des1206
-
Posts
337 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4 -
Donations
0.00 USD
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Documentation
Bug Tracker
Downloads
Posts posted by des1206
-
-
24 minutes ago, Raap said:
I'm not talking about balance, not at all.
Let me give an example.
Two kids go to a candy shop, the owner hands one of the two kids a bucket of candy, and the other kid gets nothing.
Or in more game-native terms, a designer creates unique content for one team while giving nothing to the other team.
This is of similar magnitude as when you'd only give naval power to one team, or only helicopters to one team, or only a missile silo to one team. Airplanes aren't just another vehicle, they are a new and unique category of content. If you added a Soviet Super Awesome Mammoth Tank Supreme, the Allied team wouldn't really lose much by not gaining an equivalent since the Soviet Super Awesome Mammoth Tank Supreme doesn't add anything new to the table.
Content diversity helps to keep players interested in the game, which means greater player retention. Not utilizing something like this to the full potential is wasting a big opportunity.
Ye followin'?
I guess it comes down to personal preference. Mine ranks Ralism above content diversity. I always loved the C&C games where one side got more air units to play with while the other side got more naval or infantry. Personally, I really don't mind the Soviets being more air dominant while Allies need to rely on creative infantry and ground vehicles use. If we give Allies fighter planes, it will leave a bad taste in my mouth. Is this still Red Alert? Where do we draw the line in terms of creating new units for the sake of fun?
2 -
The LT has almost the same DPS as the Medium Tank (except vs. mammoth armor), but it's health is so fragile that I don't see it being used outside of the first-load rushes. This is especially true in larger, high-tech level games where its armor just can't stand up to TT/Shock/Mammoth/Kov. $200 cheaper is great, but for most players, survivability is much better a choice. And remember in APB, the gaps between cheaper units and more $ units in terms of power need to be narrower since you can't just get more of a cheaper unit to compensate for its lower power/health. 1 player = 1 tank. Opportunity cost is higher in this game.
If I'm wrong on this, can any player attest to other ways LTs are used right now mid/late game on high-tier maps? It seems like the APC makes a better tanya-chariot and v2 hunter, at least right now. LBs usually fill in the role of rapid response.
Then again the LT IS a tier-one unit. Maybe it SHOULD stay less relevant and get out-classed mid-late game. But if not, how can we change him to make it more useful mid-late game, yet not OP during the early rushes? In Ra3, the tsunami tank (LTs of Ra3) had much lower health than its Soviet/Allied MBT counter parts. It got around to be balanced by 1. Being cheaper 2. faster, 3. amphibious, 4. Its speed allowed it to retreat and self-heal using its secondary.
Some ideas I have: 1. Give the LT equal range as a Medium Tank, 2. get rid of its mammoth armor penalty (if it's mobility is good for anything, it's for flanking mammoth tanks), and 3. allow mechs to heal it faster so it can quickly retreat out of range and heal. These changes will not mess up the early-game balance and can allow a viable mid/late game LT strategy. Well, maybe between 1 & 3 we don't have to do both, or else it will be too easy to kite with the LT.
0 -
I still feel uncertain regarding the planned changes to the APC. On maps with a large number of players and higher-tech, the APC will pretty much always run into AT units like Volkov/Mammoth/RPG/TT/Shock. Now that the APC is as good as a light tank to those units, it will loses it role of being an "MBT with a machine gun" field unit and only a purely base-to-base infantry delivery vehicle that relies on avoiding detection before getting to a base, which, again will be hard to do in larger games (you don't see a lot of LT mid/late game in large games, they are too fragile against high-tier Soviet units). In other ways, the APC maybe OP on low-tech maps since the only AT unit Soviets have is the RPG.
Again I want to stress the APC now serves as a great field unit, which opens up new strategies for Allies. With its health, it's able to accompany med-tanks to help take out those annoying Soviet infantry that pops out of destroyed Soviet tanks. Since APCs now can be a "MBT", it also can frequently shuttle Allied infantry to the front lines (or protect them in the field to allow health/armor regen) even if they don't intend to rush a base. It's not that OP since in APB every APC is one less Phase/Med/LB for the Allies, and APC isn't great against armor or buildings (or actually even infantry).
I don't know how strongly you feel about the mammoth armor change, but I think a simple nerf to its health down to 350/350 is enough. I think we mostly see APC being OP on low-tech maps where the Soviets lack a good damage output unit. But the way the change is setup makes the APC really weak on high-tier maps where imo there wasn't much of a balance problem, and close off of some versatility to this unit.
PS: Please remember to give the APC a horn in the new patch!
0 -
3 hours ago, Raap said:
Airplanes are one of those "Big Deal Additions" that would improve gameplay a lot if both teams had access to them. If Red Alert never featured Hinds but only Longbows, I can easily imagine a counter having been created a decade ago because helicopters are not an insignificant segment of gameplay diversity.
As for asset creation, well I've never in my life created an airplane before so I cannot comment on the complexity.
Not every unit needs to have a counterpart for things to be balanced! For every Yak/Mig in action there is one less Soviet infantry+vehicle on the field! Let's be as Ralistic as possible.
3 -
When's that new patch coming? You've been talking about it for a while.
0 -
Units that will benefit: tech & engin, spy, thief, tanya, snipers, sergeant slug and M16 alt fire. So overall it definitely is more of a buff to Allied infantry.
If this is done it will further close the distance on cheaper vs. more expensive infantry in terms of infantry lethality. I'm not sure if I like that. I didn't pay $1,500 for a Kov to be one shotted by a $150 sergeant!
To be honest I find basic infantries (rifle/shotgun) to be a bit too lethal for their price. Why? Because basic infantries are more often used in defending (since rifles spawn freely and they are not good vs. vehicles). An infantry attacking team has to deal with a constant influx of $0 free infantry, which discourages infantry rushes. In other games there will be a respawn timer to accommodate this, but not in C&C mode.
1 -
But what if a spy steals a mammoth, and he's trying to escape the base in the snow, and the Hind is chasing the mammoth?
0 -
As totd demonstrated in another video, V2s in skilled hands are pretty effectively vs. Allied vehicles/LBs. That's one advantage the arty doesn't have.
0 -
Great play with the v2 Totd. It shows that the V2 in good hands can hunt vehicles effectively unlike the artillery.
EDIT: Juts realized the Golden Eye soundtrack, nice.
0 -
19 minutes ago, Pushwall said:
Well of course it'll still be slower than the Ranger. The Ranger's been getting speed boosts every so often to keep it relevant while tanks languish so to speak - it now caps out at 17m/s while the fastest armoured vehicles hover around 13.6 (APC's current speed) to 14.5 (Minelayer). Around the start of Delta the Ranger was 15 I think.
Even sped up, the APC still can't really be used as a solo Tanya chariot like the Ranger/LT/ML can, because due to its durability, its roles being updated to include anti-air and anti-mine, and Soviets having really strong field infantry, you want to be absolutely sure that the Soviets will never get their hands on one. A single Soviet Ranger can be manageable... an APC not so much. I go on and on about how OP high-tech Soviet Rangers were in testing times, but if Soviets were able to buy APCs they would just never buy any other unit unless their barracks was dead.
What about APCs with firing ports for the passengers?
Also I didn't know terrain made a difference on unit traveling speed in Ra
Lastly are you thinking of 350/350 or 300/300?
0 -
Too high or just right?
0 -
But would they work with the current version of the game?
0 -
Oops, forgot its a seismic tank. I was thinking back to Ra1 when it damaged everything.
0 -
Great demonstration of the power of good sniper play in APB. Totd hax. How you get so good in shooting?
0 -
I just noticed the MAD tank does not harm ships or air units. Is this intentional?
Also, what do you guys thinks about the idea of letting MAD tank shockwave damage mines to 1HP so they are visible for a while? We can slow the mine self-repair rate a bit so they stay visible for awhile longer (20 seconds?). It will give one more reason to use the MAD in the field. Too OP?
0 -
Can we make the arty a bit worse at hitting vehicles? In Ra1 the arty is anti-infantry/building, while the V2 was good against everything but clunkier to use and misses easily. I guess the idea is that siege vehicles that are easier to use and higher ROF should have a bit less of a DPS and/or range.
PS I know the arty was not balanced well in Ra and didn't have its current range.
0 -
Can we really not give breaks to wheeled vehicles? If the V2 can get to a full-stop its secondary might be much easier to use to arch-over obstacles.
1 -
APC is as durable as med/HT because it was really underused prior, since in APB you have consider an opportunity cost everytime you choose a unit (i.e you can't just buy 2 cheap units in place of an expensive one). Giving it 400/400 health/armor made it much more usable as a stand-alone unit, although personally i think 350/350 maybe better.
By the opportunity cost logic, stronger/expensiver units can not be that strong because again, in a 10 vs 10 APB match you won't have 10 mammoth tanks vs. 18 medium tanks. If mammoth tanks are that much stronger Soviets will be even more OP in larger games.
0 -
Raptor is right. I just tested on both Camos and Complex. The minelayer gets attacked by base defenses even when I did not lay mines. Other stolen Soviet vehicles are not recognized by base defense.
0 -
I brought this up before but could we have a # next to each unit's icon at the PT that shows how many that unit is currently in the field? Pressing "B" does do the same, but that will be an easy way of reminding players: Oh look we need more medium tanks, and not another spy in the field!
0 -
Instead of 66% more damage vs. armor and same vs. health (when compared to a heavy), can you spread it evenly so it's 33% more damage vs. armor and 33% more vs. health? This will provide the same DPS vs. heavy vehicles, and a boost vs. light vehicles. Or was the 0% bonus vs light vehicles an intentional buff so Mammoth is not OP against them?
If it's too much work and changes too many other things, I'm fine with the way things are currently. Would make play more strategically interesting as I stated above (prioritize vehicles with armor in combat). It's just that with those big guns it just feels the rounds should do more "pure damage".
0 -
You are right, many other AT weapons ignore armor penalty (do same dmg. to armor and health).
However the problem is that the Mammoth tank doesn't do more "pure damage" than a heavy/med. The only reason it does more damage now than a heavy/med is because his shells ignore armor penalty, since if the target is w/o armor, the Mammoth has only the damage output of a heavy/Medium Tank. I tested this Mammoth vs. OT/Heavy/Med/APC/Light Tanks compared to Heavy vs OT/Heavy/Med/APC/Light Tanks. Is this really setup right?
0 -
Mammoth tank vs. vehicle armor is 66% more effective than a heavy tank, very effective in stripping armor!
BUT
Mammoth tank vs. vehicle health (stripped of armor) does the SAME damage as a heavy tank, not more!
Not sure if this was intended by the devs. If you are a mammoth supported by a couple of friendlies, be sure to target vehicles that have armor first! You do 66% more damage! Otherwise you are just a heavy tank in damage output.
0 -
Is the LT a one trick pony?
in W3D Hub Discussion
Posted · Edited by des1206
Is this strategy still common/effective in larger games with more players (enemy everywhere, hard to flank), and higher-tech level maps (can't damage mammoth, TT/Vok/Shock shoots you dead pretty quickly).