Balance Boosting Allied strength on larger games

[des1206]

I think statistics have shown that Soviets tend to win more on larger games and smaller maps. Maybe it's just harder for Allies to coordinate effectively, or that Soviet tanks/infantry are pretty straightforward to use in attacking, and Allies' natural advantage in flanking/sabotaging lose its effectiveness where there are more Soviet players around to cover the flanks and defend the base (you can only C4 one MCT at a time but there are now 5 engineers trying to disarm).

To balance things out, we could buff the Allies depending on the number of players in game, but that would be weird and inconsistent with game-play (i.e rocket soldier doing more damage when there are more players). We could also buff Allied units in general, but that would give Allies an over-advantage in smaller games (i.e stronger tanks AND advantage in flanking/sabotage). 

How about instead, we try to buff some support units to help them support more players?

Mechanic  - If we increase his repair radius a bit, it would help him to tag alone and repair multiple tanks at the same time. 

Spy - I think there were plans to add more features to this unit. It would be great if he can shut down War Factory or Barracks for 30 seconds.

Thief - Maybe up his stealing rate to 65% of total funds?

Build-Times - Can we lengthen build time of the more expensive units (Mammoth/Tesla/Phase)? This will delay Soviets in fielding their heavy hitters a bit. We should leave the HT build times the same due to LT rushes. 

[SirJustin90]

The same could be said of the allies in smaller teams. They often crush the soviets due to their speed alone.

 

I think the issue is that the allies need to get something going early in the game, as the soviets are more of a rolling thunder in the sense that they do better the longer they have to get funds. The allies can abuse this early on to cause damage or keep the Ore truck down.

[Pushwall]

2 hours ago, des1206 said:

Build-Times - Can we lengthen build time of the more expensive units (Mammoth/Tesla/Phase)? This will delay Soviets in fielding their heavy hitters a bit. We should leave the HT build times the same due to LT rushes. 

Build time is tied to the factory, not the unit.

2 hours ago, des1206 said:

Mechanic  - If we increase his repair radius a bit, it would help him to tag alone and repair multiple tanks at the same time. 

And then you lose because you feed so many points to enemies by constantly repairing. The Soviet lead in games won by high score is way larger than games won by base destruction so this is actually a thing I'm pretty sure. Really what I need to do is divide vehicle points into kill points and damage points again instead of having them all be damage points, so that "unintelligent" Mechanic use doesn't hamper the team too much. And before anyone mentions having mechanics actually get points for repairs, that opens up a whole new avenue of abuse on any map that has deep water.

2 hours ago, des1206 said:

Spy - I think there were plans to add more features to this unit. It would be great if he can shut down War Factory or Barracks for 30 seconds.

I've been meaning to figure out some more useful plans for this guy for a while. Perhaps we can turn this thread into, or create a new one for, devising more useful things for the Spy to do?

And another support unit you didn't bring up, but after seeing some large games, I'm going to adjust: MRJs won't be able to be stolen by the enemy when deployed anymore, just like Rebarn's deployables.

[OrangeP47]

This thought may or may not be helpful at all, or relate to something else, but is it possible to give units a slower reverse than forward speed? Making Soviet tanks go slower in reverse might be a small tweak that could make a big difference.

[Pushwall]

Well, V2s go slower in reverse at least, and that's on account of using wheeled vehicle physics. Tracked vehicles can't go slower in reverse - at least not noticeably so from what I've seen; some like the MRJ go maybe 0.1m/s slower in reverse (so basically no difference), which may be attributed to magical rigging quirks that I don't understand (the MRJ does have a pretty odd rigging after all). Wheeled physics would not only make no sense on the Soviet tanks but would prevent them from turning on the spot - a huge problem when the Mammoth is the only one with a 360 turret.  

[OrangeP47]

Yeah, I'm just thinking maybe a way that a skilled player could leverage a light or a medium better than a ht or mammy in a 1 v 1 combat, where 7 out of 10 times the stronger tank simply wins, but a good allied player who knows what they're doing could maybe sometimes win.

It's really hard to figure out, but tbh the imbalance does come down to players. In the RTS the advantage of the lights and meds is that you can buy more of them over hts and Mammoth Tanks, but when you have a fixed number of players that's obviously out the window, leaving a linear progression that allies would never win. At the same time, doing tweaks based off server population is... yeah... not the best idea...

[Pushwall]

I'm also thinking of nerfing the combat cash system, as that could also be helping Soviets get way too much money.

[OrangeP47]

Yeah I'm guessing we could run some numbers on that. I'm actually surprised this topic came up right now, seeing how last night's major malfunction seemed to be over Under (lol). That route sounds the most agreeable to me of what's been said so far, though.

[Raap]

Combat cash is the sole thing that allows a silo and refinery-less team to mount any sort of offense or defense. Gutting it would have widespread consequences.

If you're axing it, consider adding a compensatory game-wide passive credit tickle that doesn't require any structure to provide it. I'm thinking 1 credit per 2 seconds give or take. By being passive and equal between both teams, it makes all income controllable by the level designer, and disconnected from player input, ore mining aside (which would become a lot more relevant).

Edited May 6, 2017 by Raap

[Pushwall]

I'm not reducing it so much as splitting it into damage cash/kill cash like I am with points - which benefits the Allies more since it means things being repaired by Mechanics will bleed less money and their vehicles are more capable of retreat so they die less.

[Raap]

I edited my post with a new paragraph, might be worth considering.

[Pushwall]

In fact, to compensate for this I may even get rid of the cap on cash rewards entirely (currently $120 for any combat infantry costing over $600, and $240 for any vehicle costing over $1200). Since Soviets make use of more expensive units this means Allies generally get more out of this as long as they don't send phase tanks into suicide. And non-combat vehicles will get the same halved reward as non-combat infantry so demos/MADs won't suddenly be instant ore dumps by themselves.

[SirJustin90]

4 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

In fact, to compensate for this I may even get rid of the cap on cash rewards entirely (currently $120 for any combat infantry costing over $600, and $240 for any vehicle costing over $1200). Since Soviets make use of more expensive units this means Allies generally get more out of this unless they lose phase tanks. And non-combat vehicles will get the same halved reward as non-combat infantry so demos/MADs won't suddenly be instant ore dumps by themselves.

This sounds good. As cash for damage is much more useful to soviets as allies are able to repair.

 

Another good thing would be more rewards for keeping vehicles alive.

Edited May 6, 2017 by SirJustin90

[Raap]

That's the opposite of gutting it to be sure, but hey, try it. I didn't even know you capped the kill-cash out like that. Always figured it was based on raw health damage so units with more health = more credits. I haven't looked into the present data for the specifics on that before.

[Pushwall]

Just now, SirJustin90 said:

Another good thing would be more rewards for keeping vehicles alive.

Well, having some of the damage points/cash be converted into kill points/cash is kind of a reward in that your enemy gets less points/cash as long as you manage to stay alive.

[SirJustin90]

Just now, Pushwall said:

Well, having some of the damage points/cash be converted into kill points/cash is kind of a reward in that your enemy gets less points/cash as long as you manage to stay alive.

Exactly my point.

[Raap]

Just now, Pushwall said:

Well, having some of the damage points/cash be converted into kill points/cash is kind of a reward in that your enemy gets less points/cash as long as you manage to stay alive.

It's a fair point, there should be a more notable incentive to retreat vehicles from frontlines all the way back to the base in order to repair the unit on a Service Depot. Right now the incentive isn't quite there, suiciding the units is easier. Maybe Service Depot repair costs need to be reduced a bit, at least for ground and naval vehicles.

[JigglyJie]

2 hours ago, des1206 said:

Spy - I think there were plans to add more features to this unit. It would be great if he can shut down War Factory or Barracks for 30 seconds.

Thief - Maybe up his stealing rate to 65% of total funds?

1.) Unless the Spy was a limited unit, I'd say no, for obvious reasons.

2.) Again, no, especially on silo only maps. It's not that hard to steal on Metro and even the current cash stolen hinders the Soviets a lot, I don't like to think if that would make them completely broke and not able to do anything about any kind of assault. (you could mine but the Allies could also steal before you even get a minelayer out...)

 

Rest I'm okay with.

[harvester]

The soviets are meant to be powerful at long games, that's their strength. All these changes would make Allies unnecessarily powerful and frustrating on short/small games.

[Raap]

7 minutes ago, harvester said:

The soviets are meant to be powerful at long games, that's their strength. All these changes would make Allies unnecessarily powerful and frustrating on short/small games.

That's not a valid way of balancing a session based shooter game. Both teams need to be equally viable no matter what time in a match it is or what level it is. Differentiation must come in flavor, not core mechanic balancing. A team can excel at a specific subject, as long as the other team excels at something else. The trick is to not design these perks as hard-counters to the other teams arsenal, and also not to mess up fundamental gameplay pillars.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Raap

[des1206]

Hey @Pushwall and @Raap, do we have an issue with minelayers being of limited effectiveness on larger games? (More Soviet units spotting/killing minelayer, not enough mine to use) 

Would a slight increase on minelayer health help?  Or let each mine-layer carry 6 mines?

[Raap]

I've used and seen other people use both types of minelayer in both large and small scale matches. Actually, I personally believe mines are a key part of the diminished performance in larger matches in the last 20 minutes.

If my suspicion is correct, minelayers would need a combination of a capacity nerf as well as a boost to compensate for that in the form of some added survivability, although they are not combat vehicles, so this should be kept in mind. Frontline minelayers shouldn't be a thing...

Keep in mind I'm not a developer and I do not sit on the server unit statistics, but this is just my observations.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Raap

[OrangeP47]

I think a lot of people don't think using a mine layer is an effective use of time in small games.  You need a certain amount of traffic for a mine to get hit, and your time is spent laying them rather than attacking. Therefore only once it's like 4 v 4 to they really get used too much. Soviets get used more as anyone can be sneaky and get into a building, but for allies, if it's only 1-2 tanks coming at you you might as well just get a rocket soldier.

[Pushwall]

5 hours ago, Raap said:

That's the opposite of gutting it to be sure, but hey, try it. I didn't even know you capped the kill-cash out like that. Always figured it was based on raw health damage so units with more health = more credits. I haven't looked into the present data for the specifics on that before.

Just open up a given unit's scripts tab and be barraged with random numbers.  The damage points/cash value, divided by 100, is how much points/cash you get for each 1HP of damage the unit takes. So the APC's 12.5 damage points * 800 total HP / 100 = 100 points. It's a pretty annoying system to work with and I'd much rather be able to just input a total points value rather than have to calculate it using object HP. This is also why infantry don't have damage points - that armour still counts as HP even though it really isn't for gameplay and it's very possible to kill someone without depleting it all, which could rob you of points. The engine's points system wasn't really designed with the intent of people actually trying to do interesting things with armour instead of just having it be another health bar that has slightly different resistances to the "main" one.  

[Raap]

Just now, Pushwall said:

Just open up a given unit's scripts tab and be barraged with random numbers.  The damage points/cash value, divided by 100, is how much points/cash you get for each 1HP of damage the unit takes. So the APC's 12.5 damage points * 800 total HP / 100 = 100 points. It's a pretty annoying system.

Sounds terrible.

Have fun!

[Raap]

16 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I think a lot of people don't think using a mine layer is an effective use of time in small games.  You need a certain amount of traffic for a mine to get hit, and your time is spent laying them rather than attacking. Therefore only once it's like 4 v 4 to they really get used too much. Soviets get used more as anyone can be sneaky and get into a building, but for allies, if it's only 1-2 tanks coming at you you might as well just get a rocket soldier.

If a problem exists only within a certain quantity of server population, my go-to solution is unit scaling. I love scaling, I believe it is key to keeping the game consistently fun across all population matches. Unfortunately not everyone shares my opinion.

Edit: Accidental double post (forum is lagging badly for me atm).

Edited May 7, 2017 by Raap

[OrangeP47]

Just now, Raap said:

If a problem exists only within a certain quantity of server population, my go-to solution is unit scaling. I love scaling, I believe it is key to keeping the game consistently fun across all population matches. Unfortunately not everyone shares my opinion.

Edit: Accidental double post.

Well I wouldn't even call this a problem. I'm just saying this is the effect I observed. You wouldn't be a spy in a 1 v 1 game, because that's just not a tactic that works 1 v 1.

[Raptor29aa]

Well for starters I'd love to see all stolen vehicles Get ignored by base defenses not just the valuable ones. I'l e had the mine layer, ore truck, and chinook get attacked. (I haven't tested this on all maps maps)

Edited May 7, 2017 by Raptor29aa

[Pushwall]

Can you tell me what stolen vehicles are getting attacked by base defenses since last I checked, every Soviet vehicle has the "defenses don't attack if piloted by a spy" script? We can't use that on Allied, neutral, or Lunar Paradox vehicles for reasons that should be fairly obvious.

[Raptor29aa]

Understood,  I get you the specifics asap.

update: the chinook incident was on pacific threat and after watching the replay it was because the spy was a passanger and not the driver (they swapped) my mistake.

mine layer on complex will get blasted by TC shortly after stealing.

I couldn't duplicate the ore truck getting shot on KOTG

but I was able to duplicate the mine layer getting attacked by base defenses.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Raptor29aa