I actually now also tend to like external capturing Engineers.
The only thing I would like to see is that they do not stop buildings like warfactories from producing units or even worse stopping the MCV from packing...
Also have you really tested the new Apache well enough?
2 Month ago I can remember the Apache being way weaker as the Orca at that point (also because Orca got buffed in damage over all while you forgott also to seperate the orca weapon from the ground weapon).
Please tell me you considered the Orca weapon this time.
Also have you tested debug Apache vs Orca and building/unit damage over time.
The Apache was way worse after that change.
TD balance thread
-
AoAGeneral1
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm
Actually the apache fires faster then the Orca still. So it didn't receive a nerf in that regard.
It fires a single shot with an empty clip but it still fires two shots faster then the Orca. If you have 2-3 Apaches they can do decent damage to infantry, light vehicles, and structures. The difference with infantry and light vehicles is they need focus firing. Doing an attack move on these units will do alot less damage due to their split damage.
IE: by 80 ticks the Apache has fired twice by single shots. at 100 ticks the Orca fires twice.
Also with the faster ticks the Apache can focus fire at longer periods of times then compared to the 200 full clip reload.
The Orca damage was misused in the maps and noted in the PR itself. However, the changes listed are currently dropped until further notice but will come back.
It fires a single shot with an empty clip but it still fires two shots faster then the Orca. If you have 2-3 Apaches they can do decent damage to infantry, light vehicles, and structures. The difference with infantry and light vehicles is they need focus firing. Doing an attack move on these units will do alot less damage due to their split damage.
IE: by 80 ticks the Apache has fired twice by single shots. at 100 ticks the Orca fires twice.
Also with the faster ticks the Apache can focus fire at longer periods of times then compared to the 200 full clip reload.
The Orca damage was misused in the maps and noted in the PR itself. However, the changes listed are currently dropped until further notice but will come back.
-
AoAGeneral1
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm
+ Orca damage increased from 25 to 28.
Damage is increased because of their lack of damage vs armored units and structures.
+ Apache ammo reload reduced from 200 to 40.
Apaches gaining a full clip of ammo is a bit to strong. Firing the first shot starts the timer tick and will reload even if the clip is not fully reloaded. This also fixes so they don't sit on top of infantry and blow them all away to quickly.
+ Apache ammo reload amount reduced from 10 to 1.
Fixed in unison with ammo reload timer.
+ Sam now fires two missiles.
Does extra damage.
+ Sam range increase from 8c0 to 10c0.
Compensate for the aircraft changes. Also had a problem of MSAMs were always the better choice rather then the structure SAMs itself. This change will make them more viable.
+ Sam range limit from 9c614 to 12c0.
Makes it so aircraft can still escape while the missile won't detonate at the edge of the circle range.
+ Humvee damag vs light increased from 50 to 55.
Compensates for the price of the hummer. Having just the HP wasn't enough to counter certian builds of Nod. Enabling them a slightly higher damage allows them to kill buggies and bikes a bit more effectively. Makes them also decent arty and MRLS killers.
-----------
The external engineers and the price of the MCV is currently dropped due to changes of the structures hitboxes. This will be re-tested more closely in a future playtest.
Damage is increased because of their lack of damage vs armored units and structures.
+ Apache ammo reload reduced from 200 to 40.
Apaches gaining a full clip of ammo is a bit to strong. Firing the first shot starts the timer tick and will reload even if the clip is not fully reloaded. This also fixes so they don't sit on top of infantry and blow them all away to quickly.
+ Apache ammo reload amount reduced from 10 to 1.
Fixed in unison with ammo reload timer.
+ Sam now fires two missiles.
Does extra damage.
+ Sam range increase from 8c0 to 10c0.
Compensate for the aircraft changes. Also had a problem of MSAMs were always the better choice rather then the structure SAMs itself. This change will make them more viable.
+ Sam range limit from 9c614 to 12c0.
Makes it so aircraft can still escape while the missile won't detonate at the edge of the circle range.
+ Humvee damag vs light increased from 50 to 55.
Compensates for the price of the hummer. Having just the HP wasn't enough to counter certian builds of Nod. Enabling them a slightly higher damage allows them to kill buggies and bikes a bit more effectively. Makes them also decent arty and MRLS killers.
-----------
The external engineers and the price of the MCV is currently dropped due to changes of the structures hitboxes. This will be re-tested more closely in a future playtest.
-
AoAGeneral1
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm
The playtest is coming soon. So some additional information to be aware of.
The airstrike has been changed to compsensate for the hitboxes. They are now primarily unit killers rather then being able to destroy structures.
A10 Napalm damage vs wood from 100 to 35.
A10 Vulcan damage vs wood from 25 to 15.
Expect changes to happen within the playtest.
The airstrike has been changed to compsensate for the hitboxes. They are now primarily unit killers rather then being able to destroy structures.
A10 Napalm damage vs wood from 100 to 35.
A10 Vulcan damage vs wood from 25 to 15.
Expect changes to happen within the playtest.
Hey General,
Just some thoughts:
- Is it an idea to change the damage caused by crashing Orca/Apaches?
The current damage caused by a crashing air unit is minimal, it doesn't even kill cannon fodder on impact (which is ridiculous if you ask me).
- Also, Nod lacks ground transportation; is it an idea to maybe give the buggy some limited passenger space (one or two) just like the ranger in RA?
Furthermore, the last time we had a playtest it isolated the regular TD crowd from new[er] players. Will this time be a shorter playtest duration, as opposed to the previous 200 years it took to get the last playtest in effect?
Just some thoughts:
- Is it an idea to change the damage caused by crashing Orca/Apaches?
The current damage caused by a crashing air unit is minimal, it doesn't even kill cannon fodder on impact (which is ridiculous if you ask me).
- Also, Nod lacks ground transportation; is it an idea to maybe give the buggy some limited passenger space (one or two) just like the ranger in RA?
Furthermore, the last time we had a playtest it isolated the regular TD crowd from new[er] players. Will this time be a shorter playtest duration, as opposed to the previous 200 years it took to get the last playtest in effect?
-
AoAGeneral1
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm
I don't see a problem having that added in for crashing aircraft. Will need to be done during the playtest phase though.
I've always considered the lack of Nod transportation as its faction weakness. Nod already has a mobile force as it is which is stronger then GDI. GDI has the strength of having an APC to transport infantry early in the game. (Which can be used as counters in some situations vs Nod.)
Im not entirely to convinced on adding space for buggies. Specially if they hold Engineers inside.
Anyone is able to play the playtest. I would suggest having people to playtest what is coming up so they can grow accustomed to the hitboxes coming up. Will also have a stronger feedback doing it this way.
As for its duration I couldn't personally say. Its always best to test things thoroughly then rushing things through.
I've always considered the lack of Nod transportation as its faction weakness. Nod already has a mobile force as it is which is stronger then GDI. GDI has the strength of having an APC to transport infantry early in the game. (Which can be used as counters in some situations vs Nod.)
Im not entirely to convinced on adding space for buggies. Specially if they hold Engineers inside.
Anyone is able to play the playtest. I would suggest having people to playtest what is coming up so they can grow accustomed to the hitboxes coming up. Will also have a stronger feedback doing it this way.
As for its duration I couldn't personally say. Its always best to test things thoroughly then rushing things through.
-
AoAGeneral1
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm
-
AoAGeneral1
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm
Still collecting games over all but the changes seem good in the playtest. If you have any issues place them here or let me know on Discord.
As for the engineers they currently won't be seeing a change until later in the future due to a lot of other changes happening. (Hitboxes, stance changes, etc). Will be waiting on further games to evaluate this more so.
The MCV price is still on the block to make it 3600 but I want to collect a few games and peoples thoughts on this. There has been some rare cases where a MCV is built in 1v1 but its mainly map dependent (Not a bad thing of course as maps should influence different builds/ideas.)
As mentioned if anyone has any ideas or issues post them here! ^^
As for the engineers they currently won't be seeing a change until later in the future due to a lot of other changes happening. (Hitboxes, stance changes, etc). Will be waiting on further games to evaluate this more so.
The MCV price is still on the block to make it 3600 but I want to collect a few games and peoples thoughts on this. There has been some rare cases where a MCV is built in 1v1 but its mainly map dependent (Not a bad thing of course as maps should influence different builds/ideas.)
As mentioned if anyone has any ideas or issues post them here! ^^
-
AoAGeneral1
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm
It seems some changes were made to calibrate towards the hitboxes in the playtest from E3. The E3 (Rocket infantry) are doing a bit to much damage vs infantry and certain vehicles. The more odd thing about this is they seem to be doing nearly the same damage vs light tanks in both playtest and release versions except for medium tanks and mammoth tanks. I will be taking a closer look later on in the day but heres a few examples I have in mind:
Rocket infantry damage vs infantry from 30 to 20.
Rocket infantry damage vs heavy from 100 to 90.
Orca damage vs infantry from 50 to 30.
This is aimed to bring them closer to their damage values as they were in the release.
---------
The other small changes to be added are as follows:
Engineer movement speed reduced from 56 to 48. (Currently moved like minigunner speeds.)
---------
Will also be looking into increasing the Orca/Apache crash damage. However, it won't be something where you want to sacrifice these units to get better kills.
Rocket infantry damage vs infantry from 30 to 20.
Rocket infantry damage vs heavy from 100 to 90.
Orca damage vs infantry from 50 to 30.
This is aimed to bring them closer to their damage values as they were in the release.
---------
The other small changes to be added are as follows:
Engineer movement speed reduced from 56 to 48. (Currently moved like minigunner speeds.)
---------
Will also be looking into increasing the Orca/Apache crash damage. However, it won't be something where you want to sacrifice these units to get better kills.
Id like to see it do a more damage to buildings, its an interesting mechanicAoAGeneral1 wrote: ↑ Will also be looking into increasing the Orca/Apache crash damage. However, it won't be something where you want to sacrifice these units to get better kills.
-
AoAGeneral1
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm
Got some feedback about hitboxes and spread damages.
The spread damage is hitting multiple units at once now that the hitboxes are in. Rocket infantry because of this are hitting more units and dealing damage then they should be over all. The difference can be seen in the release version.
So the correct fix rather then trying to adjust individual values is to adjust the spread itself.
Missile Weapons spread damage reduced to 32 from 128.
---
This change affects both bikes and orcas which the orcas saw the same issue vs infantry. For the bikes they are ment to be anti armor and building herassments and having them deal spread damage vs infantry isn't a good idea.
The list up above for additional changes is still in plan. If you have any comments or ideas let me know here or Discord.
The spread damage is hitting multiple units at once now that the hitboxes are in. Rocket infantry because of this are hitting more units and dealing damage then they should be over all. The difference can be seen in the release version.
So the correct fix rather then trying to adjust individual values is to adjust the spread itself.
Missile Weapons spread damage reduced to 32 from 128.
---
This change affects both bikes and orcas which the orcas saw the same issue vs infantry. For the bikes they are ment to be anti armor and building herassments and having them deal spread damage vs infantry isn't a good idea.
The list up above for additional changes is still in plan. If you have any comments or ideas let me know here or Discord.
I had someone point this out to me during one of my map tests, that right now bridges are so weak they take basically nothing to destroy; even small arms fire can destroy them like it's nothing, like a small squad of 10 minigunners will down a bridge in 3 seconds flat. This was a map where I didn't modify the bridges at all, but in my time looking through the .yaml files of the main ruleset because I wanted to do some map modifications, I can confirm that default bridges have a HP value of 500. I mean I would at the very least expect some kind of armor value to make in near impervious to small arms fire.
In any case, I am just curious to know if this is intended behaviour. I know bridges are an unexplored aspect and just tend to be avoided in mapmaking.
In any case, I am just curious to know if this is intended behaviour. I know bridges are an unexplored aspect and just tend to be avoided in mapmaking.