Balance APB Delta patch balance discussion

[Isaac The Madd]

Can we add a way for subs to hit ships from underneath them. I think depth charges should be replaced with naval mines on destroyers and the missile subs should also get mines.

[Raptor29aa]

Ok I have been silent long enough! Time to whip out some Logic.

Issue A) Rockets.

1) range of projectile - how far is too far?

 

Issue B) Permanent Roster

1) who should be permanent?

 

Observation A1) rockets-300$ destroyers 1500$ (gunboats, transports...non argument)

A2) Pushwall rockets170 and destroyers 160

A3) destroyer missile launcher positioned approx 1 meter from bow of boat

 

Comment A) Range and cost seem to profit Rocket Soldier over destroyer. Should this be? I've heard six opinions maybe needs separate forum topic post.

 

Observation B1) .9935 "Kill Whoring" issue first appeared. Because of Oxystats recording K/D, and concern for upping rank.

B2).9935 Tanya abuse after barracks death increased demand

B3)Beta issue reappears with phase tank's silent squishing abuse, and insane APC range abuse. Increased demand for a solution.

B4) As stated before Gamma's tech lvl idea made losing a war factory too game crippling (as well as starting off with supply trucks compounded the issue)

B5) thusly each about scenario prompted the concept of permanent unit buys.

 

Comment B) What should be a permanent buy?

B1)Should Captain be permanent? Why? What is their intended purpose?

B2) Should shotguns be permant? Only argument is anti-Tanya or volk? Why?

B3i)Rockets... Tanks are not weak to basic arms fire (mere bullets).

B3ii)Aircraft are susceptible more than tanks, although riflemen shooting a hinds are humorous. (LoL possible kill whore laugher)

B3iii) Naval units... I haven't heard any missile sub complaints. So one could assume it's purely a boat issue.

B4) Grenades fit the anti-tank role, but are not a viable AntiAircraft or AntiNaval counterpoint. Also it is asymmetrical (if that matters in ABP).

B5) I recommend this point be a forum topic due to its lengthy muli-faceted multi-variable nature.

 

Final Comments

1)Scenarios are in nature map specific and should be dealt with on a map level.

2)Scenarios on multiple maps are a balance issue.

3)Yes I was an APB tester, my nickname was numbers then it was switched to logic. (And yes I left testing 6 months ago)

4) @ coolrock using the talking emoticon doesn't validate an argument, it merely censors opposing views. (And triggers negative emotional responses). A simple I hear you but disagree based on [evidence] would suffice.

5) @ Dominant Hunter even though skill and aim is a valuable asset it is not a quantifiable Variable in game balance. Also an argument tactic I often use is to narrow the topic to a category like map balance rather try and answer every angle thrown at you. Valiant effort though.

6) @ Einstien +1 point for recognizing an Ad Hominid attack.

7) @ Everyone two pronged debates show little progress, best to break down in category than to make hasty generalizations.

[Pushwall]

an actually reasonable place to apply the emoticon

can I get a tl;dr on this? I went cross-eyed a couple lines down.

 

missile subs should also get mines.

Mines aren't missiles.

[Isaac The Madd]

 

missile subs should also get mines.

Mines aren't missiles.

 

 

Please read the comment completely, I said I think missile sub and destroyers should get naval mines as a secondary and replace the depth charges on the destroyers.

[Pushwall]

I did read the comment completely. My point still stands.

 

Having mines and an actual firing mode on the same weapon doesn't work. Also, the missile sub and destroyers are not meant to be able to reliably destroy naval units. That's what the attack sub and gunboat are for. The destroyer gets depth charges because they're too situational to reliably handle subs when compared to mines, and also because hey maybe making the destroyer/missile sub completely identical is boring.

[Coolrock]

.

It's to save people the insane amount of scrolling that they don't need to read multiple times. AKA tl;dr

[delta]

Quite sure that and convey a mocking tone, whereas if you just want a generalized reply without quoting a huge wall of text you use "@username".

[ChopBam]

Quite sure that and convey a mocking tone, whereas if you just want a generalized reply without quoting a huge wall of text you use "@username".

It's well-known that Coolrock's general methods are mocking.

[Coolrock]

 

It's well-known that Coolrock's general methods are mocking.

You get me Choppy <3

[Raptor29aa]

.

I can do that too, it takes zero effort, but gets you no where.

I am beginning to wonder if this is a legitimate discussion or will it be locked

Edited January 31, 2016 by Raptor29aa

[devilslayersbane]

 

 

[Actually thoughtful text that is really in depth - this person should be an academic]

It's to save people the insane amount of scrolling that they don't need to read multiple times. AKA tl;dr

 

 

Looks like other methods work just as well. Also, knowledge of someone being an asshole on a regular basis does not equal justification for being an asshole. That's a naturalistic logical fallacy.

For an actual TL;DR verson of Raptor's observations:

 

 

The permanent rosters spawned from a number of issues occurring in different eras of APB:

-.9935 killwhoring and tanya's

-beta phases and apc's

-Gamma's tech levels

 

This lead to the issue in Delta's release of:

-Rocket's AA launchers outrange 1500cred ships

 

However removing them from the list would do the following

-Remove 90% of any chance of coming back after losing War Factory/Bar

-Increase the difficulty of taking down enemy vehicles 3 or 4 fold

-Create an game where after losing the War Factory or barracks the losing team just gives up and either

-leaves game

-requests surrender

 

His comment is a lot more in depth and a good-but-short read. It's a lot more complex issue than "just remove rocket soldiers from the permanent buy list" because this game has map-specific and situation-specific balance issues that the Rocket soldier being permanent helps to mitigate. I.e. What works well in an RTS doesn't always work well in a FPS.

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by devilslayersbane

[Pushwall]

And having the AA launchers NOT outrange 1500cred ships would mean there is no land counter to destroyers/missile subs except arties, V2s and volkovs. None of which are available on Pacific Threat or Hostile Waters, and on Coastal Influence only V2s are actually reliable for this.

 

Having them on the list after the bar is dead also creates a game where the winning team can't actually WIN because there's still rocket soldiers fucking everywhere preventing them from rolling in and destroying the base, which also leads to people just getting snipers and... guess what? KILLWHORING.

It also means keeping the barracks alive is less important.

[devilslayersbane]

 

And having the AA launchers NOT outrange 1500cred ships would mean there is no land counter to destroyers/missile subs except arties, V2s and volkovs. None of which are available on Pacific Threat or Hostile Waters, and on Coastal Influence only V2s are actually reliable for this.

 

Having them on the list after the bar is dead also creates a game where the winning team can't actually WIN because there's still rocket soldiers fucking everywhere preventing them from rolling in and destroying the base, which also leads to people just getting snipers and... guess what? KILLWHORING.

It also means keeping the barracks alive is less important.

 

So, my other suggestion stands. It'd be a disadvantaged rocket soldier that only has the primary launcher and is only available after the barracks is dead. It can also cost more. Sounds like a decent middle ground to me.

 

Or you know, choose the other 2 options (keep it as is and remove them after the barracks is dead) that either increase the killwhoring rate, don't punish a losing team for losing the barracks (although, losing tanya's, mechanics, kovs, and shockies is kinda of big deal, I'd go for a shockie over a rocket soldier any day), and/or punish a team so much that there's no hope of return.

Edited February 2, 2016 by devilslayersbane

[GeneralCamo]

Except it is impossible to add units to the purchase list when a building is destroyed.

[Death_Kitty]

I am the SPAM lord! (lol to makintoke)

 

Yeah, this is a tough issue- rocket solider are way to strong, but if bar dies, way to easy to rek defending team (assuming wf on coastal is also dead, because it usually will be.)

 

Here is my roster for dead bar:

Shotty to stop tanya, kov, and punish overconfident team.

Kap. for anti air and anti infantry work

grenadier for sovs, as anti-armor replacement

Allies... crap this is where the problem is- Id say medic, but thats about all. Allies need a unit that can do anti armor without doing overwhelmingly well.

 

OR just nerf rocket and rpg damage after bar dies, if thats possible. give them 50% damage post bar destruction... that should solve the problem.

[Cyclical_Yuri_Is_Master]

Honestly the Longbow and Hind need to be given both missiles and machine guns, much like westwood did with the Apache and Orca in renegade. The Hind looks kind of dumb with those huge missile racks on the side that don't do anything. The difference in the roles between the two can be fufilled by having the Longbow be faster, but carry less ammo and less HP, while the hind is slower, but carries a larger payload and more HP. This would also mirror the real life versions of each aircraft more accurately anyway. The hind also functions as a troop carrier in real life.

hind actually can transport

[Einstein]

OR just nerf rocket and rpg damage after bar dies, if thats possible. give them 50% damage post bar destruction... that should solve the problem.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this requires removing the RS/RPG and re-adding another version that has the nerf applied. So the reason why we can't do this is that we can't add units to the PT when a structure is lost....

[moonsense715]

 

OR just nerf rocket and rpg damage after bar dies, if thats possible. give them 50% damage post bar destruction... that should solve the problem.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this requires removing the RS/RPG and re-adding another version that has the nerf applied. So the reason why we can't do this is that we can't add units to the PT when a structure is lost....

 

There should be a way around PT addings/removing. E.g. use customs. They are epic.

[Eggman891]

This "Weaker" rocket solly sounds very much like the difference between the Rocket Soldier and "Gunner" in Ren. Maybe keep both tiers available, Basic: 250, Advanced 500 or something, and remove the "advanced" tier on destruction?

[Raptor29aa]

First off big thanks to devilslayersbane for translating my almost programmers code language into palatable/ comprehensive English.

 

Ok so about Rocket soldiers

A lesser version of the rocket soldier might be a great idea for land only maps. I know that the team added the soviet RPG trooper which was a much needed equivalent to allied Rocket Soldier.

Maybe allies need a grenade soldier equivalent.

This would solve the need for permanent Rocket Solders in the roster.

 

OR dare I say purchasable rocket ammo or grenade ammo? 100 credits for 5 rockets?

 

Or maybe just reduce rocket range to be equal or 10 years less. (Boats have to pull closer to land to hit inland targets anyways. Besides how many targets are on the edge of the sea?)

[Raap]

In my opinion, going down the unit cloning path is too gimmicky.

 

I stick with my previous comment on this matter; A good middle ground solution is to slightly raise the damage of officer machine guns to heavy armor (tanks). Perhaps have shotguns deal more damage to light armor (transports, etc.) so you create a small sub-role specialization. Obviously the more expensive units are supposed to be better... So keep your barracks alive.

 

It is a tough issue however. You want to ensure that a losing team can still turn the battle around, but at the same time you don't want a losing team to be able to still grind the game into a stalemate which causes players to leave. The trick is in the numbers, to find the right middle ground that allows for players to turn a match around while still preventing to encourage kill farming situations.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Raap

[Killing_You]

Question: Is this an issue with just Pacific Threat? It's the only map (to my knowledge) with air and naval units, but no land based vehicles. Part of the problem might be due to the fact that the Allies have no major infantry counters (Rangers, APCs) and the fact that the Soviets don't have enough heavily armored units to make a substantial pushback. RedEyes, Strelas, M60s, and PKMs are more than enough to defend against air units and infantry, coupled with the fact that RedEyes and Strelas do heavy damage against ships.

[danpaul88]

Except it is impossible to add units to the purchase list when a building is destroyed.

says who?

[Raap]

I've noticed one guy I recognized that played Reborn, he posted in the update thread that he doesn't like this change, and "threatened" to stop playing unless it was reversed, lol. You see In Reborn, you can buy rocket soldiers if your Bar goes down. No one thinks its a problem in Reborn. But Reborn's a whole different game, that some people just refuse to play, lol. Reborn had just died when delta came out, I've talked to some guys playing on the Reborn server ingame, they say they haven't bothered downloading APB Delta, and that they only play Reborn.

 

Such a mixed playerbase. These whiney bastards need to be united I say! WITH VIOLENT FORCE!

 

I confess to not having tried the latest Rebarn Reborn release. But yes, I can understand some people like one project and not the other. That's the point, is it not? To offer very different gameplay in each project?

 

I also am pretty sure that people play what most people play, and that happens to be the "newest thing".

Edited February 9, 2016 by Raap

[delta]

I'm actually surprised how many oldbies from even further back are showing up in APB. Like, they were all out there and dawdling around and...not playing Reborn

Edited February 10, 2016 by delta

[SarahNautili]

reborn offers a heck of a difference in gameplay from APB. I imagine I can't be the only one that wasn't ever really interested in reborn's style of gameplay and so wasn't likely to hang around it without APB as an anchor.

[Einstein]

RA1/APB vs TD/TSR discussion was split to here.

[harvester]

As long as the officers are buffed against tanks, it shouldn't be a problem for losing team to fight back tanks. I don't want a single mammoth tank to be kill-whoring or single-handledly (or with less teamwork) wreck a base.

[des1206]

Can we talk about Medium Tank vs. Heavy Tank balance?

 

I did some testing and right now the med does the same damage as the heavy vs. vehicles & buildings, but is faster and more versatile. I assume the heavy is better at dealing with infantry with its dual cannons. But shouldn't the heavy have a slight damage or armor superiority vs the med? I mean, afterall it is called the HEAVY tank.

[Pushwall]

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.