Ideas for better game balancing.

[hotze]

That's not really a concern; heavy tanks take a fair amount of time to get built and they are less maneuverable than medium tanks, perhaps the range of a medium tank should be 1 or 2 tiles further than heavy tanks but i disagree to a price decrease of buff otherwise for medium tanks as they are good as they are - just under used.

I wasn't proposing a general buff for medium tanks, just that if you take the Allies' main firepower away, well, then you have to give them something else to balance things again.

[newwe]

- Base defenses: increase price about 2x
Not sure why this is necessary, this would hurt noobies a lot as well as they looove base def.

Tanks cost about the same as turrets but static defense destroys tanks like they were made of paper. Static defense can even be repaired. And the low speed of tanks isn't enough to do any runbys or suprise attacks.
About hurting noobies: This should be fixed by introducing a per-player handicap option instead of making all forms of offensive maneuvers ridiculously hard to pull off.

They are "static" though, not guaranteed to see any action whereas a tank always can. Tanks can be repaired in 2 different ways. Static def is useless against any long range attack. Yes it sucks attacking into a bunch of stat. def. with tanks, so maybe try not to do it?

Tossing around some wild ideas:
- Remove prerequisites from tech center (can build it right away)

No, just no.

Doing a tech rush is currently completely impractical:
power+ref+fact+radar+adv power+tech center = $7500 and still need more money for whatever high tech gear is desired. All of this can't be afforded on just 1-2 harvesters so choosing tech over economy isn't even an option. Economy is always the best choice and early game is a tad boring because of the lack of choice.
How about a compromise of removing factory from tech center prerequisites? So tech would need just radar. What'd you even do with a factory if all you want is high tech infantry/aircraft/naval units or if the map is an island map?
Considering the most interesting allied units need a tech center this could give them more options too.

So you're going for a tanya hail mary pretty much? Anything else is unviable b/c your econ would suck. It probably wouldn't break the game to reduce prereqs for the tech center but it is supposed to be a "tech tree", not "tech ground".

[winftw]

They are "static" though, not guaranteed to see any action whereas a tank always can. Tanks can be repaired in 2 different ways. Static def is useless against any long range attack. Yes it sucks attacking into a bunch of stat. def. with tanks, so maybe try not to do it?

Exactly. But going around a frontline is often impossible (map layout, low speed of tanks, long range of coils/turrets, quick build time for defenses).
The soviet arsenal has some non-artillery tools against a strong turret concentration such as curtain, demo truck, tesla guys or using a unit mixture consisting of fodder and damage dealers.
All allied have is artillery. I think this is what hotze is talking about.

Idunno, I just think static defense seems to be the bread and butter of openra currently (hopefully won't always be so).

[newwe]

They are "static" though, not guaranteed to see any action whereas a tank always can. Tanks can be repaired in 2 different ways. Static def is useless against any long range attack. Yes it sucks attacking into a bunch of stat. def. with tanks, so maybe try not to do it?

Exactly. But going around a frontline is often impossible (map layout, low speed of tanks, long range of coils/turrets, quick build time for defenses).
The soviet arsenal has some non-artillery tools against a strong turret concentration such as curtain, demo truck, tesla guys or using a unit mixture consisting of fodder and damage dealers.
All allied have is artillery. I think this is what hotze is talking about.

Idunno, I just think static defense seems to be the bread and butter of openra currently (hopefully won't always be so).

Not in my experience, in fact, if you build too much early game (other than in base battle situations) you will likely lose against good players (because you will be behind in econ), which is what I see a lot of noobs do. Later on build away, but they take power (another big disadvantage vs tanks) and building time you also want to use for abombs/chrono/iron curtain. They are also a bit of a pain (more micro) to build compared to tanks, you can't just queue up a bunch and forget about them, you have to keep placing them after they finish.

Making them more expensive might do the opposite of what you want it to do as well (increase attacking). Everyone will have to hold back more units that they could have used to attack b/c they no longer have as much static d.

[winftw]

Not in my experience, in fact, if you build too much early game (other than in base battle situations) you will likely lose against good players (because you will be behind in econ), which is what I see a lot of noobs do. Later on build away,

Once armed with a solid number of ore trucks the good player will have a little bit of extra income he can use to build some defenses all around because why not. And should some attack come then reinforce with more defenses. There isn't anything wrong with static defense itself but the fact that not building them isn't really an option (aside from the first minutes).

but they take power (another big disadvantage vs tanks)

An allied turret costs $700 including adv.power ($100 for 40 power) whereas a medium tank costs $850. 5 turrets vs 5 tanks: the turrets win by a huge margin. Power is a disadvantage but only a small one.
I'd rather have the tanks win by a little so that turrets would be used to complement defense instead of being the backbone of it.

and building time you also want to use for abombs/chrono/iron curtain.

There is plenty of time to be building defenses until a tech centre is up.

Making them more expensive might do the opposite of what you want it to do as well (increase attacking). Everyone will have to hold back more units that they could have used to attack b/c they no longer have as much static d.

In westwood RA and TD static defense is quite crappy but that doesn't scare players into not attacking each other. I'm not convinced.
Anything is possible. Only one way to find out (playtest).

[hotze]

I'd rather have the tanks win by a little so that turrets would be used to complement defense instead of being the backbone of it.

Why shouldn't they be the backbone of the defense?
After all, that's their intended purpose.

[zakedodead]

Limit artillery / v2 rockets to like 5 out at a time?

I completely disagree to any unit limitations though.

infinite tanya is fine then?

[newwe]

Not in my experience, in fact, if you build too much early game (other than in base battle situations) you will likely lose against good players (because you will be behind in econ), which is what I see a lot of noobs do. Later on build away,

Once armed with a solid number of ore trucks the good player will have a little bit of extra income he can use to build some defenses all around because why not. And should some attack come then reinforce with more defenses. There isn't anything wrong with static defense itself but the fact that not building them isn't really an option (aside from the first minutes).

but they take power (another big disadvantage vs tanks)

An allied turret costs $700 including adv.power ($100 for 40 power) whereas a medium tank costs $850. 5 turrets vs 5 tanks: the turrets win by a huge margin. Power is a disadvantage but only a small one.
I'd rather have the tanks win by a little so that turrets would be used to complement defense instead of being the backbone of it.

and building time you also want to use for abombs/chrono/iron curtain.

There is plenty of time to be building defenses until a tech centre is up.

Making them more expensive might do the opposite of what you want it to do as well (increase attacking). Everyone will have to hold back more units that they could have used to attack b/c they no longer have as much static d.

In westwood RA and TD static defense is quite crappy but that doesn't scare players into not attacking each other. I'm not convinced.
Anything is possible. Only one way to find out (playtest).

I'm not sure why we would mess with something only you seem to think needs messing with. The best players generally make less static d then others, which to me means they definitely aren't 2x underpriced.

[Murto the Ray]

Limit artillery / v2 rockets to like 5 out at a time?

I completely disagree to any unit limitations though.

infinite tanya is fine then?

I mean any furthur unit limitations, i wouldnt mind tanya being unlimited if it were more expensive - otherwise its fine as it is

[Prince Blueblood]

Ideas for handicap system : by limiting someone's money (their harvester did harvest 100% amount of ore, but their refinery only process that to...
* 50% income (major disadvantage)
* 75% income (disadvantage)
* 100% income ( normal )
* 125% income (advantage)
* 150% income (major advantage)

yep...

[Murto the Ray]

Ideas for handicap system : by limiting someone's money (their harvester did harvest 100% amount of ore, but their refinery only process that to...
* 50% income (major disadvantage)
* 75% income (disadvantage)
* 100% income ( normal )
* 125% income (advantage)
* 150% income (major advantage)

yep...

Then suddenly everyone plays allies because spies can be used to steal money from newbies >.>

I think the lowest it should go is 100% and the increments should be around 5% because otherwise newbies (as newbies will) create a ton of infantry and send it at your base at the start of the game.

It may not even be a good idea to give newbies extra money; if there was some form of ranking system (where games won amount to +points and losses amount to -points) which could be displayed in-game then that would be much better used to balance teams. Allocate like so:

0-999 points - Rank F
1000-1999 points - Rank E
2000-2999 points - Rank D
3000-3999 points - Rank C
4000-4999 points - Rank B
5000-6000 points - Rank A

Notice that Rank A has a limit, this is so that players cannot amount so many points that they cannot rank down.

[raymundo]

I don't think there should be a handicapping system, however I think people should know what they are up against. I also like that there is no ranking system in the game and the community simply knows who is good by playing each other. An alternative to a handicap system could be registering of names and emblems/title given based on how long you've been registered, and number of games you've played with other people online. Only games that are 4+ minutes would count and we could put a limit on 20 games that count per day. Even if people just "rank" each other up it's not a big deal as this is just an indicator of how much you've played, not skill. With this system we would definitely know right away who are the less experienced players and be able to balance teams accordingly. I feel the community is too small for a matchmaking system based on rank, usually the issue that arises is when teams need to be balanced in the lobby which is usually done through discussion and switching of teams.

Edit : When i encounter a "newbie" and it is a small match (1v1, or 2v2) I will give them advice on how to play, this encourages people to stay with the game I feel instead of just getting owned outright.

[Murto the Ray]

I don't think there should be a handicapping system, however I think people should know what they are up against. I also like that there is no ranking system in the game and the community simply knows who is good by playing each other. An alternative to a handicap system could be registering of names and emblems/title given based on how long you've been registered, and number of games you've played with other people online. Only games that are 4+ minutes would count and we could put a limit on 20 games that count per day. Even if people just "rank" each other up it's not a big deal as this is just an indicator of how much you've played, not skill. With this system we would definitely know right away who are the less experienced players and be able to balance teams accordingly. I feel the community is too small for a matchmaking system based on rank, usually the issue that arises is when teams need to be balanced in the lobby which is usually done through discussion and switching of teams.

Edit : When i encounter a "newbie" and it is a small match (1v1, or 2v2) I will give them advice on how to play, this encourages people to stay with the game I feel instead of just getting owned outright.

Im all for what you are saying, i just want some way for matches to be balanced based on players, not incomes.

[raymundo]

Only issue is, even if it is not around money, if newbies get a boost (more armor, hp, faster build time, etc.) won't this encourage players to use a newbie name? Are there any other online multiplayer games that use handicaps? PC gamers should expect when you start a new game you will be beaten, it is part of the challenge and the learning process, which imo . If you get beaten watch the replay and see what your opponents did, or where you went wrong. No reason to level the playing field for those who haven't invested time to learn the game. In chess should a player get 2 queens?

[Graion Dilach]

Quake 3 had a handicap setting for sure.