- to hightech vehicles and structures. Prerequisites for SD, WF, RD and TC are logical and explainable.
- I don't like the SD being prerequisite for Mammoths
- It's not effective to build multiple WF.
Suggestions:
- Split the building tabs in for example a low-tech and an high tech tab. Basepushing is impossible if pills and turrets are on the same tab as barracks/PP.
- Slight nerve of rocket soldiers damage vs medium and heavy armor. I would love to see more tanks being build and light tanks used for scouting and attacking harvesters.
- I don't know if this is possible: Can we place a Deployed MCV at the defense-tab instead of the vehicle tab?
Overall I would recommend to be carefull implementing changes, you could be inventing an entire new game. It takes time to adjust playstyles accordingly.
Here is a replay pack and a mappack of all the newest tests by far. I've been focusing on the mcv build time edits and comparing them to the tabedits, so there aren't that many replays of the other edits.
These are just the replays of the newest edits, not the old ones. I will release a final replay pack at the end of the playtesting.
I have talked to SoScared about streaming the 40s MCVEdit and the TabEdit builds so that the community can see how the two edits compare to each other. Stay tuned for more updates!
Wippie wrote: ↑
I've done a little bit of testing on Sidestep.
First impressions:
- I like the flow and got the feeling scouting has become more important. Some matches play out like a chess match, trying to predict what is your opponents next step, and then try to prevent this.
- Building a tech building takes roughly about 40 seconds. During this time you are unable to build defensive structures, which is really a long time
- I like the flow from low- to hightech vehicles and structures. Prerequisites for SD, WF, RD and TC are logical and explainable.
- I don't like the SD being prerequisite for Mammoths
- It's not effective to build multiple WF.
Suggestions:
- Split the building tabs in for example a low-tech and an high tech tab. Basepushing is impossible if pills and turrets are on the same tab as barracks/PP.
- Slight nerve of rocket soldiers damage vs medium and heavy armor. I would love to see more tanks being build and light tanks used for scouting and attacking harvesters.
- I don't know if this is possible: Can we place a Deployed MCV at the defense-tab instead of the vehicle tab?
Overall I would recommend to be carefull implementing changes, you could be inventing an entire new game. It takes time to adjust playstyles accordingly.
Thanks for helping playtest on your own time! I'm glad that you are liking the flow of the game so far.
Regarding your suggestions:
-Barf suggested earlier that I put eco in the defense tab instead of the tech structures. What you say is a great idea; putting refineries or barracks in the other tab may prove to be even better than putting the tech in the defense tab. However, before I start testing those combinations, I gotta get people to accept the idea of moving something to the other tab. Right now, many people are uncomfortable with the idea of touching the tabs at all, and would rather just have a nerf to the MCV.
-I'm not too keen on altering the stats of multiple units at the same time right now. Currently, I've already changed the pillbox price and the MCV price. I'm afraid that if I start doing too many small changes, we'd lose sight of the bigger picture -- nerf the MCV. If possible, I would like to stay with just the MCV stats and the pillbox stats, for the time being.
-I think it's possible to make a deployed MCV, but what would be the goal of this?
-I am being as cautious as I can with the tabedit; the prior versions forced SD before radar before I tested changing the prerequisites around. Rest assured, I'm doing my best to be as careful and as thorough as I can.
Played the bursty PB version. Pillbox is still dangerous to me when attacking a base, but if I see it beforehand then I can manage it well. It requires much more micro when using it, to make sure the bursts are spent on the right targets.
Sweeeet. All the playtests already use $600/800/800 (i think so at least), so no problem there.
__
I've sorted out through the replays, and I've selected some good games from them that you guys might like. If you've already downloaded the previous replays, you've probably already seen most of the good ones, with the exception of a couple of new games from the past couple of days.
These replays will work with the maps from the previous mediafire link above this post. If any of the replays don't work, just post here and I'll see if I can find the map.
Sorry for creating so many maps, but it was the only way to preserve the replays...
1) All defenses are built at 25% health and then have to be repaired to full health. The game auto-repairs upon placement and the construction cost is reduced to compensate for the repair cost. That way you can pop defenses but they would have to sit for a while before not being easily destroyed. (This would nerf the MCV since it becomes riskier to roll up to an enemy base just to pop a bunch of defense structures - base pushing becomes harder to do.)
2) You can't deploy your MCV inside an enemy player's build circle. They have "claimed" that land.
3) The build circle of a Construction Yard starts out at 25% diameter. It then grows to 100% over time so Conn Yards that has sat for a while will "claim" more land (meaning it'll prevent enemy MCVs from deploying nearby). If packed into a MCV the diameter is reset when redeployed. A bonus effect from this is that it becomes harder to "lean" your base (build in just one direction from the Conn Yard), which makes base pushing harder to do and you have to plan a bit better where you want the center of your base to be.
4) If two enemy build circles overlap the smaller circle will stop growing until the enemy circle goes away (meaning he either repacks his Conn Yard or it is destroyed).
Haven't read through all pages of the thread so apologies if similar has been suggested. I also realize this would need some updates in the game engine to be possible.
OMnom wrote: ↑
-I think it's possible to make a deployed MCV, but what would be the goal of this?
I think the strength of the base-push strategy lies in the fact that all of the production slots can be used, and can be used efficiently. Placing the deployed MCV in one of the building tabs, makes more time on the vehicle tab available for buiilding harvesters, tanks and light vehicles.
1) All defenses are built at 25% health and then have to be repaired to full health. The game auto-repairs upon placement and the construction cost is reduced to compensate for the repair cost. That way you can pop defenses but they would have to sit for a while before not being easily destroyed. (This would nerf the MCV since it becomes riskier to roll up to an enemy base just to pop a bunch of defense structures - base pushing becomes harder to do.)
2) You can't deploy your MCV inside an enemy player's build circle. They have "claimed" that land.
3) The build circle of a Construction Yard starts out at 25% diameter. It then grows to 100% over time so Conn Yards that has sat for a while will "claim" more land (meaning it'll prevent enemy MCVs from deploying nearby). If packed into a MCV the diameter is reset when redeployed. A bonus effect from this is that it becomes harder to "lean" your base (build in just one direction from the Conn Yard), which makes base pushing harder to do and you have to plan a bit better where you want the center of your base to be.
4) If two enemy build circles overlap the smaller circle will stop growing until the enemy circle goes away (meaning he either repacks his Conn Yard or it is destroyed).
Haven't read through all pages of the thread so apologies if similar has been suggested. I also realize this would need some updates in the game engine to be possible.
1: This just doesn't feel right.
2: This would be interesting on some of the larger, open maps. On a map as Singles/Doubles it probably would not work out.
3/4: I think you are trying to fight symptoms of 1 aspect of the game that you find is OP. The main goal of this discussion is to make multiple strategies viable, creating dynamic and unpredictable games.
