Pushwall

What am I saying? I can just make the event destroyers reskinned reteamed SAM sites with new weapons. I can totally do this.

If I could make the AI preferentially target a specific kind of unit, I'd probably go "full asshole dungeon master" mode and back up the cheat-mode cruisers with cheat-mode destroyers with rockets that seek out Chinooks all the way across the map. Just to drive home the idea that yes, the Soviets have done fucked up and retreating will not help. (They'd probably get sent to the gulags anyway, AA destroyers would do them a favour.) Air units would require the visibility system to be rewritten. Under normal circumstances I really hate doing that. Doing that on the most detailed map in the game which already crashes a lot in the editor when writing the vis system just for areas that only ground units can be present in is hellish enough. I'd rather not spend several weeks trying to get a workable vis result from adding air sectors into the mix. Especially since that also means having to manually reapply all the manual fixes that have had to be done to this map's visibility system over the months. So make the water behind the island too deep to stand in, gotcha. Granted, it can't be difficult for an Allied player to get onto that island and kill rocket guys either. Medics do wonders in close quarters and have the easiest time of getting to that island with enough health to not die to an RS pistol, due to having a combination of Captain health and Sergeant speed. Fair enough. That's why I'm really only looking at the maps where the imbalance is more than 20%, where it's hard to attribute the discrepancy to random chance.

Recently we've actually had an easier way to track map balance than scrounging through server logs. It's been 2 weeks since then so we have a fair bit of data to work with so I figured I'd share it and get some discussion going on how the maps are balanced and how they should change. This could easily have gone in the patch balance thread but this is a big post that will probably get drowned out in a page or two so I figured it should be put in a new topic. Unfortunately I haven't had much time to play recently so I don't have many insights on how the maps are balanced myself. So feel free to speak if you have something to say about certain maps or disagree with my assessments, especially if you actually have been playing a lot! So, ever since the map balance tracker was put into play on the 11th February, here's the rundown of games: Allied victories: 241 (51.39%) Soviet victories: 228 (48.61%) We have to look a little deeper than that though: There's been a lot of games played that are smaller than 3v3 - in that case the matches become much more about player skill than how Allies/Soviets/the map is actually balanced, and is very prone to imbalances from one team having one more player than the other. Every game of Seamist that lasts the full 20 minutes actually gets counted by the system even if no players are ingame, so that's a lot of faux Allied victories right there! There's a couple of games that ended by "server shutdown" - a bit of a misnomer, this is when a map ends early due to a vote or moderator skipping it. This typically happens too early for a match to be considered favourable to either team. Games on Rock Trap and Forest of Illusion are not indicative of normal gameplay in the slightest. On RT the only difference between the teams is what rifle you get and on FoI there's no difference at all, victory just comes down to whose team has the better players, which is not what we're looking at. It's possible spawn locations might be off so those maps actually are imbalanced but again they are not part of normal gameplay so I don't really care. There were a handful of games on Hostile Waters which I'm discounting as it was in a beta state at the time. So I've chosen to ignore all games with less than 6 total players, games that ended by shutdown, and games on RT/FoI/HW. 4v2 games and the like are still counted, as this is usually indicative of endgame ragequitters (you can't have 4 people on one team without there having been 3 or 4 people on the OTHER team at some point) or spies. Narrowing the games down as such, we're left with: Allied victories: 101 (45.91%) Soviet victories: 119 (54.09%) Base Destruction victories: 109 (49.55%) High Score on Timeout victories: 111 (50.45%) If we're being even more stringent and discounting Fissure/Wasteland due to not being AOW maps, that's 89 Allied (45.88%) and 105 Soviet (54.12%) which is almost the same ratio so who cares. And a bit more of an in-depth look at each map: RA_AS_Seamist 10 Allied (71.43%) 4 Soviet (28.57%) 14 Base Destruction 0 High Score This map kinda has an Allied bias built into it from the nature of the objectives so I'm not sure what can really be done here - maybe Allies need less reinforcements? RA_Bonsai 5 Allied (35.71%) 9 Soviet (64.29%) 8 Base Destruction 6 High Score Oh no spy roof flares are such a big problem on this map where Soviets win noticeably more??? There's definitely the known issue of the Radar Dome spy zone not working - this is fixed next build (until then, just jump in the basement, cause the spy zone is actually floating an inch off the ground). I think I'll also deepen the water around the Allied dome hill as that is definitely not an intended base entrance. RA_CamosCanyon 14 Allied (70%) 6 Soviet (30%) 9 Base Destruction 11 High Score You know what's funny is that if you go through this whole list you'll notice that most of the maps are Soviet-biased to some degree, be it marginally or significantly. But one Allied-biased map comes along and suddenly there's a furore about it. Hmm. This map at least has already had a discussion about its imbalance though, and I'm kinda leaning towards the idea of adding a pillbox/flametower on the ore hill, because it would discourage early rocket attacks for both teams, and when vehicles come into play that one defense would pose much more of a problem for the Allies than it would the Soviets. RA_CoastalInfluence 5 Allied (29.41%) 12 Soviet (70.59%) 8 Base Destruction 9 High Score Oh no arty spam is such a big problem on this map where Allies rarely win??? Of course, flooding vehicles across that bridge is also pivotal to most of the Soviet victories too. The coast is barely even a concern. This map needs a considerable reworking to be honest. Something I was thinking of doing was turning the arty spam peninsula into an island with two bridges leading to it, so you can stop vehicles from getting onto it period. Kind of like this area on Red Alert's original Coastal Influence: Problem then is that Volktillery can still be a thing. I'd probably get rid of the dock too and make it hard for (Soviet) infantry to actually get onto the island, stick a bunch of destructible hedgehogs around the ends of the bridges on the island so you can't just flood arties/v2s across it before anyone has the means to destroy the bridges, and downgrade the coil to 2-3 flame towers. In the upcoming version Destroyers/Missile Subs will destroy bridges a fair bit faster and I'm thinking of decreasing the bridge's hitpoints period so they will go down faster. RA_Complex 6 Allied (42.86%) 8 Soviet (57.14%) 10 Base Destruction 4 High Score Not sure this warrants an in-depth look really, more games will have to be played here to determine if there's any real imbalance. This one surprised me a bit though due to the intentionally bad Soviet ore silo placement. RA_Fissure 2 Allied (18.18%) 9 Soviet (81.82%) 1 Base Destruction 10 High Score Given how many of these victories are high-score based, I feel like a big factor in the Soviet bias here is because flamethrowers actually do sort-of noteworthy damage to building exteriors, and thus can rack up more points than the Allies, who have to use rocket soldiers for this which are useless against infantry. And I'd rather not decrease flamethrower building damage any further than I already have because then they'd see even less use on normal maps. They are getting a splash nerf next version though. RA_GuardDuty 5 Allied (33.33%) 10 Soviet (66.67%) 11 Base Destruction 4 High Score This surprised me quite a bit too, I often see the Soviet base getting overrun and Artilleries spamming the Refinery across the river. But I can see how Soviets can be favoured here too, what with V2s doing pretty much the same thing as Artillery but without the need to figure out a trajectory, and Flamermobiles sneaking around doing the combined work of both rocket soldiers and grenadiers. Maybe Flamethrowers should go up to Tech Level 3 (removing them from this map) or Soviet rangers should be dropped entirely? What do you guys think? RA_KeepOffTheGrass 5 Allied (41.67%) 7 Soviet (58.33%) 3 Base Destruction 9 High Score Taking a look at the victories list over time this has evened out a bit recently (it was more Soviet-biased a week back) possibly due to the MAD nerf. Aside from that, obviously base destruction is at a low due to the huge size of the bases, that's just how it is. RA_PacificThreat 4 Allied (33.33%) 8 Soviet (66.67%) 6 Base Destruction 6 High Score Oh no thieves are such a big problem on this map where the Allies rarely win??? No seriously I'm pretty confused by this too. Granted, over a week ago, naval was heavily biased in the Soviets' favour, but that's not as much the case now. Maybe air's also a problem and longbows should be stronger against subs? Cause now that I think about it, there's not much point in actually getting a longbow on this map. Though in the upcoming version they'll hit buildings a little harder. RA_Pipeline 9 Allied (60%) 6 Soviet (40%) 8 Base Destruction 7 High Score Not as imbalanced as I'd expected honestly. It's actually teetering on my cutoff point for "this should be played more because it's not clear if there's really an actual imbalance yet". A few people have asked for Soviet rangers on this map so that Soviets are on equal ground with regards to the vital task of fielding engineers, but that would just create even more problems, as all of the oil pumps (except the one by the allied base obviously) are actually a little closer to the Soviet base than the Allied base to compensate for their lack of a fast transport, and once Shock/Volkov rangers get onto the field the Allies might as well just give up - this is why the only AOW map with Sov rangers happens to also be the only one where top-tier infantry aren't available. RA_RidgeWar 7 Allied (53.85%) 6 Soviet (46.15%) 6 Base Destruction 7 High Score Looks like the recent changes have evened things out a bit maybe? Don't really know what else to say here. RA_StormyValley 9 Allied (56.25%) 7 Soviet (43.75%) 8 Base Destruction 8 High Score Not sure this warrants an in-depth look really, more games will have to be played here to determine if there's any real imbalance. RA_Under 3 Allied (20%) 12 Soviet (80%) 3 Base Destruction 12 High Score So wait, who was it who said Phase Tanks should go up to Tech Level 4 because they're soooo good on this map, the most Soviet-biased AOW map thus far? In the upcoming version I've removed the flame tower overlooking the dock (not the one next to the silo, the one behind that) which should make Allied navy a bit more fearsome. Aside from that, idk, maybe the recent naval rebalances should swing things in the Allies' favour a bit too (of those 3 Allied victories, 2 of them were very recent). Maybe the coil also needs to go but then what to do with the PP? Surely getting rid of the Gap as well would just help the Sovs even more. And I'm pretty anxious about doing anything that would involve rewriting the visibility system (i.e. removing/adding main buildings). RA_Wasteland 10 Allied (66.67%) 5 Soviet (33.33%) 5 Base Destruction 10 High Score Another funny one because normally I see Soviet victories due to Allies getting a mech for their medium tank and proceeding to feed a massive point advantage to the Soviets. Maybe the money crates should go so there's no early Tanyas? RA_Zama 7 Allied (41.18%) 10 Soviet (58.82%) 9 Base Destruction 8 High Score Oh no spy roof flares are such a big problem on this map where Soviets win slightly more??? Not sure if any changes are needed here tbh. Maybe bring the Gap Generator forward a bit? Again, feel free to say how you feel about this, share your experiences, what you feel could be done about each map, or if you think I'm wrong about something.

I did this on KOTG - while most of the Soviet defenses were still up so it involved my Tanya taking a lot of flame tower shots and finding the perfect places to avoid being hit by the 1 remaining coil - on a match that was a 4v4 or 5 IIRC. And the Soviet base was heavily populated for most of this. Supply Trucks' C4 restoration is hardly OP in my opinion, people just need to recognise that Supply Trucks actually have a threatening feature now and destroy them or capture them instead of just leaving them lying around when there's the looming threat of Tanyas/Engineers. Supply Trucks die in a matter of seconds to anything that can actually hurt them and they can't even be meched effectively due to having only health and no armour. But I got lucky because a horde of heavy tanks spilling out of both sides of the base didn't bat an eyelash at the Allied-insignia supply truck parked outside their CY in a position that the coil can't hit (which I'm pretty sure several of them did see), even after losing several of their buildings to the same Tanya and even after I answered one of their player's question about where one Tanya is getting so much C4 from. If anyone had actually done something about the completely unprotected truck which I had to leave alone for minutes at a time, that would never have happened.

This is what the alternate camera is for.

I see your Super Engio Bros and raise you the Tanya Twins. Also have a truck full of people who aren't clones for once!

I could probably release it right now if you wanted to figure everything out yourself. All that's left is to write the documentation and that is something I am horrible at, but being the sole active mapper for the APB team for the past year and having changed a few things from when the other active mapper was around, I'm probably the only one who can aside from maybe Raap

I could also carve out a cliff in front of the Soviet ore mine to make it harder to hit the OT from the field. Or maybe even give the Soviets a tesla coil in place of the ref FT (mitigates the approach of tank spam around the OT route while still being not exactly difficult for arties to take out)

Or just give Soviets an extra silo instead of giving even more money to the Allies?

The destroyer was refusing to fire sometimes (both the depth charges and the missiles). Usually when it's close to land, which it has to be to hit certain buildings on certain maps. Not sure why but granting full rotation to the turret fixes that.

Rolled off

How did you ever guess

It wasn't capturing buildings specifically - just stealing technology, which is actually more fair than straight up capturing because at least the enemy still has the building and is therefore capable of mirroring your mammoth-mechs with their own if they dabble in tech capturing too (not that that actually makes mammoth-mechs fair or balanced at all). Also the engine treats base structures quite differently from aux structures so I'm doubtful of if actually capturing something like a war factory would even be doable, and if it is it would take far too much effort to get it implemented and then another batch of far too much effort would need to be spent overhauling the balance of everything in the game to make such a thing fair. So no.

Not to mention desert camo on CI, Zama and Guard Duty due to all the expanses of bare/rocky ground on CI/Zama and the lighting on Guard Duty.

Neutral service depots probably aren't a good idea though because they can render the Allied advantage of being able to repair in the field moot, allowing Soviets to mount extended sieges with their superior units, while Allies don't get superior units to reinforce their extended sieges (which is just as well because introducing tech stealing means Mammoths and Mechanics on the same team = GG, and Tesla Tank Mechanics probably aren't that much weaker.) Not to mention that it gives more power to vehicles in general, which they really don't need right now. It's only half-fair on Hostile Waters because naval units can't use SDs, air units can't refill their ammo while they're on SDs, and mechanics are less usable with either of those than they are with ground vehicles anyway.

I see him ingame right now so I think he's got it.

Heavy tank is mostly redundant for Allies, and the thief is not "basic" by any stretch as it is practically a Tanya that can only target refineries but does something more useful than just stopping the enemy economy. Since Allies don't get AP mine layers, that's probably even more unfair than Soviets being able to steal Tanyas, which was a thing on MPF's 2.1.4 server and was one of the biggest sources of complaints back then. You know, I'd much rather take the effort that could be spent on clawing desperately at bad ideas in futile attempts to make them balanced and spend that effort reviving old maps instead.

Nooooooooooooooooooooo. Back in 2.1.4, MPF proved that this was the worst idea ever. It's not even worth trying to balance this. Also a lot of people seem to have forgotten about the whole "We are not going to make any more insanely radical gameplay changes that require months of balance work because the game is fine as it is" thing.

Look if I can't make a beacon launcher then I can't make a beacon launcher. That's still a location that is not the place that the binocular holder is standing.

I could add purchase temps for all the non-temperate maps to make the correct camo the default one, but if any vehicle ever needs its availability or price changed again, you'd better be mindful of why I don't want to go through with that.

Nope. The game crashes immediately when I try to make the binoculars spawn an a-bomb beacon instead of a radar marker (which is not a beacon), pretty sure this is going to be the case for any kind of beacon I make. So add a bunch of AA defenses to a bunch of ground maps then. Fat chance. Cinematic units crash the game if they're destroyed (which was possible before Delta when purchased helicopters could actually take damage during their purchase cinematic). There is another thing I'm considering doing with the radar dome though (something that's actually doable!): making it also act as a tech centre, since finishing up the tech centres and actually finding room for them in various maps is a huge case of effort >>>>>>>>>>> reward and radar itself isn't that useful outside of Bonsai. Basically if it's destroyed you would lose access to all Tech Level 5 units - Tanyas, Volkovs, MAD Tanks, Demolition Trucks, and anything else in the future that might end up there. Of course this would have no effect on the TL4 Bonsai, but losing your radar is enough of a penalty on that map.

It had the exact same health and armour type as the med in RA. Giving it more armour is just asking to make allied infantry more useless. Med's price got raised to 900 for a reason. If you want a really bullet-resistant vehicle get a mammoth, that's what they're for.

Assuming it's even possible. There's probably a good reason why the MK2's chin gun is automatic. And before someone says "make the rear cruiser gun automatic!" AI can't aim at buildings. The Seamist cruisers are pretty hacky and only happen to hit buildings because they're in their predetermined line of fire.

In testing, the destroyer had its depth charge ramp set up as a second turret. Problem is there can only be one turret bone so it had to use the barrel bone instead - meaning that not only was the missile turret unable to tilt up/down, but you also had to look up or down to rotate the depth charge ramp. Which was terrible because you can't see the subs you're aiming at unless you're looking down so the ramp was ALWAYS aimed to the left when it was in use. If this were done for the Cruiser, both turrets would not be able to tilt up/down (so the gun would be REQUIRED to have either no arc at all or a very shallow one) and the rear one would require you to not be actually looking at the enemy base if you wanted it to aim at either side of the Cruiser. Enjoy staring at the ocean or the sky instead of the carnage. Alternatively you could spend 20 or so seconds turning the Cruiser to face the enemy base so you actually get to see what you're trying to hit, negating the whole "I have turrets that can rotate!" aspect completely, only to realise that since the second turret is on the back of a very huge vehicle, you have to then move about 50m closer to the base just so the rear turret can actually HIT the base. And then you're in range of machineguns and tanks, not just Strelas.

Except the Tanya camos, which were already a part of the game but were just never used. (Check the always.dat for Beta and see for yourself. )