OpenRA

,

.

There was ABSOLUTELY but ABSOLUTELY no need for this one: >Reduced production speed bonus from high-tech units (Mammoth Tank, Tesla Tank, Mobile Gap Generator, Mobile Radar Jammer, Chrono Tank, Phase Transport, MiG, Longbow, Missile Submarine, Cruiser)< This by itself really ruins the game completely. Mammoths were reduced to almost heavy tank specs and then fixed to 42 seconds of production time? Come on, someone really lacks common sense.

This is the ultimate 1v1, low-tech OpenRA version, just make infantry and light tanks and spam spam spam.
MIGs seem to be but a total waste of resources, nobody will use them, just take them out completely and mammoths too.

"Just wanted to say, you also did it AGAIN"

the playtest cycle was very very long this time with all the opportunity in the world to test those changes before they make the release.

In fact, teamgame feedback (because those complains are just teamgame gameplay related and by anticipation not even experience by testing) would have been very appreciated.

It is alwais the same stupid reaction, you stay on release playing the same thing over and over when your contribution on playtest is important too.

So, be our guest and don't download as written, go be unreasonable on another game.

First, hello again, I've thought that you had already left the community a year ago after saying you won't be wasting time on it, seems like you did stay, so welcome back.

pointbreak wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:46 pm

>Ranks are now visible to all players
Crackpot idea.

Valuable comment!

pointbreak wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:46 pm

>Reduced production speed bonus from high-tech units (Mammoth Tank, Tesla Tank, Mobile Gap Generator, Mobile Radar Jammer, Chrono Tank, Phase Transport, MiG, Longbow, Missile Submarine, Cruiser)
Nerfs mainly soviets, artificially bloats up importance of medium tanks. Destroyers can still be built quickly, so can medium tanks.

>Tesla Tank health from 45000 to 40000
Nerf soviets.

>Mammoth Tank missile range reduced from 8 to 6.5 cells, vision reduced from 7 to 6 cells
Nerf soviets.

Luftwaffe wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:14 am

There was ABSOLUTELY but ABSOLUTELY no need for this one: >Reduced production speed bonus from high-tech units (Mammoth Tank, Tesla Tank, Mobile Gap Generator, Mobile Radar Jammer, Chrono Tank, Phase Transport, MiG, Longbow, Missile Submarine, Cruiser)< This by itself really ruins the game completely. Mammoths were reduced to almost heavy tank specs and then fixed to 42 seconds of production time? Come on, someone really lacks common sense.

This is the ultimate 1v1, low-tech OpenRA version, just make infantry and light tanks and spam spam spam.
MIGs seem to be but a total waste of resources, nobody will use them, just take them out completely and mammoths too.

Custom production speed modifier for some T3 units was implicit and not known to many players. Also its adverse side was you drained your economy more quickly because these units had higher money/second ratio when being built.
The general idea is that it is never a good practice to improve underused units by having them built faster: you just have more crap per minute, but it is the same crap. So instead all these units need to be addressed in other manner, and a lot of them were this release (MRJ, Phase, Mig).
Mammonth Tanks and Tesla Tanks were vastly overperforming after turret targeting changes, to the point Mammonth groups became unstoppable unless you have the same number of Mammonths yourself. We have a lot of replay evidence of overwhelming Mammonth tanks this release cycle, saying Mammonths were underperforming without bringing any examples is just nonsense.

pointbreak wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:46 pm

>Detection removed from all other units and structures
Nerf soviets!

>Phase Transport cost from 1350 to 1000, health from 30000 to 35000
Buffs allies.

Phase Transport use-case was quite drastically repurposed cause now it can't crush infantry as effective as before because infantry detects it when being crushed. Instead it is given an improved transport role that also has some additional quirks.

pointbreak wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:46 pm

>Mobile Flak Speed from 128 to 118
Nerf soviets.

Mobile Flaks outran Hinds/Blackhawks, now they don't.

pointbreak wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:46 pm

>Light Tank weapon range increased from 4 to 4.75 cells. Speed reduced from 128 to 118
~20% damage increase, <10% speed decrease. Buffs allies obviously.

Light tank was still underperforming for its cost, now it feels to be around the sweet spot. I can hardly compare weapon range with "~20% damage increase" here. Speed was reduced to align it to Mobile Flak.

pointbreak wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:46 pm

>Tesla coil range reduced from 8.5 to 8 cells
Nerf soviets - already takes a war factory and more energy to build these.

At the same time some of the players say that Tesla Coils should be nerfed more because TC basepushes are too powerful.
Anyway, this is a minor change aligning Tesla Coil with other defences (it was the only ground defence that had more range than vision), and more importantly it addresses a nasty bug where Tesla Coils attacked targets into the fog of war.

pointbreak wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:46 pm

>Mig attack-pass length reduced
They were already shit before, nobody used them. Thanks for the triple nerf or something.

Actually buffs Migs - this cycle Mig changes improve Mig's controllability so you don't get frustrated with their wonky overpasses at new targets below them.

pointbreak wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:46 pm

>Changed Heavy Tank cannon burst delay to be equal to the Mammoth Tank
Guess this nerfs soviets.

Changes nothing in terms of balance, just removes the customized trait leftover from old times.

Have you ever seen 1v1 matches, late game it was extremely hard to counter mammoth tanks cost effectively. Even after the nerfs the mammoth is still a formidable opponent for allies. Not taking into account that soviets also profit from IC. Migs also really come in handy in soviets vs soviets matchups (see Ganon vs Orb). Soviets have the paratroopers as well as the parabombs/tesla tanks. Both of which are useful and tesla tanks are in fact a decent replacement for mammoths (especially in combination with IC). Demos can also turn the tides more than any other unit available in RA. While rangers are great in early to mid game, flak trucks excel at killing hinds and longbows and are therefore preferable in later stages.

Now to address the tank spam of allies: I don't know the numbers but I'm pretty sure taking everything into account (damage, health, cost, build time) medium and heavy tanks are more or less equal. If I had to pick I'd still choose medium tanks due to the fact that they are more expandable but some might argue they are lacking the dps to raid in smaller numbers. Tesla coils despite the small nerf are still the best defensive structures for base pushing and denying/securing ore fields.

Overall I think the balance changes legitimately address the current balance issues between late game soviets vs allies. Also all these changes were under public testing, of course they are not 100% ideal but sufficient in the grand scheme of things.

It is best to check out the source. Original explanations behind every balance change are here https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/16803 and another smaller one https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/17077



EDIT:
All of these balance changes have been carefully constructed by me and the ra community over the course of several months and then thoroughly tested over the course of another several months, a big part of that comes down to RAGL as this season was played with them. If you want to take part in our balancing effort you should join the official OpenRA's discord, it's the place where active players gather.

It's too early to judge the effects of the balances changes on team games. I think it's not fair to blame individual players from the teamgame playerbase for not testing the changes because there simply are not enough people participating in playtests - there is not really an opportunity for them. All they can do is trust the people in charge of balance and hope their interests are taken into account--

Likewise it's not fair to say "it's all crap" because the balances changes are only a small part of the massive amount of work and time that went into this release. So I think it would be good if the people who are disappointed used the next weeks to get a better picture of the new release and then outline in a constructive manner what could be improved. Maybe it turns out tp be better than you think now.

lawANDorder wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:33 am

I think it's not fair to blame individual players from the teamgame playerbase for not testing the changes because there simply are not enough people participating in playtests - there is not really an opportunity for them. All they can do is trust the people in charge of balance and hope their interests are taken into account--

All it takes is for one person in a lobby to suggest "Ok, after this game lets all move to the playtest and give it a go". There were three months of opportunities where we were actively looking for all the feedback we could get. I think it is completely reasonable to blame individual players who choose to ignore all our requests for feedback, and then rudely post all their complaints two hours after the release to maximize the impact of their scorn while safely guaranteeing that nothing can be done if there are any legitimate complaints.

Sleipnir wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:04 am

All it takes is for one person in a lobby to suggest "Ok, after this game lets all move to the playtest and give it a go".

It takes the other people do also join the playtest servers. Unless you know each other or are somehow organized this often does not work. This is a difference to the 1v1 playerbase that is organized and only depends on one other person to do playtesting. The root cause is not lack of interest in playtesting but that it is hard to find a non-1v1 game on playtest servers. IMO this is something we need to support more, maybe by advertising playtest events at a fixed date. I can't blame anyone for not waiting hours in an empty server.

Sleipnir wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:04 am

I think it is completely reasonable to blame individual players who choose to ignore all our requests for feedback, and then rudely post all their complaints two hours after the release, when it is safely too late for any of them to be addressed.

Agree on the part that this was no constructive feedback. Tbh, since this is about balance, I personally don't think that earlier feedback would have made any difference. I don't think there was any chance at any time that anybody outside the the 1v1 circle could have had any influence on the balance decisions. But that is just my opinion, I gave up that hope some time ago. It had still been helpful to have teamgames on the playtest(s) to test things that are outside the 1v1 meta, which is the more important point for me and something that needs support.

I don't think there was any chance at any time that anybody outside the the 1v1 circle could have had any influence on the balance decisions.

Several people from the mythical "1v1 circle" frequently play teamgames and massplayer games as well (even more so in TD) and also contribute to game balance.

In any case, playtesting doesn't have much in common with just "start a playtest version and wait on a server for a game". One also needs to understand how the game works, research what works and what might be improved, present all that in a constructive manner and get in contact with people who do actual code updates. Even an issue post on project's github might be a good start, obviously getting in conversation on OpenRA Discord is better in terms of presenting raw points and brainstorming the problems.

TL;DR Just saying "it's unbalanced and gets more unbalanced" over and over doesn't do anything for the project and you won't be heard.

lawANDorder wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:36 am

I don't think there was any chance at any time that anybody outside the the 1v1 circle could have had any influence on the balance decisions.

Anyone can influence and suggest, all it takes is constructive feedback. Problem with most team game players is that they know little about the game and what consequences a change might have. Thus suggestions usually fall flat and people after having shown flaws of their suggestion are quick to give up. It might seem that no-one from non-1v1 community can influence balance but it is just an illusion. It seems so only because the trend is that people who truly care about the game and are prepared to work to make it better are medium to high skilled 1v1 players. Developers influence too, mostly pchote ( one of the lead devs) but in general they just approve or freeze balance changes depending on community consensus and vision of the project.

Found a note on Mig's ReloadDelay change:

Orb370 on Sep 15 Contributor
These are my changes. The reload delay increase is so that Migs don't fire multiple volleys per attack run. It feels a bit luck/gimmiky that the Mig may do double DPS or not, depending on angling and which way the enemy vehicle is moving.

On the handling side of things, it prevents ammo wastage by the Mig. It's easy to fire two volleys on auto-attack when you only needed the first volley to kill the target.

Reduced minimum range for Migs improves their targeting when the victim is closely below them, so they fire immediately instead of doing another overpass. This got worse when Migs aimed at a moving target and it got below minimum range each time they got in line with it.

netnazgul wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:38 am

In any case, playtesting doesn't have much in common with just "start a playtest version and wait on a server for a game". One also needs to understand how the game works, research what works and what might be improved, present all that in a constructive manner and get in contact with people who do actual code updates. Even an issue post on project's github might be a good start, obviously getting in conversation on OpenRA Discord is better in terms of presenting raw points and brainstorming the problems.

Thanks. I'll remember that in 2020 when writing the next >150 pull request reviews and submitting another ~100 issues like this year. Disclaimer: I don't care about the numbers or your appreciation, however i can't deny comments like this and being confronted with sheer ignorance is somewhat demotivating.

TL;DR: Whatever.

Comments from topic creator and luftwaffe are just showing perfectly that a lot of words do not equal substance.

But I can kinda see where pointbreak is coming from and yes soviets got a lot of nerfs on the first glance but most changes where done to improve unit behaviours aka the Mig change.

Also I agree with WhoCares and Netnazgul on Luftwaffe. Just either start properly contributing or go be stupid somewhere else.