OpenRA

Might have been an oversight, but why was the SAM nerfed really hard? It no longer tracks all the way and it takes 3 missiles to kill an orca.

The oil derricks I can agree on as the small number ticks yet quick ticks do add up. A little impartial on the half refund but will see.

As for engineer the single engineer capture would give no chance for the defending player to stop. A five-seven second gives a chance to stop.

SAM sites are still planned for buffing but need to buff aircraft slightly in response. Still working on that.

Changable turrets isn't that much of a problem. Hit the deploy key and they jump out. The game has also made building selection easier by allowing double clicking and numbering on defenses.

I feel like balance is better with both sides getting turrets/GT. Having garrisonable GT's feels too RA to me and that is less preferred than the canon being slightly adjusted.

The changes planned for TD has gotten some discussions mainly around the Engineer.

A quick list of changes planned:

Orca damage increased from 25 to 28. (Ground only)

Apache ammo reload reduced from 200 to 40.

Apache ammo reload amount reduced from 10 to 1.

Sam now fires two missiles.

Sam range increase from 8c0 to 10c0.

Engineer now externally captures and gets consumed after five seconds. (Except husks)

MCV cost reduced from 4000 to 3400. (Still unsure)

Humvee damage vs light increased from 50 to 55.

The oil derrick changes have been dropped for now as going through the map lists is heavily dependent on oil placements in maps. The oil derricks are actually rather decent with their current tick rates but having maps that have poor oil placements makes them skippable due to easy snipes.

The original Humvee damage vs light was to high in the original after some feedback. Feedback encouraged something along the lines of "Keeping in the red of HP but only barely." This effect keeps it barely in the yellow close to red. It also has a fairly even playing style in hummers vs buggies while still giving them an edge for their price point.

The MCV will do well at a price point of 3600 as the 4000 is a bit to high. But I still don't want a large amount of MCVs to be made in conjunction of base crawling strategies. Some base crawling is alright but keeping in mind of the HP of the current MCV and Conyard needs to be kept in. The high HP of the unit also enables to discourages on infantry drops and good (while amusing) damage soaking for defenses.

The Guard Tower and Gun Turret split idea is being dropped for now due to veterancy bug. This idea will come back later.

The Engineers.

This is the most debated one. I will list a few exampling feedback answers that has come around with my answer to them.

Community: Make their capture threshold at 60% instead of 50% so they can be captured without nearly killing it or having it prevented because of repairs.

Me: This still makes the engineer to costly which is aside from the double issue makes them disliked to be used. A 1000$ net cost to capture something is not worth it let alone needing transportation for this.

Community: Reduce the engineer cost. This will make it so two together would cost 500$.

Me: The problem then resides that husk capturing is far to good. Medium Tanks being 800$ in cost would make them to efficient in husk captures.

Community: Make them single capture and instant capture rather then a delay. This will give the player a chance to respond via by selling or packing the MCV up.

Me: This was very frustrating in CNC95 with this logic and it made them way to strong. Also keeping in mind that a Guard Tower or any structure placement takes about 1.8 seconds to respond and shoot. By this time the engineer can already have something captured. Compared to the delayed 5 second capture this gives the needed response time.

Community: Forcing a lock on a structure and preventing it from being sold or captured would mean you would always have to be on the lookout and not something that needs to happen as it would put to much stress on new players.

Me: Same issue in the above line with instant capture and the double engineer capture idea as they both capture much faster then 5 seconds. Keep in mind that the Conyard can place a Guard Tower down still while it is being captured. You can also run a vehicle or a few infantry over to stop this.

Community: This would mean active scouting is needed to spot the engineers ahead of time.

Me: Scouting is an important role in any RTS game. This was more important in CNC95 in the start of the game.

--------------------

A list of maps below has the suggested changes for testing.

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21188/

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21189/

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21190/

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21191/

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21192/

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21193/

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21194/

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21195/

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21196/

AoA, as I've said to you many times, I, for one, am against your suggested changes to the engineer. It will result in a significant change to both the gameplay and the feel of the game. None of the TD players that I've spoken to want this (the majority were against it and a minority were indifferent). Some even say that it would put them off playing. With such a small core community, we can not afford to force through changes without care for that. Further, I think it will be more frustrating for new players than is the current mechanic.

I'm curious as to why you are so insistent on changing the engineer mechanic so significantly, whilst, in contrast, you can be talked around on other issues (e.g. discarding your large buff to the hummers, and making garrison-able guard towers). It feels like you've decided that this change should and will happen, other folk be damned.

A variety of viable build orders is a good thing, but such a change as you suggest would impact that. Your suggestion would force an early barracks to prevent a free running engineer from capturing the MCV, refinery or WF/airstrip (even being forced to sell a power plant to spawn a minifunner would pose a big setback).

You often profess to be a proponent of making small changes and judging their impact. Your suggested change is large and will change the feel of the game in a way that the majority of the regular players do not seem to want. Conversely, changing engineers to do e.g. 60% damage (and keeping the capture threshold at 50%, as that is obvious) is a small change that would increase the viability of engineers. A $1000 cost is certainly worth it to capture an MCV, airstrip/WF, refinery (especially early), comms, adv.comms/temple, whereas $500 would probably make it too cheap. Capturing a key structure can be a game ender, so such an attempt should carry some risk.

By the way, in RA, you can't place a defence structure whilst an engineer is capturing a con yard (I mention it in case it is a limitation in the code).

- - - - -

Regarding the apache ammo reload:
reload speed(?) change: 200/40 = 5
reload amount change: 10/1 = 10
10/5 = 2
Does this mean that the apache damage per unit time (where 'time' is large compared to a full discharge and reload cycle) is being nerfed by a factor 2? If so, I'd find that strange as apaches are already considered pretty weak.

That happens in RA but it isn't happening in TD. (When it comes to placing structures. This could very well be a bug in TD).

""Regarding the apache ammo reload:
reload speed(?) change: 200/40 = 5
reload amount change: 10/1 = 10
10/5 = 2
Does this mean that the apache damage per unit time (where 'time' is large compared to a full discharge and reload cycle) is being nerfed by a factor 2? If so, I'd find that strange as apaches are already considered pretty weak.""

Im not understanding that math but it reloads 1 shot per 40. This means that when the first shot is fired (Which is x2) the countdown starts. Compared to the 200 when the shot is fired (x2) its countdown is started. So while you are draining the current clip the 200 is counting. Which ultimately means its loading faster.

At 1 tick per 40 this means you fire from a single shot and do less damage per shot but at a faster reload tick. So this means even though the shots are less in damage because of single fire its doing a slow constant fire. This matches up with the Orcas x2 reload tick. As one tick happens at 1 bullet followed by another 40 that gives another 1 bullet. By then the Orca has its x2 shots to match the Apache's reload sequence.

A lot of people are also looking at it without considering multiple apaches.

-----------------------------------

Regarding Engineers:

There were many changes in ORA itself that went through that many people disliked. Copy pasting Sleipnir's words in the RA bounty thread:

"The discussion here really reminds me of older arguments about:
Implementing the feature that let infantry share a cell ("this will break the balance by making it too easy to mob infantry!")
Implementing the feature that lets tanks crush infantry ("this will break the balance by making infantry useless!")
Added the base radius to restrict base walking without moving the MCV (e.g. Github #2156, #4378, http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... hp?t=16899 and many many... many others)
The recent hind/cobra/huey fight

As the player counts have increased these arguments have become less and less pleasant to deal with.

The most important point to establish is whether or not the feature is appropriate at a conceptual level for the RA mod. So far many good points have been raised suggesting that it is not.

Arguments from both sides about "but muh balance!" don't really help IMO, because the balance and metagame will evolve and improve with or without it. The world didn't end when we added the base radius restriction, and I very much doubt it will end if we choose to remove bounties OR if we don't."

This was in response on the RA Bounty removal thread. I do agree that the world isn't coming to an end. Game strategies will always evolve and improve.

----------------

Finally, I am not some person who has some iron fist on TD or anything. The final decision is ALWAYS with the devs. Not me. This is merely just a hobby of mine and while doing it learning how the coding system works for my own experience. Im extremely passionate over TD and of the CNC universe. I didn't jump in going "Yea changes time!" It started with "Can someone make a change to this and that?" || "...Well... you can always do it yourself."

This is where it began.

With that said I need something more. I need actual data and information to persuade away from this change rather then "But it feels bad!" as I have listed the above.

Now back on track: --

A 1000$ cost is not worth it because you just sacrificed a lot of money. Half of a war factory and 500$ short from a refinery. If this gets shutdown its GG.

We haven't even touched the build duration to get an effective Engineer push going.

Doing a double engineer capture system is still much faster then a duration 5 second capture. Its using the same mechanics in CNC3, CD (Crystallized Doom), RA3, and they work well. This is shown to work well in these games.

Im fully aware that those games are not TD but CNC95 used the instant engineer capture logic and it was beyond stupid with how frustrating that was in both online play and network play. (And this was at less then 800x600 resolutions with left click commands and requiring dependency on radar.)

We also need to take into consideration of the players coming up in both games and IRC saying "How come TD isn't a single engineer capture like in CNC95?". At this point im gonna need data and build order examples for this. (if you have replays you can send those too with the map.)

Will be rolling out some of the changes in end of May/beginning of June. Some of them are as follows:

Humvee damage vs light increased from 50 to 55.
(Light vehicles such as buggies. Survive with barely yellow HP.)

Orca damage increased from 25 to 28.
(Deals a bit more damage in general. Not to noticable.)

Apache ammo reload reduced from 200 to 40.
(Reloads quicker.)

Apache ammo reload amount reduced from 10 to 1.
(Apaches will not reload instantly now. Gain one half shot per 40 tick.)

Sam now fires two missiles.
(Fires two missiles much like CNC95. Double damage because of this)

Sam range increase from 8c0 to 10c0.
(Shoots slightly farther.)

Engineer now externally captures. (Except husks)
(Engineers now externally capture. A timer currently of 5 seconds goes by before it is captured. Not an instant capture logic. Doesn't require two engineers.)

Engineer movement speed reduced from 56 to 48.
(This still needs some adjustments but slower movement speeds for engineer. Possibly 45)

MCV cost reduced from 4000 to 3600.
(See below)

------------------------

With the tests done on 3400 im still extremely skeptical on this working. I do know that 4000 causes a money drain issue in which the ORA will scale by its build speed in compared to its build time.

Example is: the money will drain slowly as it builds. Once it hits about the 0:20 mark the money starts draining REALLY fast. To fast. Bumping this down a bit should help from this problem while all the same preventing MCV crawling issues. (Also allows super tank MCV to remain)

AoA, I'm opposed to your engineer changes for the following reasons:


1. IMO, your engineer is not in keeping with the primary OpenRA Development Goal as it does not "retain the feel and nostalgia of the older games":
https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/wiki/Development-Goals


2. Your engineer forces a certain build order (early barracks). I tested your engineer (even his slower speed) in a series of 1v1 games versus anjew on Deterring Democracy (a relatively large 1v1 map). I went barrracks (engi) and anjew went refinery then airstrip. My engineer got to anjew's MCV and captured it before his airstrip was built. So, though your goal is to make more tactics and build orders viable (i.e. engineer plays in 1v1s), the effect is the opposite by making build orders unfeasible.
You played on the same map versus Doomsday (in his 3rd ever TD game), knowing that he would try to engineer you. You had to un-deploy your MCV before your war factory was built (losing a total of 61 seconds of build time in the end) and use your harvester to crush the engineer (losing harvesting time). It put you far enough behind that you lost the game despite the game lasting a good while longer, and despite it being Doomsday's third game and you being a TD veteran.


3. It is a $500 'gg'. Capturing or forcing the sell of the MCV, refinery, airstrip or even the power planet early game is significant and would usually result in a victory. Hence, such a high-reward strategy *should* come with significant risk. Players don't seem to like the opportunity for easy wins (hence why we should consider making a Hand of Nod a prerequisite for building recon bikes).


4. There are other, less-drastic changes that can be made to make engineers more effective:

(i) Indeed, an upcoming change should address the issue of engineers being crushed or shot as they move towards the building centre, by making the Enter activity use the closest target position:
https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/commit ... d3263512d7

(ii) Currently, when an MCV is un-deployed after the engineers have started the Enter procedure, the engineers are consumed with no effect. This makes going for an MCV risky and could be fixed. Perhaps it will be fixed by the change mentioned in (i).

(iii) With the current requirement for 2 engineers to capture a full-health building, it is often possible to begin a repair on the building between the entry of the first and second engi. Making the first engi deal 60% damage (instead of the current 50%) would prevent that from working.
Of course, a few shots from e.g. an APC or some infantry carried along in the chinook/APC or free-ran with the engineer prevents the repair trick from working. The change from the previous point should make this less perilous to do as it should stop the engineer from dying to friendly fire.

(iv) Engineers could be made a little cheaper, though I think their current price $500 is fine. I know that you fear that a price reduction would make the capturing of husks too profitable. I would counter that capturing on a battlefield is fraught with danger and the restored vehicle has low health. If engineers were too cheap, though, it would strongly benefit the battle winner.

Your claim that double-engineer capture is non-existent is false, even in 1v1s. The upcoming change [see (i), above] or possible changes [e.g. see (ii), (iii) and (iv), above] would make them more viable.


5. Your engineer does not have community support and you have not demonstrated sufficient need for it. On the forum, on Discord, and in game lobbies - including to you personally - many players have voiced their opposition to the external-capture engineer.


6. Your engineer is not the engineer that *you* want. You want an external-capture engi that disables sell and un-deploy, but not production (of infantry, vehicles, defences, etc). However, pchote said that it's all or nothing. So what is your position: are you now content with everything being disabled or do you intend to change pchote's mind in the future? If so, how?

GDave wrote: or do you intend to change pchote's mind in the future? If so, how?

He doesn't need to argue with me, but with the game code. External capturing is currently implemented specifically for RA's behaviour, and if parts of that aren't working properly in TD then that is unexpected, and should not be relied on to stay that way. It would be nice and will be eventually necessary to decouple the capture-disabling effects using conditions, but those code changes will not write themselves.

GDave wrote: AoA, I'm opposed to your engineer changes for the following reasons:


1. IMO, your engineer is not in keeping with the primary OpenRA Development Goal as it does not "retain the feel and nostalgia of the older games":
https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/wiki/Development-Goals

Neither does RA. However, TD is a lot closer towards CNC95 with the external capture then the double engineer capture.

GDave wrote: 2. Your engineer forces a certain build order (early barracks). I tested your engineer (even his slower speed) in a series of 1v1 games versus anjew on Deterring Democracy (a relatively large 1v1 map). I went barrracks (engi) and anjew went refinery then airstrip. My engineer got to anjew's MCV and captured it before his airstrip was built. So, though your goal is to make more tactics and build orders viable (i.e. engineer plays in 1v1s), the effect is the opposite by making build orders unfeasible.
You played on the same map versus Doomsday (in his 3rd ever TD game), knowing that he would try to engineer you. You had to un-deploy your MCV before your war factory was built (losing a total of 61 seconds of build time in the end) and use your harvester to crush the engineer (losing harvesting time). It put you far enough behind that you lost the game despite the game lasting a good while longer, and despite it being Doomsday's third game and you being a TD veteran.

It forces you to keep an eye out for engineer rushes. If you go warfactory/airstrip openers then that is your fault. If the player doesnt do anything for the warfactory/airstrip openers then the player doing those builds should get away with it. This is the same mindset with SCBW in doing a proxy barracks.

GDave wrote: 3. It is a $500 'gg'. Capturing or forcing the sell of the MCV, refinery, airstrip or even the power planet early game is significant and would usually result in a victory. Hence, such a high-reward strategy *should* come with significant risk. Players don't seem to like the opportunity for easy wins (hence why we should consider making a Hand of Nod a prerequisite for building recon bikes).

The power plant is a small flaw ive thought about as its linked as a tech structure to the refinery. Something that can be looked into in the future.

As for $500 gg its only gg if they don't defend it.

Making the Hand of Nod a prerequisite cripples Nods early game tactics. This is something I don't want to deviate from between a Nod vs GDI scenario where Nod is about having the early units compared to GDI having a stalwart force. (IE: buff to hummers)

GDave wrote: 4. There are other, less-drastic changes that can be made to make engineers more effective:

(i) Indeed, an upcoming change should address the issue of engineers being crushed or shot as they move towards the building centre, by making the Enter activity use the closest target position:
https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/commit ... d3263512d7

This code is not yet implemented however and will result in a wide array of changes to the units in response.

GDave wrote: (ii) Currently, when an MCV is un-deployed after the engineers have started the Enter procedure, the engineers are consumed with no effect. This makes going for an MCV risky and could be fixed. Perhaps it will be fixed by the change mentioned in (i).

This requires code to fix. (IE: Obelisk fix in itself took awhile for this change.)

GDave wrote: (iii) With the current requirement for 2 engineers to capture a full-health building, it is often possible to begin a repair on the building between the entry of the first and second engi. Making the first engi deal 60% damage (instead of the current 50%) would prevent that from working.
Of course, a few shots from e.g. an APC or some infantry carried along in the chinook/APC or free-ran with the engineer prevents the repair trick from working. The change from the previous point should make this less perilous to do as it should stop the engineer from dying to friendly fire.

This has been mentioned several times and would fix the double engineer requirement HP issue. But still doesn't fix the 1000$ over cost for a capture.

GDave wrote: (iv) Engineers could be made a little cheaper, though I think their current price $500 is fine. I know that you fear that a price reduction would make the capturing of husks too profitable. I would counter that capturing on a battlefield is fraught with danger and the restored vehicle has low health. If engineers were too cheap, though, it would strongly benefit the battle winner.

Mainly my fear on this change is Mammoth tank captures. Makes them extremely cost efficient and would frustrate the player in response. (This counts with medium tanks as well.)

GDave wrote: Your claim that double-engineer capture is non-existent is false, even in 1v1s. The upcoming change [see (i), above] or possible changes [e.g. see (ii), (iii) and (iv), above] would make them more viable.

The games ive played it doesn't exist in 1v1 as its easily stopped. As for the changes you mention above the answers given relate to those topics.

GDave wrote: 5. Your engineer does not have community support and you have not demonstrated sufficient need for it. On the forum, on Discord, and in game lobbies - including to you personally - many players have voiced their opposition to the external-capture engineer.

Many players have voiced about it and it is a split agreeance/disagreeance. The choice of going double engineer would remain as it is now which is non-existant use in 1v1 scenarios. (Including balanced teamed 2v2 games.)


Had a conversation with pchote and with some of the upcoming changes its best to put this on hold for now. Got some bigger work to do then the engineer changes and will need all the focus on this.

AoAGeneral1 wrote: However, TD is a lot closer towards CNC95 with the external capture then the double engineer capture.

Im curious, how is it closer when its an entire new mechanic?

AoAGeneral1 wrote: It forces you to keep an eye out for engineer rushes. If you go warfactory/airstrip openers then that is your fault. If the player doesnt do anything for the warfactory/airstrip openers then the player doing those builds should get away with it. This is the same mindset with SCBW in doing a proxy barracks.

The problem is it actually kills WF first and forces the meta closer to the RA style of focusing on infantry for the early game. This may be fine to some but in combination with the WF power increase it makes the early game longer since all players will have to build a power plant before going WF. So its a choice between praying your opponent doesn't go inf or waiting an extra 24 seconds to start building WF.

The irony of trying to make engineers viable is that it is also closing out other strategies so basically its a question of what do you want dominating the early game meta. Infantry or Vehicles

AoAGeneral1 wrote: As for $500 gg its only gg if they don't defend it.

And this is extremely common because Light Support is seldom used so scouting is close to impossible without going Barracks yourself

AoAGeneral1 wrote: The games ive played it doesn't exist in 1v1 as its easily stopped. As for the changes you mention above the answers given relate to those topics.

This isn't true. I feel its only under utilised because everyone knows the risk vs reward and would rather have a good match then a quick match. I attempted engineers on unedited versions of the map and it actually has the same outcome as the proposed engineer. It too can force WF first but no one does it because its $1000. This kind of says that the problem with the engineer is in the risk vs reward not the actual mechanics (minus all the bugs).

AoAGeneral1 wrote: Many players have voiced about it and it is a split agreeance/disagreeance...

Too be honest I haven't seen any players who feel strongly that this is the answer to our alleged engineer woes. Perhaps they could post their views.

Closer because it requires only one engineer. Balanced because it doesn't instantly capture the structure.

This is dependant on map. A larger map you can get away with WF first. Much like Desert Springs where you can get away with aircraft opener. Something like Dead in Motion you never want to open with WF. The difference is medium sized maps you have to play the risk factor. (Unless light support is on.)

With the double engineer plays if it fails your gg. With the single you still have a chance to play through it with a smaller setback. With GDI its a bit more stronger since the APC is cheaper over all to get in compared to the chinook. Also a bit more cost effective.

AoAGeneral1 wrote: This is dependant on map. A larger map you can get away with WF first. Much like Desert Springs where you can get away with aircraft opener. Something like Dead in Motion you never want to open with WF. The difference is medium sized maps you have to play the risk factor. (Unless light support is on.)

This is true however maps like Desert Springs are never played and for good reason. Most of the maps in the Official map pool fall into either Small or medium where this strategy is most effective. The real problem is that by making 1 engineer rather than 2 it is much quicker for a player to get their engineer across the map. (this even includes the speed nerf because the engineer is able to move out 8 seconds earlier than originally with 2 engineers).

In terms of infantry movement to get from point A to point B games are won using minigunner openers. (Such as the game vs Hi.) In which case if a player is known to do a mass rush minigunner build often times its best to open with a barracks.

Has these engineer rushes been tested with light support on?

Back when light support was being adjusted the games were often started with these settings on but has since been dropped by player requests before the match starts.

In the current release what are some of the reasons light support isn't used?

AoAGeneral1 wrote: Has these engineer rushes been tested with light support on?

Engineer rush is a lot less viable, it hasnt been tested but from experience the scouting potential usually prevents the rush

AoAGeneral1 wrote: In the current release what are some of the reasons light support isn't used?

Im not sure why but it seems to be very unpopular outside of you and I.