OpenRA

As far as maps go you need to keep in mind that the Ore drains incredibly fast due to how fast ore trucks gather. You could compensate this slightly by increasing the ore regeneration rate from the ore nodes.

Day 2 of radar/tech to defense tab testing

Pros
+Fast tech is probably not overpowered, due to how difficult it was to get enough money for eco, tech units, and army production
+Faster tech allows for newer, more innovative ways to deal with mass arty, base pushing, and infantry blobs.
+Opportunity for tech units to shine at least 3-4 minutes earlier. In other words, tech units have an opportunity to be used as part of the mid game.

Cons
-Pillbox spam is definitely still possible and preferred by most people
-The strength of base pushing is not nerfed enough
-People have to get accustomed to the changes, so there are lot of inconsistencies
-Player skill is possibly skewing the results

Suggestions/Complaints
-Put service depot in the Defense tab as well

This is a very good suggestion from Blackened that I will test out later, but for now, I going to keep the SD in the building tab because I want to keep the replays as proof and because I don't want any WF+Dome, Dome + SD shenanigans that are not possible in the current patch.

-Add the pillbox cost/build time increase with the Radar Dome to defense

It seems like this is also necessary to curb the pillbox spam during the base push itself, but again, I'm going to keep the changes to a minimum in order to minimize the variance so that we can confidently say "which changes did what" rather than trying to bicker over which change had the most impact, etc.

-The map's are old and imbalanced

I'm not making a new map. If you think this is the problem, go make a new map.

-Nerf barracks HP

I'm kind of skeptical about this, because we're going to open a can of worms by doing multiple edits to multiple units, at the same time, to fix "one" issue. If someone wants to go through the work doing this, by all means, I'd love some help.

Recap

Generally, there were more positives than negatives. Once Smitty acclimated himself to the changes, he was able to hold off my (Allied) base push with V2's and patient play. I gg'd a little early for most people's tastes, but I was losing a lot of money with the base push, while Smitty was slowly accumulating his assets and his tech..,i definitely would not have been able to end the game with only base pushing.

I did a barebone test with 600/800 pillboxes, and coupled with my previous playtesting with $500 and $600 pillboxes, I can come to some conclusions about this. The base push is slowed down, but generally, I was still able to do secure enough eco and deny my opponent's eco, in what I would consider, an unfair fashion. I think, if I were to summarize these games as a whole, the games were 1) slower, 2) more prone to stalemate situations, and 3) reduced the number of pillboxes in the late game.

For the radar dome to defense tab edits, I've noticed some repeating trends after ~10-15 games worth of testing. Moving radar dome to the defense tab 1) sped the game up due to earlier access to tech, 2) made mobile armies stronger with tech units in the mix, and 3) slightly reduced the number of pillboxes on the map in the early/middle game. It's still too early to tell if the mobile, tech armies are stronger than the base push, but its much, much easier and smoother to tech up while creating an eco to support the army.

Let's do some math. The following will be focusing on the overall game, and not on the intricacies of base pushing; please don't siderail this part of my argument with, "but now you can't spam pillboxes during basepushes as quickly."

Radar Dome Edit

It takes 80 seconds to build a radar dome and tech center together, 44s, and 36s, respectively. This is a flat decrease from the total time you're able to build pillboxes.

Separately, the radar dome takes away 4 pillboxes' worth of build time, while the tech center (rounding down), takes away 3 pillboxes worth of build time. Together, they take away 8 pillboxes total. From this, we can determine the opportunity cost of teching: A radar dome is worth 4 pillboxes worth of time. A tech center is worth 3 pillboxes worth of time. To get Radar Dome and a Tech Center, it costs you 8 pillboxes worth of time .

Increased Pillbox Price edit

For $600 pillboxes on 1 MCV, it costs $1200 to build 2 pillboxes in 30 seconds. In the current patch, it costs you $1200 to build 3 pillboxes in 30 seconds. You build 1 less pillbox in 30 seconds than you would be able to in the current patch.

So 8 less pillboxes is reached in 240 seconds, off of 1 MCV. To factor in build time reduction, I will assume the norm is around 21% reduction (3 MCVS), Which means the average time it takes to reach 8 less pillboxes, at $600 apiece, is 190 seconds of constant pillbox production, with a range between 120s to 240s. The thing is, in 240s of 1MCV production time, you can build 16 pillboxes.

On paper, anything less than 16 pillboxes, the radar dome nerf is better at reducing the number of pillboxes on the field, and vice versa. However, since the game is sped up in the radar dome edit, you're going to see less pillboxes and more higher tech units, whereas in the slower $600/800 pb edit, you're going to notice that the pillboxes and armies usually stand still quite often.
_____________

In the Radar Dome edit, you can build 16 pillboxes in 160 seconds , or with the 21% reduction, 126 seconds. However, you're going to have to decide when to build your radar dome; if you build 4 pillboxes, you just "lost" your time to build a radar dome. If you build 8 pillboxes, you just lost your time to build a radar dome and a tech center. If you took 160s to build 16 pillboxes, you just lost double the time that could have been spent on tech. (note: build time reduction applies to pillboxes and tech structures equally, so while the numbers will vary, the quantity of pillboxes does not). Clearly, the consequence of base pushing is falling behind significantly on tech. Yes, you technically can just tech after you have secured the map, but from in-game experience, I will tell you that fighting an artillery/V2 mob, while teching, with no ability to build static defense, and with no higher tech units to snipe the artillery, is extremely painful.

On the other hand, with just a price increase, I can build as many pillboxes as I want with no repercussions. It just takes me a longer time to build more pillboxes, but regardless, I'm still going to build more pillboxes. To the base pushing/campy player, he's just going to sit in his base longer until he hits the right amount of pillboxes, and he's going to advance slower until his pillboxes are completed.

Now, on to what everyone is more concerned about...will this ~5 extra seconds per pillbox, during a base push, give the opposing player more time to deal with the push? Definitely. However, the build time needs to go to something like 15 or 20 seconds flat in order for anyone to see the desired effect of stopping pillboxes popping up like daisies. However, this won't stop the effectiveness of pillboxes during base pushes / defending; a good player will have a barracks for reinforcements and a handful of infantry next to the pillbox to stop them from getting easily sniped. If we make the delay too long, the game might become prone to extreme shifts in momentum, which will lead players to either commit to all-in type attacks or to just sit around and use arty, with no real engagements,

So far, here is what I have learned from my 10-15 radar dome play tests and my 20-30 or so pillbox play tests.Even if we nerf the pillbox to some unreasonable number, base pushing and MCV's are still going to be ridiculously strong due to the fact that there is no reason not to build pillboxes -- pillboxes have zero opportunity cost. As such, base pushing for eco has no alternative counter other than to base push yourself, simply due to the reason that you're not losing anything by building pillboxes. If you think that you lose something by building pillboxes, please look up the definition of opportunity cost (and please don't tell me building wall's is a good replacement for pillboxes >.>).

As a quick summary, I think moving the radar dome to the defense tab, in conjunction with increasing the build time of the pillbox to $500, may be an acceptable solution to both the pillbox and the MCV.

TL;DR : There is no tradeoff or consequence of building pillboxes, therefore, MCVs are OP because they've become attacking units that can get you eco and reinforcements.

I've attached replays from today's games, for those that are interested.

How about keeping the RA2 style tabbed building system, but only allowing 1 of any building to be built at any time like TS and games before?

The chances of a pillbox spam will be greatly reduced if the player is half way through building a tech center for example.

It could also potentially
> even playing fields slightly between players with high and low credit, as only one building can be built at any one time.
> Silos may actually finally be useful to build!
> Defenses would have to be strategically placed, rather than being queued up and placed on demand (then often immedietely sold again )

SMIFFGIG wrote: How about keeping the RA2 style tabbed building system, but only allowing 1 of any building to be built at any time like TS and games before?

I have not played RA2 and I would assume there are others too. I don't understand what this means. Could you please elaborate more?

SMIFFGIG wrote: How about keeping the RA2 style tabbed building system, but only allowing 1 of any building to be built at any time like TS and games before?

The chances of a pillbox spam will be greatly reduced if the player is half way through building a tech center for example.

It could also potentially
> even playing fields slightly between players with high and low credit, as only one building can be built at any one time.
> Silos may actually finally be useful to build!
> Defenses would have to be strategically placed, rather than being queued up and placed on demand (then often immedietely sold again )

Yes it wound mean you need units in your base to defend against early attacks, and maybe placing a pillbox or two where you predict where you may be attacked or to defend the most crucial infrastructure. It would probably (or possibly anyway) make the early game more interesting rather than just having a pillbox waiting that can deal with 90% of early game attacks without a problem.

It also means if you invest in more base defence you will have to trade that off for less tech and development which may perhaps add an interesting dynamic to things.

Anyway this seems like a similar suggestion, in practice, to my own of moving the base defence turrets etc over to the main tab. If I understand you correctly anyway.

I like the idea of early tech being more viable. But why make the SD a prerequisite for the Radar Dome? This has the opposite effect and means you can't go for an early air build (which can be interesting in team games)

af wrote: I like the idea of early tech being more viable. But why make the SD a prerequisite for the Radar Dome? This has the opposite effect and means you can't go for an early air build (which can be interesting in team games)

I glanced over this in my most recent post.

I understand there are a lot of people who complain you can't go Dome before SD in my playtest, but those builds aren't good builds to begin with and I need to keep the variance in all my games to a minimum. The goal isn't to introduce new builds into the game; the prerequisites and ordering of tech buildings can change. I am testing if faster tech can hold its ground versus static D, not to make the game completely different from minute 1.

Allowing WF+Dome, SD+Dome, or Dome+Ref would skew my data. We wouldn't know if base pushing and pillboxes got weaker due to tech being easier to get to (the intended change) or by a different build order that wasn't possible before.

Also, I don't want to edit anything right now because it would corrupt the rest of the replays. This is important because I need concrete proof that my change works. That way, I can convince all the naysayers and skeptics to change their minds.

Finally, I would like to set a precedent for future balance changes. Right now, people are just blurting out whatever they think is a good idea, and if enough people agree with what is said, then it gets changed. Mob mentality is a horrible way to balance a game -- go look at what SC2 has become. I hope that by proving my idea, rather than just making a straw poll, I can stop all the annoying "what if's" and "how about" suggestions/threads that keep popping up and force people to go test out what they say.

Doomsday wrote: I have not played RA2 and I would assume there are others too. I don't understand what this means. Could you please elaborate more?

RA2 was the first Command & Conquer introducing the multiple build queues (buildings, defenses, infantry, vehicles) we also use in OpenRA today. TS still had only two queues (the "classic" building/defenses and infantry/vehicles queue).

So I think he suggests we still keep buildings and defenses in different queues, but only allow one building/defense to be build at once.

abcdefg30 wrote:

Doomsday wrote: I have not played RA2 and I would assume there are others too. I don't understand what this means. Could you please elaborate more?

RA2 was the first Command & Conquer introducing the multiple build queues (buildings, defenses, infantry, vehicles) we also use in OpenRA today. TS still had only two queues (the "classic" building/defenses and infantry/vehicles queue).

So I think he suggests we still keep buildings and defenses in different queues, but only allow one building/defense to be build at once.

^this

As well as also hopefully helping address the issues in this thread, it would also bring the gameplay closer in line with RA1 anyway. (would need gameplay testing, but hopefully for the better too)

Edit:

zinc wrote: Anyway this seems like a similar suggestion, in practice, to my own of moving the base defence turrets etc over to the main tab. If I understand you correctly anyway.

Yes it seems the end result would be the same, except I propose keeping them in separate tabs

Day 3 Recap

+/-The gameplay is visibly unaltered by the Dome to Defense change by players who choose to just arty/spam and turtle. This is both good and bad....good in the sense that the game looks unaltered when compared to the current build, but bad in the sense that I can't tell if the tech has made a difference (because they're not building the tech center >.>). Most players seem to still enjoy/are still accustomed to spamming static defenses and turtling rather than using high tech.

+Soviets look great with this edit. Teching to T2 is a viable option to stop base pushing, but fast teching all the way to T3 is not OP. Playtest16 in the replay pack attached to this post is a good example of what happens when I try to fast tech to T3 with no static D and army.

Feedback

-Game is now too reliant on map control

I don't know what to say about this, since all the players are now accustomed to having a static defense queued up to deflect any attack. Personally, I think this is a noob's crutch (along with spamming pillboxes all over your base to stop counter attacks), especially when the game goes past the 4:30 mark. It's already a running joke that better players spam more pillboxes, and I believe that moving the Dome to Defense will be conducive to better game play by disallowing people to so easily deflect flanks, raids, and counter attacks.

- Allied pillbox spamming stll OP

The edit has reduced the total number of pillboxes on the map, but the opportunity cost of the pillboxes is still much lower than higher tech, which still leads to basepushing being moderately overpowered. This is consistently seen over the course of ~15 playtest games with $400 pillboxes in the Dome to Defense edit.

I think I've compiled sufficient evidence of Dome-to-Defense being a good change, so I am now going to incorporate the $600/$800 pillbox change to make the opportunity cost of pillboxes the same as flame towers. So now, a radar dome is worth 3 pillboxes, not 4. This will also stem the allied base pushing, which in turn, is a nerf to the MCV as an offensive unit. Game speed will probably slow down as a result, from past experiences from previous playtest maps, but my hope is that fast tech will force players to attack, and not to turtle.

I hope that I've now presented sufficient evidence proving that Defense-to-Dome is a good change. For the next phase of playtesting, I will compare Defense to Dome + $600/800 pillboxes versus only $600/800 pillboxes. If this phase of playtesting proves to work in favor of Dome-to-Defense, then I will ask for the community's opinions on prices and build times. Please do not suggest changing cost and build times of units/buildings with a name other than "pillbox" until I conclude this phase of the testing.

-Diversity of Maps

All the testing has been done on Warwind, and I would like to keep it that way for now. But since testing the changes on different maps must be done eventually in order to assure that the balance is not affected by different maps, I've made Dome to defense + $600/800 pillboxes to several different 1v1 maps that are ready for playtesting.

SMIFFGIG wrote:

abcdefg30 wrote:

Doomsday wrote: I have not played RA2 and I would assume there are others too. I don't understand what this means. Could you please elaborate more?

RA2 was the first Command & Conquer introducing the multiple build queues (buildings, defenses, infantry, vehicles) we also use in OpenRA today. TS still had only two queues (the "classic" building/defenses and infantry/vehicles queue).

So I think he suggests we still keep buildings and defenses in different queues, but only allow one building/defense to be build at once.

^this

As well as also hopefully helping address the issues in this thread, it would also bring the gameplay closer in line with RA1 anyway. (would need gameplay testing, but hopefully for the better too)

Edit:

zinc wrote: Anyway this seems like a similar suggestion, in practice, to my own of moving the base defence turrets etc over to the main tab. If I understand you correctly anyway.

Yes it seems the end result would be the same, except I propose keeping them in separate tabs

For logistical reasons, I will not test this right now, mainly because there aren't enough good players willing to help me test my own edit, let alone test out 5 other different edits.

On a game theory level, moving static to the production tab will drastically increase the opportunity cost of static defense -- this is good. But, the consequences of doing so will be increasing the opportunity cost of tech, eco, and production as a result. This may seem innoculous, but by increasing the opportunity cost of everything else, we've made getting tech even more difficult to get to. Most likely, this will do one of two things: 1) it will make each game longer and more painful, or 2) no one will tech, since its opportunity cost is even higher than before. To reiterate, I don't have the manpower to test this out right now, and since I suspect a poor result from putting everything into 1 tab, I will choose to test this out later.

-Lack of team games

A repeated complaint was that I was limiting fast tech by forcing SD to be built before Dome, which would have an impact on team games So, I've moved the SD to the defense tab as well, and made the WF a prerequisite for the Radar dome on a few 2v2 maps. I'm worried about allowing WF> Dome + Ref, and WF > SD + Ref, but I guess we'll see what this does to the game. Plus, it'll help me expand the testing to the newer players who dislike 1v1s.

-Give Tech its own separate tab (3rd tab for MCV)

Making tech have 0 opportunity cost is an interesting change, but I have no idea how to do this, not enough people to test this with, and this would take a decent amount of time and convincing to get the Dev's to help me make a 3rd production tab.

-Changing the cost of Tech and the HP of barracks

Reducing the price of the Radar dome/tech centers by $200 will make the opportunity cost of static D to radar approximately 2.5 to 1. This may be a change that I will test out in the future, but the priority right now is to show that Dome to defense, in conjunction with a pillbox price increase, will curb the power of mass MCVS. Fine tuning the costs of other buildings and adjusting the prerequisites can be saved for another time. Reducing the HP of barracks, again, is something that can be addressed after we see if my new edit works.

TL;DR,

There is sufficient evidence proving that moving tech to defense gives static defense an opportunity cost. Based on Soviet playtesting, an opportunity cost of 3 static defense buildings to 1 radar dome seems to be a good ratio. The next series of playtests will have $600 pillboxes and Dome to Defense edit (to match the $600 price of flame turrets). The goal of phase two will be to see if the opportunity cost of static defense is more important, or if the numerical price of the pillbox is more important.

edit: i've also decided to add a zip file of my playtest edits in the hopes that you guys will help playtest and let me know what you think

Regarding the 3rd queue problem. Isn't it possible to use the naval queue? (I know that it will ruin maps with sea, but in Warwind i should be no problem).

lucassss wrote: Regarding the 3rd queue problem. Isn't it possible to use the naval queue? (I know that it will ruin maps with sea, but in Warwind i should be no problem).

huh...didn't think of that. i'll try that out later

You might need to build a naval yard in order to unlock the naval tab

Doomsday - I believe that this can be changed. Here's a mod that I wrote yesterday that causes ore truck prodction to be done by ore refinery and not war factory. Ore trucks still appear on vehicle tab, but only come out of the ore refinery (like kennel and dogs). Queues are not limited to one building and can be moved from building to building (at least for units, I am not sure how buildings work, but I guess it works for them too).

http://resource.openra.net/maps/17630/