Why basepushing is so strong

[Doomsday]

You can fix the base pushing. Its actually easy. Problem is its become the base gameplay of RA.

The first, and less important one is, "What are you going to do about the other problems?" The second, and much more pertinent one is, "Are you creating any new problems?"

[anjew]

Stop thinking in terms of, "how do I fix basepushing?" It's not going to work. Think more like this:

From another thread.

I view RA gameplay as a triangle, with the three points being Base Crawling, Artillery/V2 duels, and mobile armies. Ideally these elements would all have their place within a game, with base crawling being strong vs. mobile armies, artillery being strong vs. base crawling, and mobile armies being strong vs. artillery. Base crawling in particular has been skewing the balance of these three sections, which is why the competitive community has focused balancing efforts on the MCV.

Out of curiosity, are you guys actually pro-basepushing? The way I read this is that basepushing is only a problem because its strong, so you want to nerf it a little bit? Are you actually saying that basepushing is integral to OpenRA RA?

Also regarding BuildRadius Delay, its stupid in 1v1, I dont like in TD 1v1 but come team games, in RA the lack of a delay is a really felt with base pushing.

[AoAGeneral1]

You can fix the base pushing. Its actually easy. Problem is its become the base gameplay of RA.

The first, and less important one is, "What are you going to do about the other problems?" The second, and much more pertinent one is, "Are you creating any new problems?"

Other problems are game by game basis. IE: MAD tanks, MIGS, etc. Support units like these is what makes RA. They just aren't used due to their issues.

"Are you creating any new problems?" No.

[SoScared]

The list in the OP is really great, don't remove it. I think some people sort of mistook it for a task list rather than a display of variables to help approach the issue. It's nice to know more about what to look for when fiddling around with values.

[zinc]

For myself, I don't want to stop base pushing and I'm not against it being a strong tactic. The issue for me is only it becoming way overpowered so that it blocks out other tactics and results in boring games.

I haven't really noticed any problem with base pushing being overpowered in team games. It's a strong tactic but it doesn't ruin the game or anything. Games are very often won by expansion but there is more to it than build off a load of MCVs.

[zinc]

Having an option for a 2 MCV limit would probably change the style of 1v1. Whether it would make for enjoyable games...

[Smitty]

Out of curiosity, are you guys actually pro-basepushing? The way I read this is that basepushing is only a problem because its strong, so you want to nerf it a little bit? Are you actually saying that basepushing is integral to OpenRA RA?

Also regarding BuildRadius Delay, its stupid in 1v1, I dont like in TD 1v1 but come team games, in RA the lack of a delay is a really felt with base pushing.

I can’t speak for anyone else but yes, to me, the current combat mechanics of OpenRA are an integral part of the game. I believe this for a very simple reason: I’ve had more fun playing the Red Alert mod of OpenRA than I have had playing any other RTS.

I certainly want the power of bases and base crawling to be scaled back a bit, but I do want the mechanics of how they work to remain. I oppose removing auto-targeting of buildings because that will fundamentally change how combat works in this game. The micro positioning battles and building placement choices during a base crawl fight are actually enjoyable to me. The problem is they just have too much impact on the game at the moment.

My philosophy on game balance is to make minor changes here and there to push the game closer to where it needs to be. If you try to overhaul a thing in an attempt to fix something, you’re libel to mess with a lot more than you were aiming to fix. Take the flame tower buff for example. In my experience, the win rates between Allies and Soviets have stabilized since the last release. I can’t confidently say Allies>Soviets atm*, which was common knowledge before. We’d been practicing with $600 pillboxes for months, so the only game change I can point to that explains the new state of faction balance is the flame tower buff. One small change can make a heckuva lot of difference.



*To be transparent my playtime after release has not included that many games vs OMnom, Lorrydriver or Barf, which would go alot further in shaping a proper perception on the state of faction balance.

[mechANIC]

Hey all. I think we doing same mistake as developers of SC2. Look at SC:BW - how many patches and balance tweaks do we have ? And how many of SC2 ? Who plays base pushing 1 year ago ? Answer to all of this question - let's do players to make their own strategies, don't do any changes - as Lorry said we need to improve our skills - how much players do we have like of SC2's Master or "B" rank in SCBW ? "First to get here" - and how much players are scouting their enemies in mid-game game (before air) to determine timings and army position ? Same problem - low quantity and quality of players.

We need some normal auto ladder, more streams and VODs, more advertisement. SoS's RAGL and 5a's VODs contibutes more to OpenRA than constant balance changes for "how to make OpenRA more casual friendly" and "how to remove some OP tactics like Arty/pillbox/MCV/whatsoever spam".

Some newbie IMHO.

[OMnom]

Out of curiosity, are you guys actually pro-basepushing? The way I read this is that basepushing is only a problem because its strong, so you want to nerf it a little bit? Are you actually saying that basepushing is integral to OpenRA RA?

Something that doesn't get mentioned enough is that "basepushing" is commonly used as an extremely broad term that describes anything you do with an MCV. In other games, it would be simply referred to as "expanding." The goal with any change is to mitigate the extreme versions of basepushing while trying to control the impact it has on other aspects of the game like expanding for money, defending your base, etc. As a vague example, nerfing static defenses would make it harder to basepush, but it would also make it harder to defend your expansions.

Depending on one's experiences with basepushing and his respective skill level, people also complain about different aspects of basepushing, and thus offer suggestions specific to their experiences. I'm hoping to get people to understand and to see this problem from multiple angles. Solving basepushing is not a jig-saw puzzle where you can outline the board and fill in the pieces according to what fits. Solving basepushing is more like a Rubik's cube where each rotation affects all 6 sides. The goal is to find an algorithm, a method, or a combination of moves to put the pieces in the correct place, not to think "Oh this is a red corner, lets move it to the red side."

You can fix the base pushing. Its actually easy. Problem is its become the base gameplay of RA.

The first, and less important one is, "What are you going to do about the other problems?" The second, and much more pertinent one is, "Are you creating any new problems?"

Other problems are game by game basis. IE: MAD tanks, MIGS, etc. Support units like these is what makes RA. They just aren't used due to their issues.

"Are you creating any new problems?" No.

This post is a perfect example of how NOT to approach balance changes.

[noobmapmaker]

Not an expert player, but my take on it, based on what others are saying and my own taste.

For me expanding and basepushing are two different things. Expanding is going to another place in order to secure economy (or secure a strategic place). Basepushing is attacking the other player's base with the support of your MCV + defensive structures etc.

Base pushing is i.m.o a legit tactic and I enjoy it too, even against myself. To me it doesnt feel to OP as I often see it failing and I fail at it myself all the time. But I do believe that in the stronger player regions it is to easy to do. So my hopes for this topic is not that its made impossible but rather more difficult to execute or more expensive to execute.

In general it may come down to the classic RTS truths: Army strength vs Economic Strength vs Tech. When investing in one of them, you fall behind in another. When you' re ahead in one, the opponent can hurt you using the other.

So if expanding is at this time a no-brainer, then again it should be more expensive (so you can invest less in Army/Tech). Or it should be more difficult to defend the expansion because the opponent had time/money to invest in army/tech.

Well Im rambling. I think a cost increase (and thus build time increase) per MCV is a good solution. (e.g. 1st extra MCV = +10%, 2nd = +20*%, etc. If all your MCV's are destroyed you will pay normal price again) Because:
1) It doesnt seem to create new problems, as far as I can see. It also doesnt interfere with other situations as the MCV is used only for expanding and basepushing.
2) It allows expanding, but overexpanding becomes increasingly expensive and takes longer. Basepushing is still possible but becomes a more expensive endavour.

* percentages are chosen randomly, perhaps +15%, +30%, + 45% is better. Or maybe even more?

[Mac Diarmarta]

This is how Dark Reign prevented base pushing: buildings were built on site, taking time to build whilst "under construction." During this construction phase, the building was vulnerable. (See screenshot.)

Any change such as this would change the Red Alert mod so significantly that it could no longer be considered "Red Alert." (Unless such a mechanic were implemented as a game option.)

[OMnom]

Not an expert player, but my take on it, based on what others are saying and my own taste.

For me expanding and basepushing are two different things. Expanding is going to another place in order to secure economy (or secure a strategic place). Basepushing is attacking the other player's base with the support of your MCV + defensive structures etc.

Base pushing is i.m.o a legit tactic and I enjoy it too, even against myself. To me it doesnt feel to OP as I often see it failing and I fail at it myself all the time. But I do believe that in the stronger player regions it is to easy to do. So my hopes for this topic is not that its made impossible but rather more difficult to execute or more expensive to execute.

In general it may come down to the classic RTS truths: Army strength vs Economic Strength vs Tech. When investing in one of them, you fall behind in another. When you' re ahead in one, the opponent can hurt you using the other.

So if expanding is at this time a no-brainer, then again it should be more expensive (so you can invest less in Army/Tech). Or it should be more difficult to defend the expansion because the opponent had time/money to invest in army/tech.

Well Im rambling. I think a cost increase (and thus build time increase) per MCV is a good solution. (e.g. 1st extra MCV = +10%, 2nd = +20*%, etc. If all your MCV's are destroyed you will pay normal price again) Because:
1) It doesnt seem to create new problems, as far as I can see. It also doesnt interfere with other situations as the MCV is used only for expanding and basepushing.
2) It allows expanding, but overexpanding becomes increasingly expensive and takes longer. Basepushing is still possible but becomes a more expensive endavour.

* percentages are chosen randomly, perhaps +15%, +30%, + 45% is better. Or maybe even more?

This idea, along with some other good ideas like gradually increasing build radius, don't seem to be doable by yaml (according to the documentation)...we would have to make an issue or post a bounty to ask the devs to code this for us. The newest release allows condition support for a lot of cool traits, but Valued and BaseProvider don't seem to be among those traits.

[OMnom]

Getting rid of auto-target on unarmed buildings was also mentioned somewhere, but this would massively buff A-moving because every shot fired would be at something that can shoot back.

I feel this is one of the few options that addresses a lot of your 20 points. Have any more thoughts on it?

I mentioned it some month ago, back when I played Total annihilation, unit were in auto ignore non armed building and it was up to you to put them in attack everything if you wanted to destroy everything in youir path. Those stances were separated from the classic hold/return/autoattack.

If someone put that up in a playtest, i'm very interested to participate as guenea pig to see the results.

edit : (And for a game where you're a commander/general, it's a bit frustrating to command an army of idiots who will prefere dying shooting at a tent than defending themself from the real threats slaughtering them. A buff in inteligence/logic of the units woundn't hurt)

I made a map testing this out...the only thing that are auto-targeted are defensive buildings. http://resource.openra.net/maps/21571/. Feel free to go crazy with it. Let me know how those 3ref rushes work out.

[Blackened]

Not sure about gradual building radius increases but making subsequent MCV's more expensive should be doable in YAML.

I'll certainly test out that map with the changes. My initial speculation is that it turns every engagement into how current open field engagements play out. Who ever has good positioning of tanks and the bigger army should win. Attacking into a base is a lot like attacking into a choke point.

[OMnom]

I'm not trying to say 1 game between 2 people is representative of how this change looks like, but for those who actually watch the replay I attached, do you see the can of worms that something like this would open? The respective map is in the post above.

Not sure about gradual building radius increases but making subsequent MCV's more expensive should be doable in YAML.

I'll certainly test out that map with the changes. My initial speculation is that it turns every engagement into how current open field engagements play out. Who ever has good positioning of tanks and the bigger army should win. Attacking into a base is a lot like attacking into a choke point.

I'll leave it to you to figure that out / wait for a developer to chime in...I don't see a CostMultiplier nor a RequiresCondition for Valued.