OpenRA

Cool!

thats not good stuff , and is "not cool" ...

with just 2 changed yaml lines he most likely make "a lot" of soviet-fans mad ... and this doesnt even fix the problem

a unit-swap here doesnt help the balance at all

PersianImmortal is right , we should fix the Pillbox ... or we should fix walls (pchotes idea) so we can block the flames , and wall up important structures

JOo wrote: or we should fix walls (pchotes idea) so we can block the flames , and wall up important structures

What is wrong with the walls now? As I mentioned:

"I just tested it again, using 5 of them and an MCV, and the difference is 6-7 seconds to destroy the MCV with no wall, compared to 20--35 seconds with a concrete wall around it."

I'm thinking that if a player sees a concrete wall, they aren't even going to try. They will pick a softer target.

Anyone want to play a few allies vs soviet games with me? I don't think flame rush is actually that much of a problem for an allies player.

"doubles" map would be good.

yeah , i just checked the walls ... seems to work against flames ..

pchote told me the other day , that "flamethrowers" are sometime affected on this here :

https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues/5294

sometimes , but not always ... so the obvious solution for him , is to fix this long-time bug , then we dont have to change anything at all

JOo wrote: thats not good stuff , and is "not cool" ...

with just 2 changed yaml lines he most likely make "a lot" of soviet-fans mad ... and this doesnt even fix the problem

a unit-swap here doesnt help the balance at all

PersianImmortal is right , we should fix the Pillbox ... or we should fix walls (pchotes idea) so we can block the flames , and wall up important structures

Exactly. The pillbox has long been overdue for a buff anyways.
Flame rush isn't new to the meta
It's been around for years and its only become an issue because people dont know how to properly counter it.
If you're letting the soviet player get 10 flame throwers and 2 apcs together you're doing something wrong.

While I'm fond of moving Flamethrowers down the tech tree, I'll support Persian's suggestion of upping the allied pillbox. It's a good idea and everybody seems ok with it. Brilliant! What's next?

I see the Github links, but I'm not clear on what the process is from there. Is there anything I can do to move this along? Can I send somebody a bottle of wine or something?

I'm willing to put in a pillbox buff. We'll need to agree on how much to buff the pillbox. Buff the damage considerably, enough to one-shot infantry like a hind? Or slightly, enough to two-shot rifle infantry? Something else?

Scott_NZ wrote: one-shot infantry like a hind?

That sounds reasonable. Anybody else?

"one-shots" for pillbox are totally fine ... considering that a flame-tower 2-shots "5 infantry"

JOo wrote: "one-shots" for pillbox are totally fine ... considering that a flame-tower 2-shots "5 infantry"

Seconded

Did the price of the pill box go up?

5 flame troops and an APC is a $2350 attack, and you have to get the flame turret first of course.

I don't see a problem if one $400 pill box isn't enough by itself to counter it.

As has been suggested in another recent thread, allies already have a noticeable advantage over soviets, and I think that is correct at least on smaller maps. Making things harder for the soviets when they are already at a disadvantage...

If I throw together a map with custom rules (with the goal of getting the rule changes into the next version of the game), will people test it?