Balance APB Delta patch balance discussion

[Coolrock]

This game is setup so that there is always a means to combat any given threat, albeit at a reduced effectiveness when you start losing structures. Subs are alot better at killing boats than RPG troopers are.

 

Really? After I brought this up to OWA, he agrees with me that they're doing much more than they should be. If I was "exaggerating", then why are more and more people agreeing on the matter? Why am I even wasting time on you?

 

 

I don't like you using orange text. It disturbs me.

[Killing_You]

 

Why do I feel like people never played C&C type games in the past? Why should you be allowed to continue building units, when the production for said unit is taken away? That literally takes away from Command & Conquer, and what made it exciting. There's hardly a penalty when they still have a unit that can fight off everything the other team has, minus Infantry (although I've seen skilled players kill others with Rocket Soldiers).

What's fun in an RTS can be irritating in an FPS. In this case, since you cannot rebuild buildings (or build multiple of the same types), losing a structure is 100% permanent. Plus, in an RTS, you can mass hordes of units to take out a crippled opponent without much trouble, but in an FPS you're limited to who is on your team. Those are just couple of the many factors that go into the decisions we make when transitioning. Plus, it's not like you have specialized units like Engineers, Flamethrowers, or Medics without a barracks.

[Lord_Kane]

I dont really see Coolrock needing a warning here, he is just being his regular sarcastic self.

[Coolrock]

 

 

Why do I feel like people never played C&C type games in the past? Why should you be allowed to continue building units, when the production for said unit is taken away? That literally takes away from Command & Conquer, and what made it exciting. There's hardly a penalty when they still have a unit that can fight off everything the other team has, minus Infantry (although I've seen skilled players kill others with Rocket Soldiers).

What's fun in an RTS can be irritating in an FPS. In this case, since you cannot rebuild buildings (or build multiple of the same types), losing a structure is 100% permanent. Plus, in an RTS, you can mass hordes of units to take out a crippled opponent without much trouble, but in an FPS you're limited to who is on your team. Those are just couple of the many factors that go into the decisions we make when transitioning. Plus, it's not like you have specialized units like Engineers, Flamethrowers, or Medics without a barracks.

 

 

But was never an issue for years. Plenty of other mods did this also, and never had an issue. When did it become such an issue that it needed to be changed? I've only seen one reason, and that's "kill whoring". People actually upset about a K/D Ratio on a free FPS.

 

I dont really see Coolrock needing a warning here, he is just being his regular sarcastic self.

 

Someone gets me <3

 

 

I posted because I wanted to end it there instead of in here. That was a verbal warning and you not only ignored it but mocked it and me. +1

 

Big bad moderator is upset

Edited January 26, 2016 by Coolrock

[GeneralCamo]

That statement may seem stupid, but before the split, there was because a single player (who was never banned) who basically demanded that "THE SERVICE DEPOT SHALL NOT DIE!" so he could pad his K/D. And yes... this drove a lot of players away.

 

Infantry purchasable without a barracks was introduced in 2.1. It was a great change IMO, since it gave people a chance to kill vehicles. But since they lost Tanyas and VOlkovs and Shockies, they could not kill them as easily.

[Killing_You]

IIRC it was added during Gamma times, where losing your production structures early game was a time-delayed death sentence due to tech levels. There was no way to take the fight to the enemy, and they would also have to wait a long time before they got their base wrecking arsenal. Allowing low tier infantry to still be available gave the losing team a chance to fight back when the wave hit eventually.

 

Thinking about it, this measure may not be necessary anymore.

[Coolrock]

That statement may seem stupid, but before the split, there was because a single player (who was never banned) who basically demanded that "THE SERVICE DEPOT SHALL NOT DIE!" so he could pad his K/D. And yes... this drove a lot of players away.

 

Infantry purchasable without a barracks was introduced in 2.1. It was a great change IMO, since it gave people a chance to kill vehicles. But since they lost Tanyas and VOlkovs and Shockies, they could not kill them as easily.

 

 

IIRC it was added during Gamma times, where losing your production structures early game was a time-delayed death sentence due to tech levels. There was no way to take the fight to the enemy, and they would also have to wait a long time before they got their base wrecking arsenal. Allowing low tier infantry to still be available gave the losing team a chance to fight back when the wave hit eventually.

 

Thinking about it, this measure may not be necessary anymore.

 

So, the change was made due to one single player? What the actual fuck?

[Killing_You]

Not one single player, really. The situation I described happened a LOT. ESPECIALLY on Bunkers.

[Coolrock]

Not one single player, really. The situation I described happened a LOT. ESPECIALLY on Bunkers.

 

Obviously with the major amount of changes, maps need to be changed also. I mean, one map lets the Soviets have Rangers to balance the map out for them. I still say it's part of the game, and shouldn't have been changed to begin with. It's my opinion of course, but I really feel like it was a bad move. I doubt players just stopped playing APB over dying a few times at the end of a losing match. If so, that's just disappointing.

[Killing_You]

Like I said, it's a countermeasure that might not be necessary anymore. I'm willing to concede that point.

[Coolrock]

Like I said, it's a countermeasure that might not be necessary anymore. I'm willing to concede that point.

 

That would be lovely. That's really all I was asking for honestly. At least talk it out with others and see where everyone stands. Thank you, sir <3

[GeneralCamo]

I do know the shotgunners were always intended to not require a barracks however. This was way back in the .9935 era, so it wasn't possible like it is now.

[Killing_You]

 

Like I said, it's a countermeasure that might not be necessary anymore. I'm willing to concede that point.

 

That would be lovely. That's really all I was asking for honestly. At least talk it out with others and see where everyone stands. Thank you, sir <3

 

 

No problem. Always a pleasure to discuss balance in a civil manner such as this.

[Coolrock]

I do know the shotgunners were always intended to not require a barracks however. This was way back in the .9935 era, so it wasn't possible like it is now.

 

I don't recall honestly. I never really cared for them. My only say on them is what I assume is the secondary fire is a little, ridiculous to say the least. On Fissure at least, I see them standing in their Barracks just firing off flaming shots that burn you for a bit. With a few of them doing this, it's a little insane. I'm pretty sure this was added later, because the first time we tested them, they didn't do anything of the sort.

 

 

 

Like I said, it's a countermeasure that might not be necessary anymore. I'm willing to concede that point.

 

That would be lovely. That's really all I was asking for honestly. At least talk it out with others and see where everyone stands. Thank you, sir <3

 

 

No problem. Always a pleasure to discuss balance in a civil manner such as this.

 

 

I agree <3

[gammae102]

There is really just one issue here I would like to be addressed. I think Destroyers/Missile Subs should outrange rocket soldiers. I'm sure that there is some file in the game where you can either confirm or debunk this observation that they have the same range.

 

But my personal experience with this was on Coastal Influence. I was Allies with a Destroyer. There was a Soviet with an RPG in the Subpen (which wad already destroyed). I tried to edge just into range where I could pick him off, but I could not seem to get into range without putting myself vulnerable to his shots as well. Perhaps I am just poor at aiming, or whatever, but my opinion is that a $300 infantry that is available after the Barrack's destruction should not be able to have the same range as a $1500 boat.

[Coolrock]

OWA thinks its over kill too then? Who else does?

 

If there are more and more complaints about it, then thats intriguing.

 

But I don't see how rockets can sway a match as hard as you make them out to do. They help a dying base last a little longer, so that in rare cases, a counter attack could be had.

 

You never know, Coolrock. You might have incited a design change for the good. So no more Rockets after bar goes down. I am not against it. But if I had a choice, I'd keep their availability as is. I would however, limit their effectiveness against naval units,

 

Look, at the end of the day, it stops the game from ending. When you get to the end of a match, let's say 10 minutes left. The other team has lost their Barracks and Refinery/Silo, and have say $600-$700 left between each player. The other team hasn't lost a single building besides maybe some defenses and we will say the Service Depot, because they're paper anyways. The team has a player collecting crystals, so they have plenty of cash to burn. Of course they're going to be buying tanks/helicopters/ships/whatever. You're going to the base in a vehicle one way or another. You get there, literally to have your vehicle blown up in seconds. Why? Because instead of spending the money for a V2 (I know some players would try a V2 rush or whatever, but we are talking about average games with average players, so stick with me), they all bought Rocket Soldiers. Why? Because they're $300 and if they lose one, you can get another one right after. They will destroy any helicopter that comes towards the base in seconds. They will push back/destroy any naval vehicle that comes within range. They might even kill a few players. Some of them will go Captains/Shotguns any be able to kill even some of the higher tier Infantry units once they pop their vehicles.

 

You draw out matches that should reward the team that managed to take out the production buildings in a game. That's all I'm saying. Kill whoring is a horrible reason to do what has been done. It's part of the game. It's nothing to get mad over.

 

There is really just one issue here I would like to be addressed. I think Destroyers/Missile Subs should outrange rocket soldiers. I'm sure that there is some file in the game where you can either confirm or debunk this observation that they have the same range.

 

But my personal experience with this was on Coastal Influence. I was Allies with a Destroyer. There was a Soviet with an RPG in the Subpen (which wad already destroyed). I tried to edge just into range where I could pick him off, but I could not seem to get into range without putting myself vulnerable to his shots as well. Perhaps I am just poor at aiming, or whatever, but my opinion is that a $300 infantry that is available after the Barrack's destruction should not be able to have the same range as a $1500 boat.

 

I'm on the line with you. I'm sure Pushwall or someone could confirm? I could be very well wrong, but I tried even inching forward with the front of the ship to make sure I was close enough to fire on people, and still got hit with missiles first. It could be the anti-air rocket. I recall a huge problem with it long ago that let it pick off underwater Subs and such.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Coolrock

[GeneralCamo]

 

I do know the shotgunners were always intended to not require a barracks however. This was way back in the .9935 era, so it wasn't possible like it is now.

 

I don't recall honestly. I never really cared for them. My only say on them is what I assume is the secondary fire is a little, ridiculous to say the least. On Fissure at least, I see them standing in their Barracks just firing off flaming shots that burn you for a bit. With a few of them doing this, it's a little insane. I'm pretty sure this was added later, because the first time we tested them, they didn't do anything of the sort.

 

 

It's the primary fire. And it was in since beta... only it was less obvious since Beta's fire graphics were terrible compared to what we have now.

[Pushwall]

Rocket Soldiers on barracks destruction (as well as sargs/caps) was a 2.1 thing that happened most likely because all the small-arms users were completely helpless against vehicles and riflemen alone did not have the firepower to reliably bring down a building at the weakpoint. But I wasn't the developer at that point so I don't know for sure, just speculation. Nowadays, however, all 3 small-arms users stand a much better chance against vehicles and riflemen aren't a complete waste against buildings, so yeah, perhaps permanent rocket soldiers aren't "needed" anymore.

[Isaac The Madd]

I think grenadiers should be permanent and not rocket soldiers.

[Coolrock]

 

 

I do know the shotgunners were always intended to not require a barracks however. This was way back in the .9935 era, so it wasn't possible like it is now.

 

I don't recall honestly. I never really cared for them. My only say on them is what I assume is the secondary fire is a little, ridiculous to say the least. On Fissure at least, I see them standing in their Barracks just firing off flaming shots that burn you for a bit. With a few of them doing this, it's a little insane. I'm pretty sure this was added later, because the first time we tested them, they didn't do anything of the sort.

 

 

It's the primary fire. And it was in since beta... only it was less obvious since Beta's fire graphics were terrible compared to what we have now.

 

 

I left just before Beta released due to misunderstands with the last leader, so I must have missed it. I don't mind it much, as you normally only see them stick out on Fissure. Don't really care for the map with all the tunnels now, but again just opinion.

 

Rocket Soldiers on barracks destruction (as well as sargs/caps) was a 2.1 thing that happened most likely because all the small-arms users were completely helpless against vehicles and riflemen alone did not have the firepower to reliably bring down a building at the weakpoint. But I wasn't the developer at that point so I don't know for sure, just speculation. Nowadays, however, all 3 small-arms users stand a much better chance against vehicles and riflemen aren't a complete waste against buildings, so yeah, perhaps permanent rocket soldiers aren't "needed" anymore.

 

Glad to see a post from you. I hope it at least gets looked into, and I appreciate it. If the majority of people like it, then by all means don't change anything. A lot comes from experience with the game over years and years of changes, but things stayed pretty much the same before I left. A lot of bitterness comes from seeing a lot that I grew up with missing. It's no hate towards anyone here. I know this mod/game has been through a lot, and I just want to help anyway I can to bring back the "golden days".

[Pushwall]

I'm on the line with you. I'm sure Pushwall or someone could confirm? I could be very well wrong, but I tried even inching forward with the front of the ship to make sure I was close enough to fire on people, and still got hit with missiles first. It could be the anti-air rocket. I recall a huge problem with it long ago that let it pick off underwater Subs and such.

 

Destroyers/missubs have 160 range and the Redeye/Strela have 170. By staying far enough away to hit parts of the building that rocket soldiers can't stand on, botes can narrow their range disadvantage a bit. Also, the Redeye/Strela do not hurt submerged subs at all, only surfaced ones. But anyway constant rocket spam shouldn't be an issue if it can be stopped by destroying the barracks right?

[ganein14]

I think grenadiers should be permanent and not rocket soldiers.

Then what would you give the allies if they don't have a their rocket soldier?

[Coolrock]

 

I'm on the line with you. I'm sure Pushwall or someone could confirm? I could be very well wrong, but I tried even inching forward with the front of the ship to make sure I was close enough to fire on people, and still got hit with missiles first. It could be the anti-air rocket. I recall a huge problem with it long ago that let it pick off underwater Subs and such.

 

Destroyers/missubs have 160 range and the Redeye/Strela have 170. By staying far enough away to hit parts of the building that rocket soldiers can't stand on, botes can narrow their range disadvantage a bit. Also, the Redeye/Strela do not hurt submerged subs at all, only surfaced ones. But anyway constant rocket spam shouldn't be an issue if it can be stopped by destroying the barracks right?

 

 

Not sure if sweet talking me, or sassing me. I like it either way <3

 

 

I think grenadiers should be permanent and not rocket soldiers.

Then what would you give the allies if they don't have a their rocket soldier?

Pretty sure he just means for the Soviets. I honestly don't mind Soviets having Rocket Soldiers, just not after the Barracks is down.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Coolrock

[ganein14]

 

I'm on the line with you. I'm sure Pushwall or someone could confirm? I could be very well wrong, but I tried even inching forward with the front of the ship to make sure I was close enough to fire on people, and still got hit with missiles first. It could be the anti-air rocket. I recall a huge problem with it long ago that let it pick off underwater Subs and such.

 

Destroyers/missubs have 160 range and the Redeye/Strela have 170. By staying far enough away to hit parts of the building that rocket soldiers can't stand on, botes can narrow their range disadvantage a bit. Also, the Redeye/Strela do not hurt submerged subs at all, only surfaced ones. But anyway constant rocket spam shouldn't be an issue if it can be stopped by destroying the barracks right?

 

I think the soviets should lose their RPG trooper when they lose their barracks, but keep the grenadier in stead, but leave the allies as is since they don't have a counter part to the grenadier.

[GeneralCamo]

They actually had rocket soldiers in Red Alert. No reason to not have them here.

[ganein14]

I mean when the barracks is dead.

[Pushwall]

I think problems dealing with aircraft might have been another reason why no-barracks rocket soldiers were a thing, and again, there's more counters for aircraft now (LBs and Hinds both hurt each other more than they did previously, APCs do great in the lead exchange because they're heavily armoured and Hinds are not, Captains in cover can similarly shred Hinds, Kapitans can do the same to LBs if they crouch for accuracy to compensate for the LB's much smaller profile, Tesla Tanks can actually live long enough to put the hurt on LBs, and in my experience I've just found it easier for Volkov's AT shot to hit LBs than it was before - possibly because of the smoke trail that makes it easy to lead?)

 

Really the only problem I can see coming of this is that losing your barracks+subpen on Pacific Threat leaves you with no way to fight back against Destroyers. But you do still have chinooks at that point so there's the possibility of a base race instead of guaranteed Allied victory/pointwhoring.

 

I'm not so keen on removing sergeants/captains from the list though; some variety is nice, captains are not overwhelmingly powerful against heavy vehicles like rocket soldiers but are still competent enough that you can't just ignore them, and sergeants are there to punish the other team if they get overconfident and don't pay any more attention to their own base once they get the upper hand.

[Coolrock]

I think problems dealing with aircraft might have been another reason why no-barracks rocket soldiers were a thing, and again, there's more counters for aircraft now (LBs and Hinds both hurt each other more than they did previously, APCs do great in the lead exchange because they're heavily armoured and Hinds are not, Captains in cover can similarly shred Hinds, Kapitans can do the same to LBs if they crouch for accuracy to compensate for the LB's much smaller profile, Tesla Tanks can actually live long enough to put the hurt on LBs, and in my experience I've just found it easier for Volkov's AT shot to hit LBs than it was before - possibly because of the smoke trail that makes it easy to lead?)

 

Really the only problem I can see coming of this is that losing your barracks+subpen on Pacific Threat leaves you with no way to fight back against Destroyers. But you do still have chinooks at that point so there's the possibility of a base race instead of guaranteed Allied victory/pointwhoring.

 

I'm not so keen on removing sergeants/captains from the list though; some variety is nice, captains are not overwhelmingly powerful against heavy vehicles like rocket soldiers but are still competent enough that you can't just ignore them, and sergeants are there to punish the other team if they get overconfident and don't pay any more attention to their own base once they get the upper hand.

I'm perfectly fine with the Sergeant/Captain being left if so desired. My only problem lies with the Rocket Soldier being available when the Barracks is down. This is more focused on all the maps then just Pacific Threat. If the team lost both the Sub Pen and the Barracks, then I would expect the base to be destroyed soon after. Plus as you said, there's nothing stopping them from rushing with Chinooks/Hinds. I'm sure plenty could be done to balance things out if a problem arises.

[ChopBam]

Am I the only one who likes it that the Rocket Soldier and RPG Trooper are still available after the barracks is destroyed?

[SarahNautili]

No, I actually like it too.

 

Although I do think the Rocket Soldier is a bit too powerful right now.