Balance APB Delta patch balance discussion

[Death_Kitty]

Now, I do intend for this topic to be more.... level headed then my last one. The purpose here is to offer constructive feedback, and give pushwall and other developers something to work with. Here we go...

 

1.) Overall review of the patch:

Pushwall and the other devs did a great job here, with the naval buffs a definite step in the right direction, along with most of the changes. If pushwall can supply us with the win ratios, I'm sure they are more balanced then they used to be, although players learning how to play soviets, along with teamwork, also has an effect.

 

2.) Potential balance concerns, but if a more experienced player can offer a solution, that would be great as well.

a.) I fear there may be some imbalance in air-to-air combat, in favor of the longbow. I would like someone to test this with, to confirm, or put this issue to rest.

b.) This is not imbalance at all, but more of a personal question: I feel that soviet mines really stifle allied infantry play. Does anyone have a suitable method for dealing with them?

 

3.) Map issues

a.) The coastal influence arty problem is still there, but it can be countered by heavy teamwork. Still, is this being worked on? tbh though, naval control is far more important on this map...

 

This is my preliminary assessment. As I would like this to be a structured forum/topic (If that is not to much to ask) please put a 1 for overall patch comments, a 2 for balance concerns, and a 3 for map problems, and 4 for misc. This is just so I may assemble a grand list later on. (Sorry if this fells like backseat moderation, really sorry.)

Edited January 24, 2016 by Death_Kitty

[ChopBam]

2b) Lots of ways of dealing with mines. You can get up close to them and see them before they blow, then back off and shoot them. Could use an engineer to detect them. Could use an artillery to clear them en masse. Generally they're concentrated around entrances to buildings and other infantry path chokepoints, so primarily be wary of these areas.

[Coolrock]

2a) I actually brought this up to OWA already. It's bad to the point that I almost always see a Hind running when a Longbow is after it. Plus having a bigger payload now, nothing stops them from just firing shots off and hoping for the best.

[Killing_You]

2a) This is probably due to the fact that Longbows are anti-vehicle, whereas Hinds are anti-infantry/defense. Perhaps Hinds need an anti-air secondary, but then again Soviets have plenty of good counters to Longbows.

[Death_Kitty]

2a.) I don't know, If a hind gets a jump on a bow, or the bow has 5 missiles left its a easy victory for the hind

[Isaac The Madd]

If you go about that way then make primary weapons of both do no damage to aircraft, and give them both the same anti-craft only weapon as a secondary.

[Ice]

If you go about that way then make primary weapons of both do no damage to aircraft, and give them both the same anti-craft only weapon as a secondary.

IMO this kind of approach should be avoided whenever possible. Having weapons that arbitrarily do no damage to something which they logically should damage (explosive missiles and large-caliber bullets somehow not damaging aircraft? ) and having too many hard counters is rather jarring and poorly-suited to APB. Besides, both sides have numerous ways of dealing with enemy aircraft, so do the Longbow and Hind even need to be perfectly balanced against each other when they don't even fill the same role (anti-armour interceptor vs anti-infantry gunship), simply because they're currently the only aircraft?

Edited January 24, 2016 by Ice

[Death_Kitty]

Fair point. Soviet fixed wing aircraft would be nice, but are probably a long way off.

[dblaney1]

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.

Edited January 25, 2016 by dblaney1

[GeneralCamo]

Except that would dilute the roles of the vehicles in the game. Which I am personally not a fan of.

[Pushwall]

In the last pre-release build, the Hind had 5 more range and it was basically impossible for Longbows to beat. The power gap between them can't be that big now. Hind probably just needs a bit more damage to aircraft.

[Coolrock]

In the last pre-release build, the Hind had 5 more range and it was basically impossible for Longbows to beat. The power gap between them can't be that big now. Hind probably just needs a bit more damage to aircraft.

 

The Longbow hands down is the better of the two at Air-to-Air currently. I've started fights hitting them first, and still lost even though I made sure to land every shot I could. It also doesn't help that they have a bigger clip now, but that's not the issue.

 

Also, am I the only one that sees the Depth Charge change being horrible? The ships can hardly turn anymore as it is, and now I need to keep a Sub behind me to even hit it? The turn rate seems horrible also.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Coolrock

[Death_Kitty]

2a.) I've done some testing now, and the hind seem to be able to beat the longbow, but only when firing backwards, moving backwards, and if you opponent misses. Not an ideal combat situation. A tad of anti air damage should do the trick.

 

2c.) And yes, depth charges are rather... bad... I think its partially in part because its too hard to see underwater. That, and soviet subs usually stay at the surface, where I am content to just punt at them with my deck gun (I hate destroyers).

 

 

In the last pre-release build, the Hind had 5 more range and it was basically impossible for Longbows to beat. The power gap between them can't be that big now. Hind probably just needs a bit more damage to aircraft.

 

The Longbow hands down is the better of the two at Air-to-Air currently. I've started fights hitting them first, and still lost even though I made sure to land every shot I could. It also doesn't help that they have a bigger clip now, but that's not the issue.

 

Also, am I the only one that sees the Depth Charge change being horrible? The ships can hardly turn anymore as it is, and now I need to keep a Sub behind me to even hit it? The turn rate seems horrible also.

er

Gunboats are the main sub hunter here, but spotting them when they submerge is hard if not impossible, and the activation range and proximity act weird for me. I do need to test more.

[Coolrock]

I could see them just fine. The problem I was having was keeping the boat even close to above them to even try hurting them.

[delta]

Also, am I the only one that sees the Depth Charge change being horrible? The ships can hardly turn anymore as it is, and now I need to keep a Sub behind me to even hit it? The turn rate seems horrible also.

Isn't using the Gunboat's cannon against subs basically the same as how the old depth charge launcher worked? So even if the new depth charge sucks, you've still got the equivalent of the old weapon.

[Raap]

Soviets have more ways of dealing with Longbows than Allies have ways of dealing with Hinds. Therefore the fact that Longbows have an edge in Air to Air gameplay is a good example of asymmetrical balance design at work. Besides, Hinds got a good way of a guaranteed kill on Longbows; Kite, longbow missiles time out while bullets do not.

[Coolrock]

 

Also, am I the only one that sees the Depth Charge change being horrible? The ships can hardly turn anymore as it is, and now I need to keep a Sub behind me to even hit it? The turn rate seems horrible also.

 

Isn't using the Gunboat's cannon against subs basically the same as how the old depth charge launcher worked? So even if the new depth charge sucks, you've still got the equivalent of the old weapon.

Does it? I honestly didn't try assuming that if they took the secondary fire away, then the cannon wouldn't do anything like in the older versions.

 

Soviets have more ways of dealing with Longbows than Allies have ways of dealing with Hinds. Therefore the fact that Longbows have an edge in Air to Air gameplay is a good example of asymmetrical balance design at work. Besides, Hinds got a good way of a guaranteed kill on Longbows; Kite, longbow missiles time out while bullets do not.

Really? Pretty sure between Longbows, Rocket Soldiers, Phase Tanks, anyone skilled with most of Allied vehicles (I've shot down a Hind with an Artillery in a game recently), hell even a group of Captains and Rifle Soldiers can take them down easily if grouped up. Everyone has plenty of anti-air.

 

I didn't care for Rocket Soldiers having the same range as a destroyer. Don't recall the map, but this again fall on Infantry still being allowed to be purchased after the Barracks goes down. Almost half the team on Soviets had Rocket Soldiers sitting in the Sub Pen, dominating destroyers trying to end the game. I don't see how this made the game better to play. Sure, they can keep fighting, but what's the point of killing a critical structure of you can still use it? Just my two cents.

[Ice]

The point of allowing basic infantry after destruction of the barracks was to alleviate the issue of a team becoming completely helpless and open to killwhoring once their barracks and war factory go down. It gives the team something to fight back with while still punishing them for letting the building die (no more engies or commandos or advanced infantry).

 

If the Soviet team in that case was camping their sub pen and killing all the Allied ships, the Allies could have switched tactics and attacked with tanks or other means.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Ice

[gammae102]

I'm inclined to agree with Coolrock regarding rocket soldiers being a bit overpowered. Granted, the Allies need something to counter the superior Soviet armor, but it's incredibly hard to mount any kind of attack when the team is a bunch of rocket soldiers since tanks, boats, and aircraft can't do much against them. Sure they are weak against infantry, but throw in a few riflemen who respawn as soon as they are killed and it becomes pretty hard to mount any kind of attack unless you have a demolition truck.

[Coolrock]

The point of allowing basic infantry after destruction of the barracks was to alleviate the issue of a team becoming completely helpless and open to killwhoring once their barracks and war factory go down. It gives the team something to fight back with while still punishing them for letting the building die (no more engies or commandos or advanced infantry).

If the Soviet team in that case was camping their sub pen and killing all the Allied ships, the Allies could have switched tactics and attacked with tanks or other means.

 

I don't see how well over years and years this was never an issue, and never changed until recently. It's part of the game. If you lose a building, the function to use it should be gone. People complaining about a K/D Ratio is silly in a game like this. Maybe I'm alone on this, but it's so silly to me that the building goes down and one of the Infantry still available is a Rocket Soldier. The one unit that can pick off multiple tanks/helicopters/ships and survive most of the time. Times that by multiple people using one, and it's just stupid. I can't be the only person upset that team effort to take down the Barracks, still leaves the teams with the best option to defend against everything. Kill whoring is something that happens in this game (or did at one point in APB), along with many games based on the same aspect, big deal. People complain about everything. Just the other day, people in a game were complaining about removing MAD Tanks because they lost half a base to them. Guess you should remove those also

 

I'm inclined to agree with Coolrock regarding rocket soldiers being a bit overpowered. Granted, the Allies need something to counter the superior Soviet armor, but it's incredibly hard to mount any kind of attack when the team is a bunch of rocket soldiers since tanks, boats, and aircraft can't do much against them. Sure they are weak against infantry, but throw in a few riflemen who respawn as soon as they are killed and it becomes pretty hard to mount any kind of attack unless you have a demolition truck.

 

Glad I'm not the only one then. Asking to rush with more vehicles when I obviously pointed out they can pick off tanks without hardly having to worry about being killed. Any skilled player with one can take out more than a few vehicles, or just about any Helicopter that comes near them. Edited January 25, 2016 by Coolrock

[Coolrock]

 

I'll just pick at the Destroyer comment. No, they don't seem to out range everything. Myself, along with maybe three other Destroyers, couldn't even get in range to hit the Sub Pen, let alone the Infantry bouncing around. Each time I'd get in range to shoot a round at the Sub Pen, I'd get hit right away by 1-3 rockets. Why even buy an Attack Sub to counter ships, when you can just spend $300 and do a much better job? This is from multiple matches, not just a single game.

 

 

Just gave you the "scenario" above.

 

Artillery? The map didn't have Vehicles as far as I'm aware. Are you even sure you were in this game with me? Simple to kill? Depends on skill and many other aspects. Again, this map had no Vehicles besides Helicopters and Ships, as far as I'm aware. Asking anyone to get a head shot on a moving, jumping target, or hell, if they're above you on a cliff, is absurd. You're telling me the answer to a rocket soldier out ranging you is to just get a head shot on them, with a tank shell. If people rage quit after failing to defend a building that allows them to defend, it's their fault.

 

I tested the game for years, and this was never once an issue. We also had 30+ people regularly in the servers, and still had no issues. Maybe it's because people like you tested, is why the balance is shitty now. Probably why any kind of Infantry are allowed to be purchased after losing the Barracks also.

[Coolrock]

But boats, like tanks, can kill infantry, with good aiming.

 

 

This is a good point. I would presume that Destroyers and Missile Subs should definitely be able to outrange rocket soldiers.

 

 

 

 

rockets.

 

I don't know why you keep typing out these long drawn out posts that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

 

Again you fall onto "aiming" and killing everything with head shots, right? How can you even fire on them when you can't get in range to attack them without getting over half your vehicles health blown off?

 

Letting Rocket Soldiers stay around after taking out a Barracks just keeps games going on longer than they should. You're worried about "kill whoring", when most people I see playing would rather just finish the match and get to the next map. You didn't defend the base, and therefore you lost your Barracks. Tough shit.

[Coolrock]

 

Barracks was destroyed, Sub Pen was alive. I never said it was destroyed. Maybe lay off the joint?

 

My argument is for any situation. If the Barracks is destroyed, then they still have to best anti-tank weapon available to them for $300. I see more Soviets use the Rocket Soldier now, then I do Shock Troopers. There were plenty of Infantry attacking along with our ships and Longbow. The fact is there shouldn't be any Rocket Soldiers if the Barracks goes down. You can reply as much as you want, but the fact remains that it doesn't make sense.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it;that does not make sense!

[Einstein]

I tested the game for years, and this was never once an issue. We also had 30+ people regularly in the servers, and still had no issues. Maybe it's because people like you tested, is why the balance is shitty now. Probably why any kind of Infantry are allowed to be purchased after losing the Barracks also.

 

Anyone that knows Mackintoke (Dominant Hunter) very well at all, knows that he would absolutely love to respond to this comment in kind. However, he remained quite civil and even stayed on topic (even though he missed an important detail along the way of his explaining). Lets not bring logical fallacies into debates, and actually focus on the material that is being debated.

 

Thanks.

[Coolrock]

 

User was warned for: Openly mocking a moderator / ignoring verbal warning

 

 

 

 

I could be losing it, because I worked a 13 hours shift today, but I swear you repeat yourself over and over again while I've already stated something. Maybe because you're smoking so much. Smoking is bad.

 

 

There were plenty of Infantry attacking along with our ships and Longbow.

 

Maybe you just don't read. I don't know. I already said that no matter what you say, Rocket Soldiers shouldn't be out ranging, or even at the same range, as a Destroyer. They shouldn't even be around after the Barracks is destroyed. Lucky there isn't any Subs to deal with? Again, I said what's even the point of buying a Sub for what is it, $950? I can buy three Rocket Soldiers for that, and probably take out much more with them than I could ever with one Sub.

 

No point replying to the rest of the post. It's the same thing you've posted and I've answered over and over again.

 

 

 

Why did you even post?

[GeneralCamo]

Because Einstein's job is to moderate threads in this forum. Including this one.

[Killing_You]

To me, the problem is with the RedEye/Strela being very effective against boats, a little too effective IMO. Other than that, rocket soldiers being available with a dead barracks hasn't really caused any problems. Average teams can still hold their own, good teams could even mount an assault for a come from behind win. Granted, that's FAR easier said than done, but it's possible.

 

Also, in regards to PacificThreat, I personally think that removing the Refinery and War Factory wasn't the best decision. Artillery and V2s are great counters to Missile Subs/Destroyers, along with the multitude of other vehicles that help to spice up the gameplay.

[Einstein]

 

Why did you even post?

 

 

Because I was issuing a verbal warning in the nicest way I knew how.

[Coolrock]

 

That's cute.

 

To me, the problem is with the RedEye/Strela being very effective against boats, a little too effective IMO. Other than that, rocket soldiers being available with a dead barracks hasn't really caused any problems. Average teams can still hold their own, good teams could even mount an assault for a come from behind win. Granted, that's FAR easier said than done, but it's possible.

 

Also, in regards to PacificThreat, I personally think that removing the Refinery and War Factory wasn't the best decision. Artillery and V2s are great counters to Missile Subs/Destroyers, along with the multitude of other vehicles that help to spice up the gameplay.

 

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).

 

 

 

 

Aww, you're adorable

 

Giving out verbal warnings on the Internet through text

[Einstein]

@coolrock

 

Your view does not allow you to mock whomever you please just because someone else doesn't accept it. We hear you. I promise. I am going to advise you as nicely as I can to bring the tension level in here down.