MCV Balance Playtesting

[Materianer]

I agree with the post JuiceBox wrote, he exactly hits the aim.
i made some more tests with this mod and think it is nice for small games with a few players, but this should never be the reality of openra.
I agree that many normal players could leave openra then.
A "tabedit checkbox" or something would be nice but modmaps do a good job as well, like the toxic maps, it is something i can play from time to time then.

Another big problem of this playtesting maps is that nearly all of them are 1on1 maps.
How can you test this if no big team games are played on this?
This is something wich fits to the popular streams but for normal openra games?
It's like a small streaming community of really good players (many of them are Tournament players i think) wich is strongly presented in this forum.

It is okay for me if you guys try to balance Openra but this goes much too far imo.

How can you protect teammates if they get rushed in a teamgame if you have no defense ready? is one of the big questions wich goes out to you.
Its not such a big problem in a 1on1 but in a normal teamgame.
This would make it also make really hard for newbies if they can't be protected by other players. Also they get even more distracted as they already are by this shuffeled building tabs then.

@Omnom please upload some more team maps and not always the same 1on1 maps so real tests can be done.

Btw it is hard for me to say what i really want to say here because all the discussions here are on english, but JuiceBox spoke out of my heart thank you for that.

[JuiceBox]

Your very welcome Materianer

[AoAGeneral1]

I have some dislikes on the tabedit and heres the following why:

Aircraft becomes to strong. --

MCV builds become stronger --

unit production becomes stronger -- (With the lack of soviet firepower/armor that will cripple soviets)

Tech rushing is a little to fast --

Multiple ref builds becomes stronger -- (A sort of problem TD has been facing)

Money gets spent faster -- (The RA economy is unstable)

-------------------------------------

DETAILS:

Light tanks shoot faster then medium tanks. With the light tanks having a damage increase makes them stronger which isn't a bad thing. Light tanks were really bad before. Medium tanks fire faster then heavy tanks. They do the same damage as heavy tanks with the exception of a second barrel firing. However in army vs army compositions medium tanks can excel. This is due to lacking HP.

Medium Tank 450

Heavy Tank 550.

This was the same problem in TD light tanks vs medium tanks and was corrected with changing damage of the light tanks and its HP. (Very minimal change I might add. 10)

Light tank HP 340 instead of 350. Damage vs heavy 90 instead of 100.

Medium Tank HP 450. Unchanged. Damage unchanged.

This allowed medium tanks to show their stopping power and light tanks didn't become the destructive overcoming force. Light tank price being at 700 did a fair number as well but even this change was a bit much.

Light tank price changing to 650 instead of 700.

This showed improvement and worth for the light tank without it becoming a destructive force.

Finally, heavy tanks shoot slower then mammoth tanks. Wopping reload delay of 90 compared to the heavy tank 70 and medium 50 to the light tanks 13. (As of this release.)

Only difference is the mammoth tank does a 60 damage with double guns. I personally believe that the reason mammoth tanks are terrible is because of their output damage. Increasing the rate of fire will make them more dangerous. (See FiveAces game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxb9bPA_I40 )

-------------------------------------

In the end:

I do like the idea of the TabEdit though. I think its a good idea to change up build orders and create more influx of builds. But it doesn't solve the problem. That being weak tanks for the Soviets, the economy, and the base defenses. Base defenses can simply be fixed by playing with the build speed. (Something that SoScared has put up. Although it does mess with the price too. Can also check AMHOL's maps as they have edits on the defense build times.)

[zinc]

I don't feel I have the great deal of experience to have a good judgement on any of this but it came to me that these play tests have been edited with the suggestions of the top tier players but I haven't really seen the opinions of the casuals and low tier players that make up the other 95% of the community. Maybe they'd love it just as much as people are making out here but my fear is that what if the other 95% and the silent majority dislike it enough to abandon the game which means the community would probably die, just my thoughts and if blowing out of proportion with that then fair enough my bad but its a niggling feeling.

If this kind of thing solves a problem for the top level 1 v 1 games, or makes them more interesting, and many of the best players can agree on that, then just make it an option in the lobby to use for the players that like it. Same as playing without shroud or whatever.

That should keep everyone happy.

Another way to go, as has been suggested in a different thread not that long ago, is have loadable modifiers the same way we load maps off the resource centre. That way, custom rules and additional units would be much easier to experiment with, and you could see what gets popular.

[JuiceBox]

MCV builds become stronger

Would love to hear more about this considering this Mods whole porpose is to balance MCV's

[AoAGeneral1]

@Juicebox:

This is going by numbers only. However:

The MCV got an increase in build time. Instead of 32 its now 40.

The war factory went from 48 to 38. You need a war factory for an MCV.

You need a service depot for the MCV. However, if this is in the defensive tab edit you can build this while building a ref. While the ref is building you can get a 2nd ore truck out. (Probably why in some of the past tests people were able to get quick ore trucks out.)

Service depot is 29. Ref is 34. Not much of a time difference. 5 seconds. Still faster then the nerf of the MCV timer.

Depot is placed build the MCV you now have 3 ore trucks at start. Main tab can build another ref while teching and building an MCV. This is all while having a barracks out. So you both have much stronger economy and a quick MCV still being produced.

This isn't even mentioning about the WF being built faster to get to the MCV faster/tech unlocked.

As said this is going by numbers and I haven't even touched it yet. However, its up for someone else to read. Im a theory crafter and I love to create builds (Much like the ranger/E3 rush tactic).

[Materianer]

You are right AoAGeneral Soviet tanks really seem to be weaker than the allies tanks and should maybe be a bit stronger as you said with higher fire rate or something.

About the Basedefenses i can say, yes they are strong, but the allies ones will already probably be nerfed next release ( even in my opinion if it is a mistake to nerf only the allied defenses as teslas are really strong ) maybe if i have some more time and passion i will look for some replays where you can see this Omnon ( you said to me a few posts ago )
I think defenses are arty/V2 food if you are a good player or you just bypass them, it's your own fail if you run with your tanks into too many defenses.

Actually this should be discussed in another thread, same for tab edit maybe because the threadname promises something else here.

To show what could be done to the Mcv i made a map with some small changes.

http://resource.openra.net/maps/18273/

MCV cost here 2500$

has a speed of 60 ( down from 85 ) to prevent that players make a too close move to the enemy wich often ruins a game from the beginning

And the Mainbase has a cooldown of 100 tiks for each building wich is set in its range ( in td it has 75) Wich will slow the basegrow hopefully if someone comes close to you with his mcv.

I will test this tomorrow maybe one of you guys is willed to test it too and give some feedback, would be nice

[Sire]

Hi, new user here. I loved the classic C&C games (C&C, RA, RA2, TS), and been playing OpenRA for perhaps a year now. I do not really play multiplayer but do watch some of the streams and videos.

I have read through this entire topic, but have not touched the latest "mod versions" or seen any replays of it.

From my understanding of the upcoming Phase 3...
1. The purpose of this modification (as a whole) is to
- Nerf Base Pushing (Base Defenses + MCV)
- Increase viability and usage of T3 units.
- Accomplish these goals by moving the Service Depot, Radar Dome, and Tech Center to the Defensive Tab.
- Other modifications will be used as a comparison, such as the Phase 3 Tech Cost Edit.
2. Phase 3 focuses on Scouting, Static Defense Micro, and T3 vs Static Defense.

While so far the testing seems to show positive results, I do have some concerns.
1. Moving away from C&C
- I know OpenRA is not a faithful recreation of the originals, but I feel Tab Edit transforms Red Alert into a different beast entirely. It may have positive gameplay impact, but I feel like "classic tech progression" is one of the core standards of C&C games (Default -> Radar Dome -> Tech Center). An open ended build may be great for seasoned veterans and action-packed videos, but a casual player may be overwhelmed at the number of options available or the variety of ways an opponent can attack him.
2. Replacing the current system
- I applaud the efforts at balancing OpenRA and the testing involved, but I fear if Tab Edit becomes too successful, it may outright replace the current system in OpenRA. I much rather have a tweaked vanilla OpenRA than the grand change of Tab Edit. However, I am open to Tab Edit being implemented as a "Tech Level" option for those who enjoy it.
3. Lack of Early Game
- I know everyone wants to use the cool toys at T3, but sometimes it is nice to see simple Minigunners, Rocket Soldiers, and Grenadiers duke it out with minimal vehicle assistance. I think the initial problem was that Early Game promoted building defensive structures (which snowballed as the game progressed), but I would like to see an extended early game if the transition from early->mid is too fast for Phase 3.

* * * * *

Just some thoughts from a casual C&C player. Best of luck to your future efforts and testing!

[OMnom]

A quick thought, does everybody really want a much shorter early game?

It cuts away a part of the match that some people might enjoy; that calmer phase when you scout, take oil derricks, plan your base, get your economy rolling, make small-scale tactical attacks and generally try to read your opponent and think about which direction you want to go in tech.

With the cheaper WF, it's easier to scout, to plan your attack, get your eco up, and to take your oil derricks. Timewise, it does make the game slightly faster, but with regards to the pace and development of the game, it expanded the early game to include more vehicles.

There is
After having played a good chunk of matches, I conclude that I really enjoy the TabEdit version
as it allows for more flexible build paths and crazy tech rush strats.

The idea of removing the radar/SD prerequisites from the tech center is actually an Idea I proposed to Klaas after a match yesterday,
and we came to the conclusion that the only T3 unit that might be hard to counter would be a phase transport,
but even that could - if scouted - be easily denied by going triple expansion plus base defenses,
making you pull ahead in eco over someone who rushed T3.

Demo trucks, on the other hand, could wipe an entire army,
but they are a one-time-punch unit and can easily fall prey to a scouting unit.

And finally, a Tanya rush would be really good against the current mass infantry meta
but can be countered in the same way as a phase transport,
plus the global laugh being a 100% indicator for her arrival.

Keep in mind that a T3 rush would prevent you from getting T2 air/siege units as well as an MCV,
so you'd trade access to high-impact units for long-term map control.

There are a couple balance changes I don't agree with on this list,
specifically giving Chronotanks AA missiles or the cheaper WF,
but that's for another time to decide.

On to playtesting!

Glad you guys are liking the tabedit =)

You guys would probably like the TabEditRef version I made. I'm trying to go about rearranging the tech tree extremely carefully; if you guys remember, the first renditions of the tabedit forced SD before radar. With regards to changing prerequisites without the tabedit, I could possibly test those out in the next round of playtesting.

Also, don't fret too much about the tech buffs/static defense alterations I made; the purpose of the changes is to see if making tech units individually better will make the game more fluid or if it'll make the game imbalanced. If it's the latter, then we know it's most definitely because tech units are still not accessible / too expensive.

The WF change makes the game more fluid without taking anything away from the game, i'm sure you'll see the effects when you guys try it out

Problem is not enough people speak their minds. Me... I don't care I'll say what I want to say if you don't like it that's fine. I have no personal problem with Omnom or anyone else I speak out about if you take issue with what I say that's your problem. My issue. I know for a fact that there are people that don't like this Mod. I won't name names because it's quite clear they don't want to be mentioned. Why? I don't know maybe they don't want to be seen as disturbers of the peace and upset the tight knit comunity. So as it stands this thread and play testing has been running seemingly unopposed by the majority because of a lack of people willing to speak out, Giving the illusion that it has great credibility and outstanding ovations when in reality it does not! Just because people have not opposed this dosnt mean there is not opposition. You talk about the casual gamer as if they are sheep, have no say and they will fall in line and do as they are told. Why? Because a group of Better well known competitive players say so? That's bull IMO! There are more casual gamers ONLINE and PLAYING at any given time on OpenRa than competitive players. When competitive players ARE online they congregate in one 1v1 lobby speccing and half of them just sit around blowing each others trumpets.

This mod will benefit certain players more than others making strong players even stronger so obviously they will be all for it. Coupled with the beep of the bandwagon horn and the loyal fan boys jumping on the back of it no wonder this bandwagon is gaining momentum. So is this how we do business in OpenRA? Popular players have more say in the development of the game? Ram idea enough down someone's throte enough they end up swallowing it. My opinion people have far to much to say for themselves here , yes help the Devs out come up with ideas as for becoming a self appointed developer.... for god sake get your super hero cape off and just play the god damn game like everyone else!

For everyone who is opposed to this I implore you to make your feelings be known.

Am expecting some sort of backlash from the bandwagon cannon so don't hold back because I absolutely love it xxxx

This seems to be a recurring theme for you.

1) I have had many casual players help playtest my games, and less than half of them voice their opinion, and even fewer of them actually say anything constructive. It's not that casual gamers are not voicing their opinion, it's that the most common reply I get when I ask for feed back is "This is weird" , "interesting", or nothing at all. All of which are very opinionated and not constructive. There is no minimum popularity or minimum skill level you have to be in order to have your voice heard. There is, however, a minimum amount of explaining that needs to go along with your opinion, which is something many casual players don't do.

2) I've observed every single one of these games, both 1v1s and 2v2s, and I can confidently say (with proof btw) that the tabedit does not effect the majority of these players. Most of the time, they're just sitting around on pillboxes and artillery units, moving around the map on a whim, and building whatever they feel like is a good idea. The TabEdit has no effect on games that develop in this fashion. In the games where the tabedit had an effect, it was objectively more enjoyable to watch -- less static defenses, more moving around, ICs firing, mammoths being built, and I even saw 1 chrono.

3) You're free to think and feel however you want about my playtests.

That being said, why do you keep insisting that I am trying to "ram this down people's throats?" Do you really think I'm so conceited and nearsighted that I only do these playtests to serve the top 1%?

I'm not doing this because I'm a wannabe developer, and I'm not balancing it for the top 20 players in RA. I'm simply a player who wants to try and improve the game for everyone of all calibers. The developers are too busy trying to improve the UI and the capabilities of the game to worry about balance changes. It's up to the playerbase, not the top 20 players, to change the game for the better. I'm trying to get as much exposure as I can do the tabedit as I can while also trying to test out the balance changes, which is not easy and takes a lot of time.

Stop assuming that I only speak for 20 people, and stop assuming that you speak for 200 casual gamers. I've interacted with several casual gamers in the TabEdits, some of which dislike it, some of which enjoyed it.

Finally, please do not bring this political crap into this thread anymore. It's a moot argument, with no definitive answer that offers no constructive criticism whatsoever. Your point has been heard, and I'm well aware of it, so please, kindly move on.

@Omnom please upload some more team maps and not always the same 1on1 maps so real tests can be done.

Please give me a list of what maps you want. I currently have Tourney island, Doubles, Haos Ridge, Asymmetric battle, Operation Goldmine, and Tandem.

@Juicebox:

This is going by numbers only. However:

The MCV got an increase in build time. Instead of 32 its now 40.

The war factory went from 48 to 38. You need a war factory for an MCV.

You need a service depot for the MCV. However, if this is in the defensive tab edit you can build this while building a ref. While the ref is building you can get a 2nd ore truck out. (Probably why in some of the past tests people were able to get quick ore trucks out.)

Service depot is 29. Ref is 34. Not much of a time difference. 5 seconds. Still faster then the nerf of the MCV timer.

Depot is placed build the MCV you now have 3 ore trucks at start. Main tab can build another ref while teching and building an MCV. This is all while having a barracks out. So you both have much stronger economy and a quick MCV still being produced.

This isn't even mentioning about the WF being built faster to get to the MCV faster/tech unlocked.

As said this is going by numbers and I haven't even touched it yet. However, its up for someone else to read. Im a theory crafter and I love to create builds (Much like the ranger/E3 rush tactic).

Your theory is correct, and I've already seen people try to do this. The MCV comes out around 3:30 with 3 harvesters, around 4:00 with 4 harvesters. This will beat a pure tech rush most of the time, but the opposing player will have ample time to scout the service depot and opt to do a strong timing attack, before the fast MCV starts producing money and before they start making infantry in large numbers.

All in all, it doesn't seem like the fast MCV is something that is absolutely uncounterable or only counterable by going for a fast MCV as well. With that being said, I will be on the lookout for to see if fast MCVS are a problem and see if the $1600 WF is something that needs to be taken out.

I have some dislikes on the tabedit and heres the following why:

Aircraft becomes to strong. --

MCV builds become stronger --

unit production becomes stronger -- (With the lack of soviet firepower/armor that will cripple soviets)

Tech rushing is a little to fast --

Multiple ref builds becomes stronger -- (A sort of problem TD has been facing)

Money gets spent faster -- (The RA economy is unstable)

-------------------------------------

A lot of your dislikes are understandable, and I had a lot of the same worries, especially about aircraft and artillery. However, after multiple playtest games, a lot of my worries about the same issues you brought up have been quelled.

-Aircraft has indeed become very strong, which has prompted soviet reliance on flak trucks for AA and vision, and allied reliance on blobbing+vision to get rid of them. However, using them requires a lot of attention, which makes the player vulnerable to multiple attacks and, more often than not, causes them to float a lot. In addition, the aircraft player is usually behind on MCVs and/or static defense, making him even more vulnerable to other attacks.

-The 1st MCV out of the WF is stronger, but now, it's really difficult to get a 3rd or a 4th MCV. You need earlier tanks to stop the artillery from reaching a critical mass and you need the artillery to stop mass infantry since base pushing has a huge opportunity cost now. On top of that, there are so many other threats that basepushing is not going to work 100% of the time. For instance, if i decided to start a basepush, but my opponent has fast arty, i'm not going to win that engagement. I have to scout exactly what he's doing and respond appropriately.

-Unit production in RA is mostly infantry based, and the WF units are mainly there for support. TabEdit doesn't touch any of this, and its too early to tell if the cheaper WFs have made a significant impact yet (there's been only 1 game where there's been multiple WFs). Soviets don't lack firepower -- it's all in T3, which has been made more accessible by the TabEdit. Their T2 is also surprisingly good, its just really slow to build.

Regarding the state of tank vs tank battles in RA, there are very few instances where it's purely tank vs tank.; almost all army compositions involve rifle/rockets. Even the tesla, chrono, and mammoth tanks, which are the only ones capable of reliably killing infantry, are very expensive to build en masse. I've been massing light tanks for a few of these playtests, and they just melt to rocket soldiers and any type of anti-tank. The mass medium tanks still works, as they always have, and heavy tank spam is pretty good after the 2nd WF. I've also seen mammoths being built, which is a rarity.

The speed of tech rushing in the tabedit can easily be toned down with buildtime adjustments. I'd be okay with this; longer tech times means less static defenses and longer timing windows to attack.

2ref builds maybe better for early tech rushes, but i've been doing WF first builds in all of the prior and current TabEdits. Both builds are viable, and the advantages/disadvantages of both builds are not significantly different from what they are now. One concern though, is that the tabedit allows for the constant spamming of refineries, but all my competitive games involve refinery spamming anyways, so I'll have to see some more games to determine if this is an issue.

RA economy is unstable...i think I know what you're getting at, but I don't think anyone is willing to touch the RA economy. You're right about this, but with the unstable RA economy, it's best to spend the money as quickly as you can, which is why the basepush/mcv spam is so effective. What the TabEdit does is it brings the tech scaling closer to the scaling of static defenses, so now both tech and basepushing can spend and earn money on a more even pace. If we can get this to happen, then there will be more room for T3 to influence the game and less T1/T2/base defense spamming.

If we could fix the RA econoomy, how would you go about it?

To show what could be done to the Mcv i made a map with some small changes.

I will test this tomorrow maybe one of you guys is willed to test it too and give some feedback, would be nice

I will hopefully be online tomorrow to help you test this out. Many other people have taken to modding and editing due to the tabedit, which I am very thankful for. There are a lot of great ideas out there, but theres so little time to test them out.

Hi, new user here. I loved the classic C&C games (C&C, RA, RA2, TS), and been playing OpenRA for perhaps a year now. I do not really play multiplayer but do watch some of the streams and videos.

I have read through this entire topic, but have not touched the latest "mod versions" or seen any replays of it.

From my understanding of the upcoming Phase 3...
1. The purpose of this modification (as a whole) is to
- Nerf Base Pushing (Base Defenses + MCV)
- Increase viability and usage of T3 units.
- Accomplish these goals by moving the Service Depot, Radar Dome, and Tech Center to the Defensive Tab.
- Other modifications will be used as a comparison, such as the Phase 3 Tech Cost Edit.
2. Phase 3 focuses on Scouting, Static Defense Micro, and T3 vs Static Defense.

While so far the testing seems to show positive results, I do have some concerns.
1. Moving away from C&C
- I know OpenRA is not a faithful recreation of the originals, but I feel Tab Edit transforms Red Alert into a different beast entirely. It may have positive gameplay impact, but I feel like "classic tech progression" is one of the core standards of C&C games (Default -> Radar Dome -> Tech Center). An open ended build may be great for seasoned veterans and action-packed videos, but a casual player may be overwhelmed at the number of options available or the variety of ways an opponent can attack him.
2. Replacing the current system
- I applaud the efforts at balancing OpenRA and the testing involved, but I fear if Tab Edit becomes too successful, it may outright replace the current system in OpenRA. I much rather have a tweaked vanilla OpenRA than the grand change of Tab Edit. However, I am open to Tab Edit being implemented as a "Tech Level" option for those who enjoy it.
3. Lack of Early Game
- I know everyone wants to use the cool toys at T3, but sometimes it is nice to see simple Minigunners, Rocket Soldiers, and Grenadiers duke it out with minimal vehicle assistance. I think the initial problem was that Early Game promoted building defensive structures (which snowballed as the game progressed), but I would like to see an extended early game if the transition from early->mid is too fast for Phase 3.

* * * * *

Just some thoughts from a casual C&C player. Best of luck to your future efforts and testing!

Hi and welcome to Sleipnirs!

And yes, phase 3 testing is mostly about what the best way to buff tech is, and figuring out if we can make static defenses require more attention / make tech units better against static defenses. I've made the edits on 6 different maps, so we'll be able to see if the effects are dependent on the map as well.

To address your concerns:

1. I understand that the game holds a certain nostalgic value to a lot of players, some more than others. I too, was attracted initially by the nostalgia i had for this game.
I can also see how the TabEdit would make the game unfriendly to newer players. In the casual 1v1s and 2v2s matches, there were several times where a new player made an appearance, and clearly had no idea what they were doing or that they were in a TabEdit game...im sure they would've been equally lost in a normal game. The unfriendliness aspect would probably have a greater impact in a competitive setting, but as far as purely casual games go, the players are allowed more opportunities to do whatever they please.

2. Currently, the TabEdit will most likely be implemented as a Tech option, and not as a replacement for the current RA. Even so, I'm going to continue the playtests and hope that the TabEdit will be used more than the classic setup.

However, I am curious about one thing. Is the classic, slightly tweaked production order of RA a key reason why you enjoy the game? TD has multiple building queues, which in a sense, is even more of a major change than the TabEdit..what are your thoughts on this?

3. The early game is purely rifles, grenadiers, engineers, and a dog. It's gotten to the point where if map makers don't put oil derricks on the map, some players won't even build a single rifle. The $1600 WF has created a sort of early-mid game transition phase where your initial vehicle and infantry blob has a lot of power to snipe buildings, harvesters, deny expansions, and set up future attacks. Granted, this was an inadvertent result of making the WF cheaper, but so far, the players are enjoying the fact that their early apc or ranger has way more utility for a longer period of time, as compared to the current version of RA.

[Wippie]

As a casual gamer, who has played both Red Alert on CNCnet as well as OpenRA, I enjoy OpenRA for the variety of games and builds it provides. Also, it is an active, friendly and motivated community.

Investing in all this playtesting, provides a lot of data. Proper coordination and management makes us able to draw the correct conclusion, making this data become information.

From what I see, Omnom is doing a phenomenal job in collecting information.

This information can be used to present possible solutions to be implemented. The problem is already clearly mentioned: MCV's need rebalancing.

In my opinion, the main discussion at this point should be about:
- What information and solutions would you like to nominate for implementation?
- Do the solutions widen the skillcap between competitive and casual gamers even further?
- Do the selected solutions have minimum impact on the current look & feel of the game?

I love the fact who Omnom thinks about stuff like "newer players might feel more comfortable moving out when more armored vehicles come out early".

I feel at this point, a lot of more data can be collected. Maybe it's best to provide solutions at this point, and not over-analyze. Benefits are:
- Easier explanation of changes to both gamers and developers
- Minimum impact on look and feel of the current game
- Community can help collect data even faster

Also, FiveAces did a great job on casting a Hi vs Omnom TabEdit match. For those who did not see it, please check it out! https://youtu.be/bxb9bPA_I40

[OMnom]

In my opinion, the main discussion at this point should be about:
- What information and solutions would you like to nominate for implementation?
- Do the solutions widen the skillcap between competitive and casual gamers even further?
- Do the selected solutions have minimum impact on the current look & feel of the game?

This, 100%.

After this new phase of playtesting is over, the next edits coming up involve moving the MCV production to the defense tab, removing all prerequisites of T3 tech, and the "super" MCV/base pushing nerfs. Other players have actually tested out the latter, namely 100% increased build time for static defenses, 7 barracks limit, and materia's new slow MCV.

If there are any other ideas, I'm willing to test them out if it's in my power.

Thanks for helping me realign the thread Wippie =)

[Wippie]

After this new phase of playtesting is over, the next edits coming up involve moving the MCV production to the defense tab, removing all prerequisites of T3 tech, and the "super" MCV/base pushing nerfs. Other players have actually tested out the latter, namely 100% increased build time for static defenses, 7 barracks limit, and materia's new slow MCV.

If there are any other ideas, I'm willing to test them out if it's in my power.

Thanks for helping me realign the thread Wippie =)

You're very welcome. I think the amount of data might have scared a view away.

Well, I'm still curious about the deployed MCV. Any updates on this point?
Also, what happens if the cap of 7 barracks is reached, does that result in an unclickable button on the build tab?

[OMnom]

phase 3 map pack: https://www.mediafire.com/?s5e582b0bd7102q

After this new phase of playtesting is over, the next edits coming up involve moving the MCV production to the defense tab, removing all prerequisites of T3 tech, and the "super" MCV/base pushing nerfs. Other players have actually tested out the latter, namely 100% increased build time for static defenses, 7 barracks limit, and materia's new slow MCV.

If there are any other ideas, I'm willing to test them out if it's in my power.

Thanks for helping me realign the thread Wippie =)

You're very welcome. I think the amount of data might have scared a view away.

Well, I'm still curious about the deployed MCV. Any updates on this point?
Also, what happens if the cap of 7 barracks is reached, does that result in an unclickable button on the build tab?

I've just made a preliminary edit with putting the conyard in the defense tab, and removing the MCV from the WF. I'll include this in the playtesting today. Here's the link to the edit if you want to try it out for yourself as well: http://resource.openra.net/maps/18284/

I'm also obligated to update the people on the other playtests people have made.

Regarding the 7 barracks cap: Once 7 barracks have been reached, the building is unclickable unless one gets sold or destroyed. One unintended side effect of this edit was that the critical mass of artillery units was easier to get to and the game was very stagnant; players were just sitting around building WFs and massing units, which obviously gets countered by mass arty/V2 play. The pure T1/basepush spam was impossible, but it was replaced by it's equally noxious cousin, the artillery/V2 crawl.

Regarding the 100% build time increase of static defense: This edit perpetuated the T1 / static defense spam and had the opposite effect of what was intended. Since the players knew of this, rushing was extremely effective. This made WF first builds highly illogical. There is no time at all to get radar, barely enough time to get eco up since you needed more barracks for more infantry and tanks from the WF, and players are stuck spamming tank/infantry for an extremely long period of time. The games were action packed, but I would compare this type of action to the old RA mass tank battles...all in all, it was dull to watch, and it was not enjoyable to play.

[JuiceBox]

Stop assuming that I only speak for 20 people, and stop assuming that you speak for 200 casual gamers. I've interacted with several casual gamers in the TabEdits, some of which dislike it, some of which enjoyed it.

Several gamers out of as you said 200 and they were 50-50. Well that's a box ticked then.

Finally, please do not bring this political crap into this thread anymore. It's a moot argument, with no definitive answer that offers no constructive criticism whatsoever. Your point has been heard, and I'm well aware of it, so please, kindly move on.

NO.

Btw it is hard for me to say what i really want to say here because all the discussions here are on english, but JuiceBox spoke out of my heart thank you for that.

Not with a response like this

Am just wondering how it is not a political issue? Your proposing a game over haul and think that people's opinion is moot? Everyone who has commented in this post gets a quick glaze over from yourself and then you move on.

A quick thought, does everybody really want a much shorter early game?

It cuts away a part of the match that some people might enjoy; that calmer phase when you scout, take oil derricks, plan your base, get your economy rolling, make small-scale tactical attacks and generally try to read your opponent and think about which direction you want to go in tech.

This is what prompted my post. The main point here being 'EVERYBODY' no everybody does not but that dosnt matter at all because this tab eddit is the second coming!

So why not just to make MCVs slower? If you base push, you can easily undeploy and retreat. With slower MCV base pushes would be much harder. You wouldn't be able to retreat as easily and you wouldn't be able to send another MCV quick enough to back it up (in place of your destroyed one). It's really easy to "dance" with your MCV as of now.

Speaking of the speed value, why not to make them as slow as the speed of mammoths from previous releases?

A great concern of mine is that none of the players I talk to, even those at the top-level, agree on what needs to be fixed and how. Some even have entirely different visions of what direction the development of OpenRA should take.

Because balance is a completely subjective case. One could say the game is balanced at the moment and that this is fine, another would say this is grossly imbalanced and a lot needs changing. There isn't really a central definition for what balance is for OpenRA so people will always argue.

Personally, i think spamming MCVs works not because tech isn't good enough but because the power gap between structures/defences and units is too large. Units have a really difficult time bringing down defences and structures and as a result it is more worthwhile to spend your income on inexpensive turrets planted right beside your opponents base rather than an expensive army that gets shredded to pieces in the face of defensive turrets.

I dont agree with tech buildings being made differently, they feel fine as they are. SoScared and i have discussed reducing the build time for late game units such as the mammoth, longbow, chrono tank, tesla tank, cruiser, missile sub without altering their cost in order to allow players to get high tech armies out in a similar time to a lower tech army but for a higher price. This will probably be mentioned in another post.

Maybe the problem is not only with the MCV, but that most maps have too little ore per patch?

Until people can decide on what the issue actually is, testing solutions should be put on hold; its obvious that there isn't only one opinion here.

Bingo. There a so many balance issues and directions this game can go.

The real issue is, in my opinion, that base defenses simply overperform relative to their cost.
As stated previously, one pillbox costs as much as a rocket soldier and a rifleman - yet it can cull dozens of them.
And their supposed hardcounters, namely tanks, barely dent buildings

I believe this game is much closer to balanced than people say. If it was broken and in need of a large rework I wouldn’t play it as much as I do.

Another much needed change that will alleviate the stale game issue is something us players actually have some control over; better maps. I believe a new map making contest is in the works, which will give us an opportunity to introduce more maps that are conducive to the flowing gameplay that we want. I’m personally hoping for an ‘upgrade’ category to the contest, in which we could address current maps with choke point issues like Winter Storm, Desert Rats and Dual Cold Front.

As for ramming it down people's throats. These were good constructive comments that lasted till around page 3. That got a 2000 word essay as a respose so I am assuming people just got fed up of having to read through school essays and give up being spoken AT.

Balance is indeed subjective and considering that your tab eddits proposal is to balance MCV's but as AOA General stated it makes them more powerful? Considering your match vrs Lorrydriver on 5 aces stream had considerable base pushing I find your tab eddit in relevance to MCV's pointless.

Good guy Omnom. Breaks the game just so he can show the world how to fix it.

Creating a problem in order to fix it is hero syndrome.

[kyrylo]

I stopped following this thread after page 2 because it seemed to me that the discussion has diverged a bit. I find it hard to read walls of text, but I respect Omnom's courage.

Since somebody mentioned me, I'd like to say that I still think that slowing down the MCV is an easy attempt to fix the problem. Changing MCV speed to 42 (old speed of mammoths) is really easy to test because it will affect almost every game. It's also a small focused change, which I consider a good start.