A Path Beyond Making MAD Tank more viable

[Pushwall]

I'm considering getting rid of the friendly fire because MAD Tanks just don't get enough use, and every time someone uses only 1 or 2 of them, all they're really doing is hurting their own team's tank rushes. It feels like something the original developers did just for the sake of sticking to RA (which as we all know did not have much thought put into its balance). I can always drop its health down to 300-350 or reduce its speed a little or something along those lines to compensate. What are your thoughts? Be sure to post as well as poll if you have any input on why this is a bad idea or how to do it better.

[AZ-Stalker]

I'm honestly more scared of buying a MAD because I'll loose it in an abrupt fight due to the slow speed. Hence why I always opt for a Demo which can roll out way faster.

If MADs didn't have friendly fire, that'd be a relief on offense and in a pinch mid-field... although, what's stopping the Soviets from using MADs to deter enemy assaults within their own base? A no-MAD-zone?

[Pushwall]

That's a fair point. A no-MAD zone in the Soviet base would also be nice to stop newbies insta-deploying but that also means spies can't do shit with a stolen MAD tank.

 

Though if Soviets are able to afford enough MADs to defend with, Allies likely also have mechs in their attack force who can just go on repair duty once the detonation is about to happen - or they can just kill the MAD itself if their vehicles are too close to the enemy base to mech safely, as a MAD can only take as many hits as a heavy when a med/phase/RS is attacking it.

 

Losing a MAD to a surprise is far less likely than a demo given the MAD can actually take some hits...

[AZ-Stalker]

We don't have a faction-side script that could make the MADs not be able to deploy in the Soviet base as a restriction only to the Soviets? Same could go for the Demo... TSR uses the dig-zone logic so I was just wondering if something like that could apply. Just a thought. But at the end of the day, you APB guys have the final word on if the MAD restriction would hamper, confuse or turn out okay.

[Nodlied]

Oh my, YES. It would certainly diversify the game, so that you won't see all those boring mammoths and demos rolling around.

[AZ-Stalker]

The MADs would get to be used as area denial weapons in various scenarios, such as if an enemy rush is spotted in advance, blocking it and such tactics.

[Nodlied]

I think that it's too expensive for that purpose. Especially if the Allies know about those tactics and create diversions.

[Alstar]

This actually sounds like a good idea. I seen far less MAD rushes than before. Removing friendly fire will allows for MADS to be added to attack groups even as support damage unit, placing one when sieging a base to deal area damage while rest of forces attacks. #Approved.

[Voe]

 

Right, so a soviet rush of Mammies, TTs, Volkovs and Shock Troopers will be even more powerful with an addition of MAD tanks, which blow up the entire allied force.

 

You kite with a med mech? NOPE, MAD rapes you at a ridiculous range. You poke with a phase? NOPE, MAD snipes you with absolute precision. You come and go with a LB? NOPE, mad shoots you down and makes you cry.

 

All of that in addition to killing your base.

 

 

No.

 

[ChopBam]

Voe, it would require 3 MAD Tanks to actually destroy anything from full health, not to mention it has a timer and an announcement. That said, I say keep the friendly fire because that's the very nature and definition of a Mutually Assured Destruction Tank.

 

My lack of using them isn't related to friendly fire, but rather that it requires teamplay to be effective and I'm a lone wolf.

[Pushwall]

Not to mention MAD Tanks don't even hurt aircraft anymore.

 

Not that that detracts from the points about ground vehicles.

[ChopBam]

What if friendly fire damage is just reduced?

[Pushwall]

Or maybe 40% damage instead of 34% (but with no extra friendly fire damage) so just hunkering down and engy camping is not a solution to 3 of them popping up, and so single/double ones aren't as ineffectual?

[ChopBam]

That sounds fine to me.

[JigglyJie]

Yes. That or a reduction in friendly fire. I rarely bother with MADs because a Demo often does a better job, not to mention MADs require 3 people at the very least and manpower is precious enough as it is.

[Pushwall]

Changed the topic tile since it's about more than friendly fire now

 

Currently the shockwave damage is 34% enemies/17% friends, can adjust that to a more favourable ratio of 40% enemies/15% friends, or 37.5% enemies/12.5% friends.

Another thing that might be hindering MADs is the bug that they turn neutral a while after deployed - making it hard to defend them since you can accidentally hurt them, but on the other side of the coin, denying the enemy points for killing them. I've already asked jonwil to take a look at that.

[Voe]

Voe, it would require 3 MAD Tanks to actually destroy anything from full health, not to mention it has a timer and an announcement.

And here i was thinking i wouldn't need to overexplain it.

 

I specifically stated a situation where the soviets are attacking. The dynamic of soviets vs allies combat (or any combat for that matter) is that both sides are consistently damaged. How often does it happen to you that you've killed a soviet assault and you all remain in your shiny, full hitpoint vehicles? I don't know about you, but not too often for me. More often than not, i end up on foot shooting with my infantry as the vehicle has died long time ago. Add MADs to the mix and they will die even earlier.

 

The situation is most obvious with phase tanks which, very frequently, will take a shell or two anytime they unstealth to attack. Running around in a yellow health phase is more a rule than an exception.

 

Before someone starts talking about some bizzare mechanic situation where every phase is a mechphase and every med is a medmech, no. Your tanks die and you have nothing remaining to stop the rest of the soviets. You need tanyas, rocket soldiers and captains (rifles for the more skilled, too). Mechanic is a luxury which you can afford sometimes, but definitely not always.

[Killing_You]

The problem with removing or even reducing friendly fire (IMO) is that it's very much a risk/reward unit. A trio of them costs 7200 credits, they take a while to get into position, have no defenses of their own, then you have to deploy them, and if you lose even one, the entire attack is botched. Not to mention that using your remaining escort wouldn't be great for an immediate follow-up attack due to the damage received. You should be rewarded for succeeding in this ambitious task, and punished for messing it up. Not in a game ending way, but in a rush ending way.

However, I do agree with the increase of damage vs enemies. One or two engineers hunkering down at the MCTs with a well-timed swing shouldn't be such an easy counter to 3 MADs attacking. The proper response should be a counterattack on all sides with the MADs being priority targets.

[Voe]

From a Clanwar point of view, MADs are powerful as they are. Untested, but guaranteed,

[ChopBam]

And here i was thinking i wouldn't need to overexplain it.

Oh don't be so condescending. Your sometimes obscure reasoning isn't always some obvious truth, and this is one of those cases where you're not covering the whole story, as explained below.

 

I specifically stated a situation where the soviets are attacking. The dynamic of soviets vs allies combat (or any combat for that matter) is that both sides are consistently damaged. How often does it happen to you that you've killed a soviet assault and you all remain in your shiny, full hitpoint vehicles? I don't know about you, but not too often for me. More often than not, i end up on foot shooting with my infantry as the vehicle has died long time ago. Add MADs to the mix and they will die even earlier.

 

The situation is most obvious with phase tanks which, very frequently, will take a shell or two anytime they unstealth to attack. Running around in a yellow health phase is more a rule than an exception.

 

Before someone starts talking about some bizzare mechanic situation where every phase is a mechphase and every med is a medmech, no. Your tanks die and you have nothing remaining to stop the rest of the soviets. You need tanyas, rocket soldiers and captains (rifles for the more skilled, too). Mechanic is a luxury which you can afford sometimes, but definitely not always.

You're assuming here that the Allies have a complete lack of scouting and foresight to see an attack of this magnitude coming. The Soviets have confined at least three of their precious players to slow-moving, expensive vehicles that are trying not to be discovered, blasted away by AT mines, or met with an opposing rush. It takes a good amount of teamwork and sheer luck to get all of those MAD Tanks to sit near the Allied base for a bit, immovable, announced, and fully alive.

 

Phase Tanks aren't the only counter to this. Allied players can use light tanks and rocket soldiers to quickly intercept small-medium Soviet rushes, which in most games, are everything you'll get accompanying a 3-player MAD rush. The Allies get faster vehicles and AT mines. What were they even doing the whole time that the Soviets were amassing such a thing?

 

I'm not even arguing for the removal of friendly fire. But the success rate I see with MAD Tanks is incredibly low, unless "success" just means "doing some reparable damage," in which case any unit can do that.

[Isaac The Madd]

It is a seismic wave just like an explosion it cannot care whose side you are on it just kills everything.

[Voe]

I won't go into specific map tactics trying to convince the public to agree with me, it's not a contest.

 

I'll be happy to show them to you in practice someday.

[AZ-Stalker]

I think the MAD tank is just a very misunderstood unit. See, people think its sole purpose is to cause destruction to the allied base, while in reality it's going through puberty as a military vehicle. It could very well be very attracted to the allied ore field, going through that interesting teenage part of life and all.

[JigglyJie]

It is a seismic wave just like an explosion it cannot care whose side you are on it just kills everything.

 

You cannot use this argument because A-bombs don't harm friendlies at all. List goes on...

[dblaney1]

Changed the topic tile since it's about more than friendly fire now

 

Currently the shockwave damage is 34% enemies/17% friends, can adjust that to a more favourable ratio of 40% enemies/15% friends, or 37.5% enemies/12.5% friends.

Another thing that might be hindering MADs is the bug that they turn neutral a while after deployed - making it hard to defend them since you can accidentally hurt them, but on the other side of the coin, denying the enemy points for killing them. I've already asked jonwil to take a look at that.

 

What script are you using. I can take a look at it as well.

 

I think the big issue with a lot of tanks in APB (and reborn) is that its not possible to repair them in the field for one of the teams. Its actually worse in reborn as the mobile repair is a vehicle so you can't take it with your tank without a second person. I know this how it was in the original RTS but keep in mind that Tiberian Dawn had no mobile repair unit at all but renegade did. (in the rts no one really needed mobile repair as TD/RA was just a spam as many units game, which you can't do in W3D) That's one of the big reasons why something like a MAD Rush doesn't work well.

Edited August 6, 2016 by dblaney1

[Pushwall]

Soviets already have superior vehicles and superior infantry, it's only because Allies have mechanics that their tanks are actually able to maintain any field presence against hightech Soviet stuff. Win ratios between both teams are roughly 50/50 right now. If Soviets had mechanics on top of what they already had... yeah... way too much stuff would have to be rebalanced just to find a happy medium again. And a group of MADs spaced properly with mechanics slipping in between them? Yeah good luck stopping that. So restricting what you say to only the MAD itself: maybe the MAD Tank could have a regen rate since it's based on the same chassis as the Mammoth Tank.

 

The script is RA_MAD_Tank_Devolved and I've already made a trello card for it. CJ was a bit retarded with his naming - there's also one called RA_MAD_Tank_Improved but that's actually an outdated script.

[FRAYDO]

Friendly fire for everything.

[Raap]

I don't see the harm in giving this a spin. The unit clearly needs a boost in some area before it becomes more commonly used, outside of the few maps where terrain allows for gimmicky tactics.

 

Friendly fire for everything.

 

I'm normally of that opinion in other games, but on W3D, with the horrible network code, I would say that friendly fire from everything would just result in a lot of team-kills due to latency, rubber-banding, and de-syncs, and it might even make all of those things worse due to adding extra load on the server to calculate additional damage.

[Ice]

I say keep the friendly fire because that's the very nature and definition of a Mutually Assured Destruction Tank.

I agree with ChopBam on this; The very name and nature of the weapon means that it should have friendly fire, otherwise it's not a Mutually Assured Destruction weapon. Aside from this, there's also the problem of abusing MAD Tanks for base-defence, something which it (along with demos) should never be able to be used for without repercussions.

 

maybe the MAD Tank could have a regen rate since it's based on the same chassis as the Mammoth Tank.

I could get behind this along with perhaps a couple other small tweaks to make the MAD more appealing to players, as long as it retains some level of friendly fire.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Ice

[dblaney1]

I don't see the harm in giving this a spin. The unit clearly needs a boost in some area before it becomes more commonly used, outside of the few maps where terrain allows for gimmicky tactics.

 

Friendly fire for everything.

 

I'm normally of that opinion in other games, but on W3D, with the horrible network code, I would say that friendly fire from everything would just result in a lot of team-kills due to latency, rubber-banding, and de-syncs, and it might even make all of those things worse due to adding extra load on the server to calculate additional damage.

 

The Damage is calculated on the server no matter what. It just blocks it (sets damage to 0) if friendlyfire is on. This is because a lot of scripts still call their damaged functions even when friendlyfire occurs.

Edited August 7, 2016 by dblaney1