Can you please try to reproduce this on the current playtest? Several things regarding targeting were fixed since the last release, so this should no longer be possible.
P.S.: Sorry, kind of off-topic, but still important to clarify, I think.
Defense Balance Discussion - Red Alert
Discuss changes to defense balance here!
P.S.: Sorry, kind of off-topic, but still important to clarify, I think.
Last edited by penev on Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Nerf helis/planes being able to see so far
-Nerf defenses armor/health but not damage
-Make defenses not visible through fog of war (think of them as a unit and not a building)
-V2 missiles should be shoot-down able by anti-aircraft things
-Arty a lot less accurate and slower rate of fire
-Double price of artillery and V2
-Nerf defenses armor/health but not damage
-Make defenses not visible through fog of war (think of them as a unit and not a building)
-V2 missiles should be shoot-down able by anti-aircraft things
-Arty a lot less accurate and slower rate of fire
-Double price of artillery and V2
-
Gallowglass
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:10 pm
This. Defenses are fine, no need to nerf them. If it's not broke, don't fix it.scorp wrote: then let me rephrase it: stationary defenses are IMHO only OP in the context of basewalking. For their original, intended purpose, i think they're mostly okay. Maybe the AA gun is OP but that's always open to debate.
so rather than nerfing base defenses, the mechanic of basewalking should be tweaked, otherwise, the nerf might affect too much of the game.
Personally I also prefer to let the armies battle it out, and I would not mind if base defenses are nerved. However, a lot of casual players do like them, and they were in the original game, so I think making them much weaker will not enhance the RA experience for casual players.
I'd play maps with custom rules where base defences are removed. Maybe buildings would need a buff, to keep attacking armies from destroying everything before the defender has time to respond.
I'd play maps with custom rules where base defences are removed. Maybe buildings would need a buff, to keep attacking armies from destroying everything before the defender has time to respond.
Is this a joke? Not trying to be rude but those suggestions (minus the 2nd one) are all totally counter-intuitive to the problem being discussed. All those changes would make Base Defenses even more powerful and even more of a bitch to deal with...epicelite wrote: -Nerf helis/planes being able to see so far
-Nerf defenses armor/health but not damage
-Make defenses not visible through fog of war (think of them as a unit and not a building)
-V2 missiles should be shoot-down able by anti-aircraft things
-Arty a lot less accurate and slower rate of fire
-Double price of artillery and V2
-
noobmapmaker
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:59 am
To me it feels that base defenses are strong, but not to strong. May be make a couple a bit more expensive (+10%) and the AA is really really good. It takes about 10 hinds to kill 1 AA. That's alot. So -10% damage to AA's imo.
But other than that it seems that even a small army (5 rifle, 3 rocket, 1 v2 for example) can eat up any defensive structure in a matter of seconds. It all depends on the situation, but to me the defensive structures are just fine.
But other than that it seems that even a small army (5 rifle, 3 rocket, 1 v2 for example) can eat up any defensive structure in a matter of seconds. It all depends on the situation, but to me the defensive structures are just fine.
Playlist with ALL games of the Dark Tournament Youtube.com/CorrodeCasts
Consider supporting OpenRA by setting a bounty or by donating for a server
Consider supporting OpenRA by setting a bounty or by donating for a server
I forgot to write my old idea:
Towers must be placed at the start of construction and they will increase HP from 1 to Max during building. It must look similar to warcraft/starcraft, but without peasants.
But 100% of towers's cost will be taken at the beginning of construction. So players will not build 1 HP towers near enemy lines to prevent losing 100% of their cost. There can be also 30 sec delay before building new tower if currently building tower is destroyed.
By the way, this type of construction can allow to build several buildings "one after another" just placing several 0 HP "pre-buildings" on the map. So player can make order and forget about creating buildings for 1-4 minutes, focusing on war.
Towers must be placed at the start of construction and they will increase HP from 1 to Max during building. It must look similar to warcraft/starcraft, but without peasants.
But 100% of towers's cost will be taken at the beginning of construction. So players will not build 1 HP towers near enemy lines to prevent losing 100% of their cost. There can be also 30 sec delay before building new tower if currently building tower is destroyed.
By the way, this type of construction can allow to build several buildings "one after another" just placing several 0 HP "pre-buildings" on the map. So player can make order and forget about creating buildings for 1-4 minutes, focusing on war.
-
Murto the Ray
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm
If you need examples of both successful base pushes and non-successful base pushing you can see them in games 32-34(successfull) and 45/22(unsuccessful). All the games have been played within the tournament and generally include skilled players on both sides!
http://64hdb.mine.nu:5534/mIRROR/ora_replays/BTT2015/
http://64hdb.mine.nu:5534/mIRROR/ora_replays/BTT2015/
Last edited by Murto the Ray on Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Can a few more soviet-only and players who build little base def. please post more about only the strengths of allied base def, I find this thread is lacking in that department /s. Base def takes power, is IMMOBILE, and requires a lot more micro than units to build. That and you can only build one def. structure at a time (while also competing with abombs/chrono/IC), vs infantry/air/tanks/naval all at the same time.
Base pushing really isn't OP, you generally need a better economy than the other player to do it successfully, as otherwise they should be able to get more units to the fight and might already have base defense themselves (if their home base is getting pushed).
Also, check out game 45, where a very skilled player in AoAGeneral gets absolutely slaughtered trying to base push. Or game 22 where another very skilled player in kyrylo repeatedly tries to base push and gets denied by mostly units (kyrylo was playing soviet, but supposedly base walking is OP for both factions).
http://64hdb.mine.nu:5534/mIRROR/ora_replays/BTT2015/
Thankfully the OpenRA devs have too much integrity to cater to the wants of special interest groups over what's best for the game, so I'm not worried that there's going to be a drastic, unnecessary change.
Base pushing really isn't OP, you generally need a better economy than the other player to do it successfully, as otherwise they should be able to get more units to the fight and might already have base defense themselves (if their home base is getting pushed).
Also, check out game 45, where a very skilled player in AoAGeneral gets absolutely slaughtered trying to base push. Or game 22 where another very skilled player in kyrylo repeatedly tries to base push and gets denied by mostly units (kyrylo was playing soviet, but supposedly base walking is OP for both factions).
http://64hdb.mine.nu:5534/mIRROR/ora_replays/BTT2015/
Thankfully the OpenRA devs have too much integrity to cater to the wants of special interest groups over what's best for the game, so I'm not worried that there's going to be a drastic, unnecessary change.
-
Murto the Ray
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Sorry Newwe, that was totally uncalled for. Perhaps i'm just pushing the topic too far. I'm always going to be biased towards soviets because they are i've spent so many hours practicing withMurto the Ray wrote:Thanks for clearing up that when you pull off a strategy badly it fails, when someone tries to mass shock troopers but only has one refinery they will fail. Kyrylo didn't have the economy or map control to base push in that game (and was just hoping something would happen by sending units at klaas as he told me afterwards) and AOA was sacrificing MCVs into the base of gatekeeper; he has admitted that he doesn't know how to pull off a basepush before.
Also, if you are going to spam base defenses without base pushing as soviets you will lose. Soviet base defenses simply aren't cheap enough to spam around unless you have a gameplan that involves stalling as long as possible or are base pushing/being base pushed.
Ill edit my previous posts to try and nullify any bias that may be prevalent. Sorry Newwe!
Last edited by Murto the Ray on Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In the original game there was no fog of war , just the jet black shroud that disapeared forever once it was explored
FOG OF WAR = THE ENEMY OF DYNAMIC GAME PLAY
A regrowing shroud, aka fog of war has become the default for modern rts games.
Its inclusion means that rts games now feel visually and mentally cramped becuase all you see is edges of armies and edges of bases poking out of the fog...this is fine if tiny sneak attacks float your boat....but epic Kursk or Jutland style battles become almost impossible ! (if you gotta google Kursk or Jutland you should probably be playing angry birds instead
)
the original game got a nick name 'tank rush anyone ?' it was that dynamic !
tower wars were also common on high ore maps as you could chain buildings right across the map
play a few games with fog of war off and you soon understand the meaning of dynamic gameplay
One solution to increase dynamic play is to have the view/fog of war reveal distance doubled !...some play tests with this setting, will,l if you escuse the pun be 'very revealing' as regards 'play dynamics' and 'centre's of gravity'
Points to consider
If important buildings are fragile AND base defences are weak then you end up permanantly filling your base with lots of tanks, infantry etc..it being the only viable defence...boring crappy games which end when you have 10% more units than the enemy, thus being able to demolish their entire base in seconds due to the fragility of key buildings
If important buildings are very strong...like age of kings for example, then you win the game NOT by destroying the buildings but by surrounding barracks etc with your troops so they kill enemy troops as they pop out 1 by 1 while the barracks itsself is also slowly destroyed over the course of a minute or so....in age of kings it was possible to barrack/house new built units (up to a limit of about a dozen) inside the building which they were built...you would then release them all at once. (they could not be put back inside after)...also some buildings like the town hall, towers and castles allowed you to garrsion and un garsion at any time. The more units inside the greater the firepower of the castle.
If important buildings are weak (and they mostly are in redalert) then you need decent defences...aka a turret better than a tank or you would buy a mobile turret aka a tank!...and this is why base defences which are static must offer more bang per buck than mobile units....to compensate this there are many ways to weaken the enemy in redalert without actually destroying them.....low on power, steal there money, jam or disable radar, iron curtain on attacking units, air raids where there is no air defence, paratroopers, Tanya, scuds, artilery and cruisers which attack at long range. ...its these various ways of weakening your enemy that makes redalert, redalert, and makes redalert a good and fun game
fog of war is the real enemy, 90% of the map hidden 90% of the time as is 90% of the fighting and units movements....aka a lack of dynamic play
Thus to increase the dynamism of gameplay 'reduce the effect of fog of war' ...i dont like staring at greyed out terrain, fog of war has value, but the tendancy to turtle, creep and basewalk is the inevitable price you pay for an overpowered fog of war
remember...redalert became a cult game WITHOUT fog of war !
remember the actual cause of a problem X is often the solution to problem Y
Fog of war was introduced to RTS games as computation power allowed.
Fog of war turns WW2 combined arms blitzkrig into WW1 style trench warfare
Fog of war was introduced due to 'player paranoia' , wanting to keep secret their plan
'oh i must keep my secret sweecret they all cried' ...tottally forgeting how fog of war, at a stroke obliterates dynamic playstyles ! doh!
The original redalert gave us a fairly decent solution.....gap generators! ...the vast bulk of the map was not groggy grey but crystal clear. Enemy movements could be seen from afar BUT ONLY if you were looking , or had radar( the original radar was crude, just dots, not the OP GPS radar we have now in open RA which distinguishes unit types and buildings)
Want more dynamic play ? find ways to reduce fog of war, a more fruitfull debate than the circular arguments of unit v's building buffs !!!
Bigger and or cheaper gap generators
Longer seeing range (not the same as shooting range)
A Fog of war that regrows very slowly
No fog of war at all
A radar jammer type device that creates a circular fog of war ( a opposed to the game engine)
Gap generators generate total blackness, why not a wider greyness and or also?
With no game engine fog of war the benefit of this aproach is that the vast bulk of the map can still be seen with crystal clear clarity....aka dynamic play, armies and navies making large sweeping counter moves, players choosing when and where to fight a pitched battle...just like real war!
Q does redalert need fog of war ? ....no !...it would also work just as well if not better with giant gap generators of the grey or black variety
Hopfully after reading this you will understand one of the less disccused (but more important) reasons behind the original games critical success, aka no fog of war !, aka tense dynamic gameplay that kept you on the edge of your seat. If the orginal game had a modern fog of war it may well have been lost in the fog of computer game history and we probably wouldnt be playing its descendant today !
The right solution is not one voted by the majority, nor is it a return to the past, nor is it a desire to be new or break from the past....the right solution always will be 'the right solution to the right problem'
FOG OF WAR = THE ENEMY OF DYNAMIC GAME PLAY
A regrowing shroud, aka fog of war has become the default for modern rts games.
Its inclusion means that rts games now feel visually and mentally cramped becuase all you see is edges of armies and edges of bases poking out of the fog...this is fine if tiny sneak attacks float your boat....but epic Kursk or Jutland style battles become almost impossible ! (if you gotta google Kursk or Jutland you should probably be playing angry birds instead
)the original game got a nick name 'tank rush anyone ?' it was that dynamic !
tower wars were also common on high ore maps as you could chain buildings right across the map
play a few games with fog of war off and you soon understand the meaning of dynamic gameplay
One solution to increase dynamic play is to have the view/fog of war reveal distance doubled !...some play tests with this setting, will,l if you escuse the pun be 'very revealing' as regards 'play dynamics' and 'centre's of gravity'
Points to consider
If important buildings are fragile AND base defences are weak then you end up permanantly filling your base with lots of tanks, infantry etc..it being the only viable defence...boring crappy games which end when you have 10% more units than the enemy, thus being able to demolish their entire base in seconds due to the fragility of key buildings
If important buildings are very strong...like age of kings for example, then you win the game NOT by destroying the buildings but by surrounding barracks etc with your troops so they kill enemy troops as they pop out 1 by 1 while the barracks itsself is also slowly destroyed over the course of a minute or so....in age of kings it was possible to barrack/house new built units (up to a limit of about a dozen) inside the building which they were built...you would then release them all at once. (they could not be put back inside after)...also some buildings like the town hall, towers and castles allowed you to garrsion and un garsion at any time. The more units inside the greater the firepower of the castle.
If important buildings are weak (and they mostly are in redalert) then you need decent defences...aka a turret better than a tank or you would buy a mobile turret aka a tank!...and this is why base defences which are static must offer more bang per buck than mobile units....to compensate this there are many ways to weaken the enemy in redalert without actually destroying them.....low on power, steal there money, jam or disable radar, iron curtain on attacking units, air raids where there is no air defence, paratroopers, Tanya, scuds, artilery and cruisers which attack at long range. ...its these various ways of weakening your enemy that makes redalert, redalert, and makes redalert a good and fun game
fog of war is the real enemy, 90% of the map hidden 90% of the time as is 90% of the fighting and units movements....aka a lack of dynamic play
Thus to increase the dynamism of gameplay 'reduce the effect of fog of war' ...i dont like staring at greyed out terrain, fog of war has value, but the tendancy to turtle, creep and basewalk is the inevitable price you pay for an overpowered fog of war
remember...redalert became a cult game WITHOUT fog of war !
remember the actual cause of a problem X is often the solution to problem Y
Fog of war was introduced to RTS games as computation power allowed.
Fog of war turns WW2 combined arms blitzkrig into WW1 style trench warfare
Fog of war was introduced due to 'player paranoia' , wanting to keep secret their plan
'oh i must keep my secret sweecret they all cried' ...tottally forgeting how fog of war, at a stroke obliterates dynamic playstyles ! doh!
The original redalert gave us a fairly decent solution.....gap generators! ...the vast bulk of the map was not groggy grey but crystal clear. Enemy movements could be seen from afar BUT ONLY if you were looking , or had radar( the original radar was crude, just dots, not the OP GPS radar we have now in open RA which distinguishes unit types and buildings)
Want more dynamic play ? find ways to reduce fog of war, a more fruitfull debate than the circular arguments of unit v's building buffs !!!
Bigger and or cheaper gap generators
Longer seeing range (not the same as shooting range)
A Fog of war that regrows very slowly
No fog of war at all
A radar jammer type device that creates a circular fog of war ( a opposed to the game engine)
Gap generators generate total blackness, why not a wider greyness and or also?
With no game engine fog of war the benefit of this aproach is that the vast bulk of the map can still be seen with crystal clear clarity....aka dynamic play, armies and navies making large sweeping counter moves, players choosing when and where to fight a pitched battle...just like real war!
Q does redalert need fog of war ? ....no !...it would also work just as well if not better with giant gap generators of the grey or black variety
Hopfully after reading this you will understand one of the less disccused (but more important) reasons behind the original games critical success, aka no fog of war !, aka tense dynamic gameplay that kept you on the edge of your seat. If the orginal game had a modern fog of war it may well have been lost in the fog of computer game history and we probably wouldnt be playing its descendant today !
The right solution is not one voted by the majority, nor is it a return to the past, nor is it a desire to be new or break from the past....the right solution always will be 'the right solution to the right problem'
Wasn't necessary, you can support your opinion all you want Murto.Murto the Ray wrote:Sorry Newwe, that was totally uncalled for. Perhaps i'm just pushing the topic too far. I'm always going to be biased towards soviets because they are i've spent so many hours practicing withMurto the Ray wrote:Thanks for clearing up that when you pull off a strategy badly it fails, when someone tries to mass shock troopers but only has one refinery they will fail. Kyrylo didn't have the economy or map control to base push in that game (and was just hoping something would happen by sending units at klaas as he told me afterwards) and AOA was sacrificing MCVs into the base of gatekeeper; he has admitted that he doesn't know how to pull off a basepush before.
Also, if you are going to spam base defenses without base pushing as soviets you will lose. Soviet base defenses simply aren't cheap enough to spam around unless you have a gameplan that involves stalling as long as possible or are base pushing/being base pushed.
Seems clear to me that base pushing is only effective if you're already the better player (or just winning a particular game), and that it isn't a boring (my APM probably doubles when I'm getting pushed or doing the pushing, panic!!), easy to execute strategy that some people seem to think it is.
The last two games I played involved basepushing as well, Barf outmicro-ed me in one as soviets vs my allies and won, and then basepushing was extremely ineffective in our 2v2 game, although it did provide a distraction for a mostly infantry attack.
Very true
The Fog of war (not in the original game) makes it harder to use mobile units
1) you dont know where to send them
2) you have no idea what they will meet on thier journey
3) you have no idea what you will encounter at their destination...the allied GPS helps but it is no substitute for a 100% clear view of the map
In the original game you could see exactly where the enemy was AND where the enemy wasnt...even without radar you could manually scroll
This meant you could send a bunch of tanks to guard an orefeild or a choke point, pull them back as needed, ie spot an enemy formation flocking your way or moving towards a key area of the map...tanks were the obvious choice, they were fast enuf and tough enuf for that mobile role
Large maps are easier to play when there is no fog of war...here again the fog of war combined with units short range fog revealing ability means the fight is more like two over cautious boxers having a punch up with paper bags on thier heads...creep warfare / trench warfare