A Path Beyond Bonsai: What's its issue exactly?

[Testament]

I personally have never really loved this map, but I used to like it a lot more before the mammys were removed. I have never seen the Soviets win against a competent Allied team without using a flare. We had 4 V2s hit the WF at once... only to have an engineer golden repair it. The Allies have the vastly superior base since it is much tighter and has better defenses with a pillbox/turret combo pretty much ruining an attack route for the soviets. Then, they have the front of their base well defended with a more spread out combo that is much harder to attack undetected than the soviet flame towers.

there are only 3 soviet flame towers, and the one on the hill I have never actually see fire at anything. So effectively, the soviets have this giant spread out base with 3 separate ways to get into it with many blindspots, and poor offensive capabilities. The Allies have phases, and GREAT anti infantry so using infantry when tanks fail is rarely an option when they can just insta kill your whole squad with an APC/Ranger/Phase.

It leaves your only option for victory as a soviet to have Russian James Bond sneak in and nuke the base. If the allies even have one competent engineer with a ranger, their base is nigh invincible. If anyone has any other things they have noticed, please speak up because I don't have a great inner understanding of the balance of this game but I know for the fact the Tesla Tank is NOT a counter to the phase or the constant med/phase spam the Allies can muster.

[OrangeP47]

I'm kind of on the fence about Bonzai.  You make good points.  I think you may be right, but for the wrong reasons though.  The wide open base for the Allies and the chokepoints for the Soviets matter, but because of how they make the teams focus.  The Allies *have* to pour an attack into one spot, the way the land is makes anything else impossible, but when the Soviets line up to attack the Allies they spread out too much, letting multiple people all take the defenses at once and get rekt.

I've seen Soviets succeed, but in cases where they moved in like a needle, rather than a wide front. The direct route is also difficult because that's where the Allies expect you to attack, yes, but taking the long way around and hitting the far side seems to be the best strategy I've seen.  An attack from there can actually penetrate pretty deep into the Allied base, using their own buildings as cover from the other defenses as need be.  I know on at least three occasions I've managed to get into the Refinery and do some major damage just by hopping from cover.  The dome usually falls pretty easily too.  Sure, it's not the most valuable base structure, but it counts for points, especially if the game is close.  Not saying it's perfect, but try the far side > dome > Refinery route more.

[Pushwall]

17 minutes ago, Testament said:

I personally have never really loved this map, but I used to like it a lot more before the mammys were removed. I have never seen the Soviets win against a competent Allied team without using a flare. 

And when it had mammys, Allies could not win without killing ref in the first 5 minutes (or, again, using a flare). I would propose that we not swing the pendulum exactly as far in the other direction now that we know that both extremes fail.

17 minutes ago, Testament said:

If anyone has any other things they have noticed, please speak up because I don't have a great inner understanding of the balance of this game but I know for the fact the Tesla Tank is NOT a counter to the phase or the constant med/phase spam the Allies can muster.

The unit that detects phases on radar, breaks their stealth in one hit, and basically denies phase attacks if your tank column has a tesla tank facing the other direction, is not a phase counter. Kden.

Been meaning to buff them anyway. Maybe 2shotting longbows will give Allies something to think about on Ridge War too (that's not this map but it'd be extra damage to EVERYTHING not just LBs).

[MPRA2]

About the base defense placement and base layout, both teams have huge disadvantages.

Allies have hills RIGHT next to their defenses, so pillboxes will have a hard time hitting shockies or grenadiers. The Turret(s), I don't know...

Soviets have base defenses literally sitting out in the open which are ALWAYS arty/tank fodder, and if you get below them, they cant harm you much.

Removing the Mammoth Tanks was a pretty decent idea, but allies still have a full tech tree with phase tanks that can ambush and destroy the soviets with ease, even with Tesla Tanks around to detect them (depending on whose the most competent). But then again, more often than not, a Tesla Tank would just BARELY destroy my phase tank before I got my second salvo off, however it wouldn't matter anyways as whatever infantry I was using would be able to dispatch the tank with ease after destroying the phase.

Flares..... eh... its a bit...... well....... you can pull a "Zama Hill" flare and knock out half the Soviet base by the refinery, as well as using the hill by the War Factory to knock out the War Factory, Dome, Silo, Missile Silo, and damage the Barracks and Refinery. Allies, I don't really know how well the Soviets can flare, as I've rarely been on the map when Soviets flare, so I don't have much of a say on that other than the hill right next to the Allied Refinery.

At this point, I really don't see how you can balance the map without breaking something that worked... Kinda goes for all maps imho.

I always hated the map back in Beta to Nuclear Winter because of how bland and boring it was, but now.... I'm not sure what to think of it.

Edited July 8, 2017 by MPRA2

[Testament]

5 hours ago, Pushwall said:

And when it had mammys, Allies could not win without killing ref in the first 5 minutes (or, again, using a flare). I would propose that we not swing the pendulum exactly as far in the other direction now that we know that both extremes fail.

The unit that detects phases on radar, breaks their stealth in one hit, and basically denies phase attacks if your tank column has a Tesla tank facing the other direction, is not a phase counter. Kden.

Been meaning to buff them anyway. Maybe 2shotting longbows will give Allies something to think about on Ridge War too (that's not this map but it'd be extra damage to EVERYTHING not just LBs).

The Tesla is still made of paper and can be put down by any Allied infantry or vehicle effectively. I agree with a buff. They need to really bring the hurt as a glass cannon instead of 1500 dollars better spent as a Volk or a Flamer/HT. The phase can easily get in its blind spot and kill it in a salvo and is not only faster, but actually has a weapon that's good against infantry.

 

[Raap]

I find A-Bombs to be rather detrimental to gameplay, especially in lower population games. There is nothing you can do to defend from it when your entire team is on the attack, something which you have to do in the spirit of the game, due to the focus on teamwork. Bonsai and Zama both punish you for doing a team effort assault, and almost always the flares are placed in cheesy locations.

I'm up for a revision on the whole A-Bomb concept rather than an outright removal. They can be salvaged to be more fun content and see addition to more maps for it. 

My proposition: Change the flare into an item that can only be placed in a designated "Base Center", this would be a simple patch of clear terrain in the middle of a base that is visibly clearly the center of the base (or the center of relevant base space). This eliminates the fact that flares can be placed in cheesy location and instead makes it so they can only be placed in this designer-designated location, meaning it becomes defensible. This location should always be covered by at least one base defense that needs to be destroyed before placement can occur. To compensate for this difficulty, should the A-Bomb land, it should be enough to end the match in defeat for the A-Bomb target about 10 seconds post-impact (to allow for the bomb animation to play in-game).

Flare timers: To eliminate flares ending good matches too early on low population games, flare timers need to become dynamic based on the population at the time of placement. The curve would mean that lower population matches (1-6 players) result in a two minute timer, and slowly creeping back to the standard 60 second timer as the population rises towards 14 players. This is not a random number, as I find that most typical forms of team assaults revolve around 5 or so players. Having the timer scale towards the normal 60 seconds at 7 players per team means you on average have two people in your base capable of attempting a defense.

I'd recommend not touching the flare purchase cooldown time for consistency purposes, given that it currently is already rather confusing to figure out when it is available or if your team took it, or if a spy reset it. If possible, add a message stating the cooldown time remaining on approaching the flare terminal.

Just my thoughts.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Raap

[Jeod]

3 hours ago, Raap said:

I find A-Bombs to be rather detrimental to gameplay, especially in lower population games. There is nothing you can do to defend from it when your entire team is on the attack, something which you have to do in the spirit of the game, due to the focus on teamwork. Bonsai and Zama both punish you for doing a team effort assault, and almost always the flares are placed in cheesy locations.

I'm up for a revision on the whole A-Bomb concept rather than an outright removal. They can be salvaged to be more fun content and see addition to more maps for it. 

My proposition: Change the flare into an item that can only be placed in a designated "Base Center", this would be a simple patch of clear terrain in the middle of a base that is visibly clearly the center of the base (or the center of relevant base space). This eliminates the fact that flares can be placed in cheesy location and instead makes it so they can only be placed in this designer-designated location, meaning it becomes defensible. This location should always be covered by at least one base defense that needs to be destroyed before placement can occur. To compensate for this difficulty, should the A-Bomb land, it should be enough to end the match in defeat for the A-Bomb target about 10 seconds post-impact (to allow for the bomb animation to play in-game).

Flare timers: To eliminate flares ending good matches too early on low population games, flare timers need to become dynamic based on the population at the time of placement. The curve would mean that lower population matches (1-6 players) result in a two minute timer, and slowly creeping back to the standard 60 second timer as the population rises towards 14 players. This is not a random number, as I find that most typical forms of team assaults revolve around 5 or so players. Having the timer scale towards the normal 60 seconds at 7 players per team means you on average have two people in your base capable of attempting a defense.

I'd recommend not touching the flare purchase cooldown time for consistency purposes, given that it currently is already rather confusing to figure out when it is available or if your team took it, or if a spy reset it. If possible, add a message stating the cooldown time remaining on approaching the flare terminal.

Just my thoughts.

The a-bomb is perfectly fine the way it is, and the only thing I like about your proposals is the timer scaling. If a-bombs aren't already cancelled mid-flight when a missile silo is destroyed, they should be. This gives the attacking team an opportunity to react--and honestly, if a base is completely empty due to the entire team attacking while a missile silo is still alive, it's on the team. Teamwork doesn't mean all-in, it means having players in the right places working together. That means leaving one or two behind to defend.

[Raap]

2 hours ago, Jeod said:

The a-bomb is perfectly fine the way it is, and the only thing I like about your proposals is the timer scaling. If a-bombs aren't already cancelled mid-flight when a missile silo is destroyed, they should be. This gives the attacking team an opportunity to react--and honestly, if a base is completely empty due to the entire team attacking while a missile silo is still alive, it's on the team. Teamwork doesn't mean all-in, it means having players in the right places working together. That means leaving one or two behind to defend.

The problem is that this deviates from core gameplay a lot. 

The topic asks why people may dislike Bonsai, I simply gave my prediction that it is the Missile Silo game logic. I could be wrong for sure.

[Killing_You]

11 hours ago, Pushwall said:

And when it had mammys, Allies could not win without killing ref in the first 5 minutes (or, again, using a flare). I would propose that we not swing the pendulum exactly as far in the other direction now that we know that both extremes fail.

There's still the issue that the Allies have their full arsenal (sans Tanya/Demos) while the Soviets do not. Heck, they even have MAD tanks and yet no Mammoths. This isn't an issue on maps like Under due to how closed the map is, but Bonsai is very open. There's a couple of routes for the Soviets to push through, and there's plenty of room for Allies to maneuver and ambush the Soviet brigade. This is why Soviets tend to fan out; to deny that field advantage. Not only that, but the defenses have been pulled back, tightening the defenses and making the Allied line harder to pierce. I get the point about the Mammoths plowing through the Allies with ease, but this was also back when the defenses were a lot lighter on the Allied end. In any case, this map has been an issue (at least for me) for quite some time and nothing that's been done so far has helped.

[Pushwall]

23 minutes ago, Killing You said:

There's still the issue that the Allies have their full arsenal (sans Tanya/Demos) while the Soviets do not. Heck, they even have MAD tanks and yet no Mammoths

Maybe that won't be their full arsenal in future. I think I've hinted at this enough already  

[Mojoman]

Finally we will receive Soviet Tanyas like in multiplayer to balance Bonsai!

I like Bonsai the way it is, perhaps sans the Allied bridges. I feel they offer a bit too much line of site protection for the Allies base defenses.

[SarahNautili]

On 7/8/2017 at 3:54 AM, Raap said:

I find A-Bombs to be rather detrimental to gameplay, especially in lower population games. There is nothing you can do to defend from it when your entire team is on the attack, something which you have to do in the spirit of the game, due to the focus on teamwork. Bonsai and Zama both punish you for doing a team effort assault, and almost always the flares are placed in cheesy locations.

There's the other part of the detriment, where, inevitably, on flare maps, at *least* two people will grab spies come ~4 minutes into the match, and spend the rest of the match doing nothing but spy flaring... which 9 times out of 10, or more, just gives the soviets free points and leaves the allies down players. 

[Raap]

On 19-7-2017 at 8:01 AM, SarahNautili said:

There's the other part of the detriment, where, inevitably, on flare maps, at *least* two people will grab spies come ~4 minutes into the match, and spend the rest of the match doing nothing but spy flaring... which 9 times out of 10, or more, just gives the soviets free points and leaves the allies down players. 

My proposed solution would solve this as well since there would be no incentive to use a spy over anything else that can actually guard the flare location. It would require a lot more team work.

Unfortunately it seems that radical gameplay changes are not favored here, even if they would improve the game a lot.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Raap

[Pushwall]

6 hours ago, Raap said:

Unfortunately it seems that radical gameplay changes are not favored here, even if they would improve the game a lot.

If I could just flip a simple switch or change a couple ini values and suddenly have all those changes you mentioned, bug-free and communicable to the players, I don't see why we couldn't test it out. Unfortunately "radical gameplay changes" aren't always a 5-minute job like the headshot overhaul, especially when they require more than just LE/ini work (which is bound to be case if it involves adding functionality that doesn't already exist like changing flare durations on the fly). But why am I saying this, surely the person responsible for overhauling Hostile Waters already knows this?

[ChopBam]

7 hours ago, Pushwall said:

But why am I saying this, surely the person responsible for overhauling Hostile Waters already knows this?

[FRAYDO]

Remember when there were secret weapons hidden in that corner? What if those were reintroduced and were guarded by an Ant Hill? This has no effect on Bonsai as a whole nor addresses any issues, I just thought it would be cool.

[TeamWolf]

On 08/07/2017 at 4:16 AM, Pushwall said:

The unit that detects phases on radar, breaks their stealth in one hit, and basically denies phase attacks if your tank column has a tesla tank facing the other direction, is not a phase counter. Kden.

No idea that this was a thing, good to know.

 

I dislike Bonsai as Soviet because you do indeed to all in, try and keep a good frontal presence when you always can't. I also feel that you need a lot more teamwork for Soveits too win, removing Phase tanks would help this map out a lot.

 

I also dislike Missile Silo maps but that's just my personal distaste for them, 7/10 times I wouldn't really try to disarm or combat a flare because half my team isn't or it's just really well defended from a good vantage point. I do like Raap's idea of a Renegade styled end beacon idea but then again I feel restricting players from an open system from so long isn't the right way either. Time scaling for flares on the other hand is an idea that I would love to see tried out.

[Voe]

Make it full tech. Soviets struggle because they don't have volkovs and mammies.

[ChopBam]

5 hours ago, Voe said:

Make it full tech. Soviets struggle because they don't have volkovs and mammies.

I seem to remember Mammoths dominating this map.

[Pushwall]

4 hours ago, ChopBam said:

I seem to remember Mammoths dominating this map.

Not to mention readding them means the shock trooper and tesla tank will fade into obscurity again. There really needs to be more incentive to use them even when the T5 units are available - which will in turn also help Soviets out on kovless maps such as this. Maybe a bigger penalty for Mechanics healing vehicle health, since a big part of shocks/TTs is the fact that some concentrated tesla fire will shut down mechanics' attempt to prop up a vehicle mid-combat, which is something Volkov, Mammoths and low-tier units can't really do without getting close enough to reliably attack the mechs themselves. Or maybe increase TT's phase detection radius from 75m (radar range) to 100m (the phase tank's attacking range). Or maybe some kind of nerf to phases, dunno exactly what though.

Then again, in this patch, Soviets are suddenly dominating the map without the kov/mammy (look at games since the 16th). So maybe the removal of one of the turrets, and TT and general infantry buff/Medic and Mechanic nerf have helped out enough here in terms of faction on map balance. Might be a bit early to be sure of that though.

[Raap]

On 20-7-2017 at 11:45 AM, Pushwall said:

If I could just flip a simple switch or change a couple ini values and suddenly have all those changes you mentioned, bug-free and communicable to the players, I don't see why we couldn't test it out. Unfortunately "radical gameplay changes" aren't always a 5-minute job like the headshot overhaul, especially when they require more than just LE/ini work (which is bound to be case if it involves adding functionality that doesn't already exist like changing flare durations on the fly). But why am I saying this, surely the person responsible for overhauling Hostile Waters already knows this?

 

Proposing theoretical changes for a basis of discussion doesn't require a programmer to already have done work. I've suggested various changes in the past that got dismissed due to reasons not related to resource commitment. 

As for Hostile Waters, nice low-blow, I kept you informed on that including my reasoning for the delays. I'm not interested in playing this game so I'll state it publicly: I've not been able to work on HW due to a never ending shitstorm of real life problems including financial ones and family ones. These are the type of problems that do not put me in a creative mood, and based on past experience where I rushed projects out of the door (such as Siege a month after my father died), I rather not repeat that same mistake.

 

On 20-7-2017 at 6:50 PM, ChopBam said:

 

Mature.

Let me return the favor: I'm withdrawing my plans to contribute entirely.

I don't need this shit right now.

[Pushwall]

12 minutes ago, Raap said:

As for Hostile Waters, nice low-blow, I kept you informed on that including my reasoning for the delays. I'm not interested in playing this game so I'll state it publicly: I've not been able to work on HW due to a never ending shitstorm of real life problems including financial ones and family ones. These are the type of problems that do not put me in a creative mood, and based on past experience where I rushed projects out of the door (such as Siege a month after my father died), I rather not repeat that same mistake.

It's not a low-blow??? I'm simply pointing out that you know full well how taxing commitments like these can be, not urging you to speed yours up.

ChopBam's addition was completely unwarranted though.

[ChopBam]

16 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

ChopBam's addition was completely unwarranted though.

Let's speak on this privately.

[SarahNautili]

Nice job breaking it