If hinds were returned to soviet...

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc »

Happy wrote:
zinc wrote: give one soviet faction both helis and yaks, or maybe hinds and transport helis for mid tech, and planes for high tech

zinc wrote: would be a relatively moderate change, that wouldn't change gameplay too much.
You're trolling right?
It would change gameplay for one Soviet faction a bit. You could argue it would have additional consequences for anyone playing against that faction, but I don't see it would suddenly be massively different because you have to deal with heli transport attacks perhaps, or that a Soviet faction would be better at picking off troops (artillery maybe) with air units.

I'm not thinking it will "break the game" unless you make changes X, Y and Z to compensate. I could always be wrong...

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc »

eskimo wrote: Couple of points that i'd like to raise.

Do the devs notice large player number changes between releases? As the stance change was quite a big change and i wonder if that made an impact on player numbers much?

But i also feel, some of the OG fans dislike openra due to it's huge changes.

When looking at Cake's mod, or SoS mod, i rarely (if ever) see other players playing them outside of the modder hosting the games. Not arguing that big changes impact player numbers, but just putting it out there.

But also, Sovs could be master's of the air, and Allies be master's of the seas going by OG RA. If that were balanced, damage/health/speed/etc wise, do we want maps that are all 50% watery?

Currently, i like the way openra has options to play it. Not saying removing the Hind will end up in linear play, but putting the Yak and Hind in similar roles is essentially removing an option of playing imo.
I think that kind of mod would get more use if it were loadable for any map. Actually the SoS mod I have noticed being played quite a bit so maybe some other people like it.

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 539
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

Happy wrote:
anjew wrote: Personally, I dont see this as a strong argument. Just because something has been wrong for a long time doesn't mean it should stay that way.
Unfortunately, you could then apply this too many things. For example fog of war. Wasn't in the original therefore its wrong let's bin it..
This issue generates a lot of discussions and it has for years. The addition of flak trucks has a lot less discussion. This isn't about the lack of it being true to the original games.
I was referring to all the arguments I brought up previously. The fact its historically inaccurate and the fact that any other fix is a bandaid fix to the actual problem. The point I was trying to get across is that just because its apart of the current meta, it doesn't mean something cant be altered to fill its role and it also doesn't necessarily mean its a negative thing just because mixes things up.

Of the 3 choices to put an end to some of the complaints (change the name, change the art+name or change the faction), I feel that changing the faction and attempting to accommodate is the best option. This obviously isn't something that should be done on a whim, it needs careful planning and preparation.
Image

User avatar
Sleipnir
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 11:52 pm
Contact:

Post by Sleipnir »

eskimo wrote: As the stance change was quite a big change and i wonder if that made an impact on player numbers much?
http://www.openra.net/players/ says not, but the RAGL boost distorts the numbers so its difficult to say for certain.

If you compare the couple of months before September 2017 with Jan/Feb 2018 then player counts on the weekend are up a bit, and are down a bit during the week. You could try and interpret that as a trade between competitive players (who are more likely to play every day) and casual players (who are arguably more likely to play on the weekend), but that would be a stretch.
eskimo wrote: putting the Yak and Hind in similar roles is essentially removing an option of playing imo.
There is no reason for them to stay in similar roles. Things could be changed to open up new options of playing and maybe even solve other issues in the process. An obvious idea that has been raised before is to give it a couple of transport slots, or it could become a faction-specific replacement for the Yak similar to Germany's upgraded Chronosphere. The stated goal of this thread was to look for ideas like these, which could be considered by whoever wants to take on the challenge of trying to make it work.
Last edited by Sleipnir on Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc »

For the "two different Longbows" idea...

As I understand it, the Longbow was an upgraded type of Apache. So standard Apache at tier 2 and Longbow at tier 3?

User avatar
Smitty
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:33 am
Location: Oklahoma

Post by Smitty »

I just want to reiterate that we don't plan on taking any action on hinds until we've found a balanced solution to the problem.

___

There's two methods that I'm pondering, one of which I should actually know how to test. Both ideas include moving the hind to soviets and re-balancing it in a way that makes it more distinct in role from the Yak:

1.) Give the longbow a weak chain gun that doesn't run out of ammunition in addition to its missiles, and look at moving it to T2.
Pros/Cons
+ Keeps original units
- Harder to balance
+/- Will change allied anti-air abilities at T2, which may or may not be a good thing considering they lack mobile AA

2.) Take the idea from the guy who made the Huey. (except go with the Cobra; sexier helicopter, also has the chain gun in the nose so you won't need two offsets)
+ Keeps balance
- Unoriginal unit
- Have to do new artwork and make it look good (Also make it a two bladed chopper. While we're at it lets add a fifth blade to the hind 8) )

Again, don't expect action on this until we're convinced that balance has been achieved.
"Do not trust the balance tzars (Smitty, Orb). They are making the changes either for the wrong reasons, for no reason at all, or just because they can and it makes them feel good." - Alex Jones

User avatar
avalach21
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:01 pm

Post by avalach21 »

zinc wrote: For the "two different Longbows" idea...

As I understand it, the Longbow was an upgraded type of Apache. So standard Apache at tier 2 and Longbow at tier 3?
Hmm.. Nod did have an "Apache" in TD... and it did shoot a chaingun..

What if the Allies get to build Nod's "Apache" from TD at tier 2 and then they get to build their "Longbow" (from RA1 with missles) as normal after building a tech center at tier 3?

As for the unit itself.. they obviously look very similar if not identical.. does anyone know if there is any visual different between the Apache from TD and Longbow in RA? If we could make some kind of minor adjustment to clearly differentiate them visually then this might be a good option to go with..

It also looks like the unit icon is identical but they just swapped out the name "Longbow" for "Apache" I'm sure we could make a new icon or adjust it in someway if we wanted (or really just left it as is with the different text should be fine)

lawANDorder
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:20 pm

Post by lawANDorder »

deleted
Last edited by lawANDorder on Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc »

lawANDorder wrote: I would also like to share some thoughts about the project of returning Hinds to Soviets:

First of all, it is in my opinion important to understand that the current meta is the result of how the game is balanced right now but does not reflect how the game should be played. Actually, the nature of an intended gameplay is quite irrelevant because from how I understood Sleipnir in his recent posts - which I agree with -, there is no such general intention but the requirement to be mindful of the desires and motivations of a heterogeneous community. Any conclusion based on the observation that a drastic change like returning Hinds to Soviets would subvert the evolved gameplay is due to the underlying naturalistic fallacy inherently flawed.
If you really did want to seriously subert the evolved gameplay, (so just one combat aircraft for allies, and three for soviet), I think you would need a better reason than just being pure to the original units. You would need a lot of confidence that the new type of gameplay would be just as good at least, if not hopefully substantially improved, so that you could win people round to the new changes.

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc »

avalach21 wrote:
zinc wrote: For the "two different Longbows" idea...

As I understand it, the Longbow was an upgraded type of Apache. So standard Apache at tier 2 and Longbow at tier 3?
Hmm.. Nod did have an "Apache" in TD... and it did shoot a chaingun..

What if the Allies get to build Nod's "Apache" from TD at tier 2 and then they get to build their "Longbow" (from RA1 with missles) as normal after building a tech center at tier 3?

As for the unit itself.. they obviously look very similar if not identical.. does anyone know if there is any visual different between the Apache from TD and Longbow in RA? If we could make some kind of minor adjustment to clearly differentiate them visually then this might be a good option to go with..

It also looks like the unit icon is identical but they just swapped out the name "Longbow" for "Apache" I'm sure we could make a new icon or adjust it in someway if we wanted (or really just left it as is with the different text should be fine)
It looks identical or near identical (as far as I can tell) with the only difference I can notice being the different animation for the gun fire.

So this option I guess would depend on whether you see value in keeping to the "Apache" name and design (with maybe a little bit of design change) that has a history in C&C, and creating a close variant; or whether it's just better to go with a completely new design and name.

eskimo
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:59 pm

Post by eskimo »

Smitty wrote: 1.) Give the longbow a weak chain gun that doesn't run out of ammunition in addition to its missiles, and look at moving it to T2.
What would the roll of the Soviets air be?



I'm open to the idea, but just can't get my head round the game being better with Soviets having the Hind back versus what we have now.

By better, i mean being in a position where all types of players are happy with the game, the game appears/feels more to the original, and games become more dynamic and stalemates are less common.

Though if it's an option that is going to be heavily invested in, then we should really get naval into the same build when testing.

User avatar
KOYK_GR
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:46 pm

Post by KOYK_GR »

Just give soviets an air transport and we call it even, no need for hind swap
=================
Also Known As ELoyros ||
=================
Information:
My OpenRa Maps http://resource.openra.net/maps/uploader/249/
My Red Alert 2 Mod http://www.moddb.com/mods/red-alert-2-y ... e-apolyton
My Tiberium Dawn Mod: http://www.moddb.com/mods/tiberian-dawn-apolyton

User avatar
Inq
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:48 am

Post by Inq »

zinc wrote: For the "two different Longbows" idea...

As I understand it, the Longbow was an upgraded type of Apache. So standard Apache at tier 2 and Longbow at tier 3?
I use both in my mod,

The telltale of a (Apache) Longbow is the dome on the top.

Image

Whereas the Apache does not,

Image

It could be done quite easily by editing the rotor, like below.

Image
Attachments
LongbowRotor.zip
LB rotor, white + house colour
(1.77 KiB) Downloaded 35 times
Last edited by Inq on Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc »

So the original game(s) just recycled the Apache, called it a Longbow, but didn't bother to put the dome on the top as the Apache Longbow version actually has in real life?

User avatar
Inq
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:48 am

Post by Inq »

zinc wrote: So the original game(s) just recycled the Apache, called it a Longbow, but didn't bother to put the dome on the top as the Apache Longbow version actually has in real life?
Yeah, pretty much... it’s a straight palette swap, they even left a couple pixels the wrong colour.

Post Reply