Balance Chronotank

[des1206]

It has been ~2 weeks since this unit has been in play. I'm curious how do people like it so far?

[Raap]

Two weeks huh? I got to make time to play the game more as I've barely had a chance to use it more than once myself!

[JigglyJie]

It's all right is the best answer I can give. For such a unit, it's not really "slow" but I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing considering its ability and robust frame. It deals good damage and is able to sustain fire for a bit.

[Coolrock]

I mainly enjoy it because it got the price lowered on the Phase Tank!

In all seriousness, I haven't seen it used yet the way I would've expected. I've seen random people use it just to get into the enemy base, but not a swarm to take a building down. I haven't had a lot of time to play much, so maybe I've just missed it.

[thedisclaimitory]

I think it needs do more damage as it is a 2400 credit vehicle am I right and it does not much to buildings but all its gud against is hinds  and maybe yaks but its not supposed to be an anti air its supposed to be an anti building or no I think its anti tank idk but its anti something other than infantry because when I tried it did almost nothing to buildings about the same amount of damage as close to a Medium Tank if you slap another barrel on it and reduce the damage a tad bit and there you go a teleporting heavy Medium Tank basicly lol I feel funny saying this but it feels true to me

[Blujet]

1 hour ago, Coolrock said:

I mainly enjoy it because it got the price lowered on the Phase Tank!

In all seriousness, I haven't seen it used yet the way I would've expected. I've seen random people use it just to get into the enemy base, but not a swarm to take a building down. I haven't had a lot of time to play much, so maybe I've just missed it.

I remember the allied team on pipeline organizing a chronorush on the Soviet bar (I was a part of it and this was just after it got added.) we had several tanks in the rush yet we barely managed to kill the bar, and it would have failed if even a single techie was reparing the bar. Granted the chrono is supposed to be a tank killer (I think its supposed to have anti-building dps equal to that of a Medium Tank), yet I don't see it being used that way much. I think it is partly due to it not playing the way that one would expect the chrono tank would (effective against buildings and tanks as opposed to being a dedicated tank killer.) Though if it was as effective against buildings as like say, a phase, I could see it running into problems balance wise.

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Blujet

[TYTY]

Was part of that rush aswell, managed to just kill the barracks with the last rocket from my chronotank and I was the last one alive. I think not many have realised how to effectively use the Chrono Tank although that seems to diminish the longer it is in-game. I personally prefer to stick to the Phase Tank as it's better suited for the way I play.

[Raap]

2 hours ago, Coolrock said:

I mainly enjoy it because it got the price lowered on the Phase Tank!

In all seriousness, I haven't seen it used yet the way I would've expected. I've seen random people use it just to get into the enemy base, but not a swarm to take a building down. I haven't had a lot of time to play much, so maybe I've just missed it.

It is harder to coordinate a teleporting unit compared to a unit you can follow.

What might be needed, is a way to ping the map for fellow team members, like dropping a icon on it that indicates "go and attack here", or "go and defend this place".

But in general the game needs a more involving map/minimap system. The Chrono Tank is a good 'first step' but if you ask me there needs to be more integrated into an actual map/minimap system as well, such as building status (replacing the current building status window), and having an actual terrain image 'minimap' instead of a blank radar would be substantially more useful to a lot of players.

But yeah, that is GUI stuff, and literally only Romanov seems to really grasp those systems.

Edit: As for unit balance, my initial thoughts on my very brief experience with the unit were, they suck at dealing with Tesla Tanks, which is good as this gives Tesla Tanks some much needed extra value. They also suck at dealing with buildings and this is also good as this gives the other Allied units plenty of value still. What it might need however, is a modest health or armor buff specifically intended to deal with Soviet heavy units, to make it great at handling those engagements properly. This would cement the role of the Chrono Tank as the designated high-threat hunter-seeker unit, something that the Allies didn't have yet (Soviet MiG would be the opposing equivalent there).

Edited August 15, 2018 by Raap

[Pushwall]

It seems that the only way it really "works" right now is if you drive it into combat and then teleport to safety when you're almost dead. Which is kinda lame and just makes it too much of a "safe defender" unit and we really don't need more of those as they mean less building destruction endings. I was cautious about letting the CT have too much anti-building damage because it'd detract from the role of the phase tank and could have been unstoppable since it can circumvent base defenses while phases can't - but the thing is, we now regularly have decent enough player counts that there is no way a group of CTs is getting around the map and warping behind a building undetected. Would a stronger CT be OP in 1v1? Yes, but the game isn't designed for 1v1 and balancing the game around it will break it at anything higher.

That Pipeline rush just shows how awful the CT really is - the Soviet team had no scouting info at all, teams were stacked in Allies' favour, we had about 5 CTs, the map layout with a lot of natural walls amplified the CT's main advantage, and our 5 CTs only just barely succeeded in taking out a Flame Tower and then the Barracks. If we'd rushed with basically anything else besides rangers we'd have had much more success in such slanted odds - on a Pipeline game prior to that, where Allies were a bit worse off in team balance, Allies had a slightly more successful rush by sending 5 Light Tanks over the hill to destroy the Radar Dome - and this was a lategame rush too, at which point the Light Tank is a bit more devalued compared to the "as soon as you get 800 creds" rush due to the affordability of Tesla Tanks, Mammoth Tanks, Volkovs and emergency repair Engineers by that stage. And all for 1/3 the price of a CT rush.

For next patch it already has its warp range amped up to 300 metres from the current 250 but I'm really not sure what to do beyond that. More armour but less weapon range so that it basically has to warp into action, as if it tries to drive into Soviet units head on it'll take a considerable amount of damage before it can fire its first missiles? A bit less raw DPS but no more anti-building damage penalty?

[Coolrock]

As of right now, whenever I see them, they almost always run away when they take about half their armor in damage. Nobody wants to lose a $2400 unit. I think it should get a slight damage boost to buildings.

Most of the time they get destroyed too fast to even care about. Normally when you see one, two or more people are already engaging it. They warp away and that's it. That's just what you're going to get without coordinating with your team. I used it in one match so far where I was able to warp behind the WF with a Tanya. I haven't seen anyone really use it in that stance, which is probably good considering you didn't want it used that way.

Warp range being up could be good, but I thought it was plenty as it is already. Some maps you can drive into range of the Soviet base within less than a minute, and pop right in. 

[Blujet]

I feel like what Raap said:

52 minutes ago, Raap said:

It is harder to coordinate a teleporting unit compared to a unit you can follow.

What might be needed, is a way to ping the map for fellow team members, like dropping a icon on it that indicates "go and attack here", or "go and defend this place".

But in general the game needs a more involving map/minimap system. The Chrono Tank is a good 'first step' but if you ask me there needs to be more integrated into an actual map/minimap system as well, such as building status (replacing the current building status window), and having an actual terrain image 'minimap' instead of a blank radar would be substantially more useful to a lot of players.

But yeah, that is GUI stuff, and literally only Romanov seems to really grasp those systems.

Edit: As for unit balance, my initial thoughts on my very brief experience with the unit were, they suck at dealing with Tesla Tanks, which is good as this gives Tesla Tanks some much needed extra value. They also suck at dealing with buildings and this is also good as this gives the other Allied units plenty of value still. What it might need however, is a modest health or armor buff specifically intended to deal with Soviet heavy units, to make it great at handling those engagements properly. This would cement the role of the Chrono Tank as the designated high-threat hunter-seeker unit, something that the Allies didn't have yet (Soviet MiG would be the opposing equivalent there).

Basically sums up my thoughts, Though I dont not know if it should be made to be a more all-round anti-tank/building unit, or a dedicated tank destroyer.

[des1206]

-People are extra cautious with the CT due to its price. Maybe if we decreased the price (we can even nerf the unit in exchange), people would be willing to take more risks?

@PushwallI don't suppose we can add a code that prevents the CT from chronoshifting within X seconds of taking regular/tesla damage? Or if it's below a certain amount of health?

- Or maybe the problem will just solve itself if Migs get introduced. The CT may run away at half health, but the Mig can hunt them down and kill it.

- Whatever changes you guys make, please remember the C&C rule of tank combat: No unit should ever win 1-on-1 versus a mammoth tank at full health.

Edited August 16, 2018 by des1206

[Pushwall]

3 hours ago, des1206 said:

- Or maybe the problem will just solve itself if Migs get introduced. The CT may run away at half health, but the Mig will just hunt it down and kill it.

You're assuming that every T5 map will have room for an airfield and room for planes to maneuver though. Aside from Siege which already has an airfield, the only T5 maps that could possibly fit an airfield and allow room for MiGs to maneuver are Ridge War and Pipeline - and those would both need a lot of their cliffs shrunk. Every other T5 map is a complete no-go for planes due to having extremely tight quarters and an excess of cliffs that reach far higher than the reasonable height for a flight ceiling (Camos Canyon, Keep off the Grass, Stormy Valley) or would require a ridiculous amount of space to be freed up near the Soviet base just to allow an airfield to be placed and for planes to have sufficient room to take off and land (Camos Canyon, Coastal Influence, Keep off the Grass, To The Core, Zama). Coastal Influence in particular would also need a bunch of new out-of-bounds terrain and would need the island reworked yet again because that projectile blocker over the middle is going to block the limited ammo attacks from planes too.

You're also assuming that these CTs running away at half health aren't just warping back into their own base where they are safe. Which is what they're doing since CTs tend to just hover around their own base and defend.

You're also assuming CTs will continue to be fragile and unarmoured. If they're to work, they probably need to be more durable. If a MiG can take out even 75% of the health of one of the most durable Allied vehicles in one trip, there is no denying that that is overpowered. If the APC is to do its anti-air role properly, the MiG needs to do less damage to better armoured vehicles (since the APC has its mammoth armour gimmick). And as a result, if the CT gets more armour, it becomes harder for MiGs to hunt down.

[Raptor29aa]

The three most common thoughts going through my head are thus:

1) Yay! I finally bought one... holy crap infantry... run away (can't afford another)

2) I shouldn't go too far from SD... I need to save money to purchase a mechanic

3) Hey my team is attacking time to join in... nevermind too many anti-tank infantry... maybe I should sell for a phase tank instead.

 

My reflection and considering the previous comments, longer teleportation range would help with the shyness and need to hide behind base defenses.

Also, If buffing the armor slow the speed... if lowering the price, change nothing... if upping the building damage increase the reload time (that would encourage rushes/vehicle diversity).

Edited August 16, 2018 by Raptor29aa

[NodGuy]

I really enjoy it. I giggle every time I hear the classic chronoshift sound and it's a lot of fun to ambush Soviet armour columns. Oh, and it's fun to get the drop on a Demo Truck from behind.

[Raap]

5 hours ago, Pushwall said:

If the APC is to do its anti-air role properly, (...)

You know on that note, I got really confused when an APC murdered my Yak (I didn't read that patch note). It is a standard M60 machine gun mounted on an armored transport, nothing about this either visually or through audio indicates this is dedicated AA.

So, given that the APC already has significant role overlap with Rangers, and has a bad history of being pulled excessively when the Soviets lose factory and barracks access to kill farm on infantry, and given that adding a Mobile AA Gun vehicle to the roster just adds more unit bloat for the Allies... With all those things considered, would it not make sense to change the APC top weapon into a single-row AA Gun? Single row as in not 4 barrels but just two, while still using the relevant sound and flak effects. And because this is effectively AoE, it can retain the mine-sweeping niche role as well (although to be fair I think the Minelayer should be getting a mine clearing burst ability instead, but that's just my crazypersonthoughts).

Edited August 16, 2018 by Raap

[Pushwall]

4 minutes ago, Raap said:

It is a standard M60 machine gun mounted on an armored transport

M2 Browning .50 cal. Which has been used in anti-aircraft roles in real life.

4 minutes ago, Raap said:

nothing about this either visually or through audio

The gun model is distinctly an M2 Browning and not an M60 like the captain or ranger, it has a beefier sound effect and a slower rate of fire.

4 minutes ago, Raap said:

significant role overlap with Rangers

Next patch I am most likely toning down its speed in exchange for giving it a 360 degree turret, so it'll be better at dealing with planes that fly overhead but worse at rushing towards an infantry infestation.

[Raap]

1 minute ago, Pushwall said:

M2 Browning .50 cal. Which has been used in anti-aircraft roles in real life.

Bullet-shooter highly identical to another bullet-shooter. My point is I could not differentiate the APC firing at me as a higher threat compared to anything else firing at me that looks and sounds nearly exactly the same.

Changing the APC top gun more notably would solve several problems... But you'll have to deal with RAlism extremists! 

[Pushwall]

1 hour ago, Raap said:

Bullet-shooter highly identical to another bullet-shooter. 

1 hour ago, Raap said:

Changing the APC top gun more notably would solve several problems...

But how will I distinguish this M113 chassis with a big bulky turret from the other M113 chassis with a big bulky turret (phase tank)?

And how will the AA gun not look out of place on top of the APC?

How is replacing the slow bullet hose with a hitscan splash weapon supposed to steer it away from its "bad history of killwhoring"? It will clearly cause it to double down on that history.

I guess something I can do is give the plane hitbox a special material (we still have a few spares kicking around) that has a low % chance to produce the AA gun flak cloud effect when shot by APC bullets.

Let's not forget that bullets in general are effective against Yaks due to their lack of armour. The difference in damage between a rifle soldier and an APC is much smaller against a Yak than it is against a Hind. The other reason you want an APC for Yaks is that they have mammoth armour, while Rangers have a special "weaker than light" armour that mostly exists to let them get eviscerated by Yaks while making sure other light vehicles like light tanks don't exactly wipe instantly.

[des1206]

Can we make Chornoshift range a function of CT's health? Full-health is 300m radius, half health 150m, quarter health 75m. This way, damaged CTs can't retreat too far.
Or is that too much coding changes for the staff? 

[Coolrock]

7 hours ago, Pushwall said:

Next patch I am most likely toning down its speed in exchange for giving it a 360 degree turret.

Please, no 

[Raap]

8 hours ago, Pushwall said:

But how will I distinguish this M113 chassis with a big bulky turret from the other M113 chassis with a big bulky turret (phase tank)?

And how will the AA gun not look out of place on top of the APC?

How is replacing the slow bullet hose with a hitscan splash weapon supposed to steer it away from its "bad history of killwhoring"? It will clearly cause it to double down on that history.

I guess something I can do is give the plane hitbox a special material (we still have a few spares kicking around) that has a low % chance to produce the AA gun flak cloud effect when shot by APC bullets.

Let's not forget that bullets in general are effective against Yaks due to their lack of armour. The difference in damage between a rifle soldier and an APC is much smaller against a Yak than it is against a Hind. The other reason you want an APC for Yaks is that they have mammoth armour, while Rangers have a special "weaker than light" armour that mostly exists to let them get eviscerated by Yaks while making sure other light vehicles like light tanks don't exactly wipe instantly.

I can see a lot of ways for adding a weapon akin to the AA Gun mounted on top of an APC, it isn't that far out but it does need some work.

But yes mostly my issue is with the game informing the player. Another way of doing it could be to more notably change the APC weapon firing audio, ammunition effects (tracer/audio), and impact sound effects. I think if all of these things were changed to appear very clearly as a threat to air units then in terms of statistical balance nothing has to really change - even if I personally think the APC needs to be less of a kill whore machine.

I mentioned a top mounted AA Gun type weapon as it was the most simple example and accomplishes all those things.

Back on the CT topic; CONSIDER just making it a high-threat hunter-seeker unit. Increasing the shifting radius helps, but it really just needs an armor boost to Soviet heavy weapons (excluding Tesla weaponry). Make it more resilient, it will also boost people's confidence when using it and not get so scared about blowing up in two seconds.

Edit: By the way, is there something we can do, aesthetically, to make the Chrono Tank look like a tank? The exposed cabin with glass in the front literally screams "I blow up in one hit if you shoot me here". Maybe the glass needs to become non-transparent with no visible driver and gain a special glowy shader effect to make it look tougher, as well as some extra reinforced bars of steel across said 'windows'. It makes more sense lore-wise as well because Chrono Shifting is lethal to unprotected infantry, so if the driver is protected by an energy barrier of sorts it makes sense. Yes it does require fitting the concept of energy barriers into the game but again this is also not a far stretch for a game with teleporting units and deadly christmas trees.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Raap

[KevinLancaster]

Is it possible to create a marker for warps in progress, or have a coordinate grid on the teleport map? It can be hard to indicate an exact attack location with vague references to buildings and terrain features.

Edited August 16, 2018 by KevinLancaster

[Ice]

Please, no 

I agree. Personally I don't want the APC to have a 360 degree turret. Not only would this give it more overlap with the Ranger, but it would also put the unit further away from its RA counterpart (which could only fire forwards) as well as not making sense from a realism/practical standpoint (the way the gun is mounted, combined with how boxy the vehicle is, should make effectively aiming towards the rear physically impossible, and allowing it to shoot through its own rear end like it did in certain previous versions of APB just looks ridiculous).

180 degrees is sufficient IMO, maybe even allowing up to 270, but it should NOT have a full 360 traverse.

[Coolrock]

14 minutes ago, Ice said:

I agree. Personally I don't want the APC to have a 360 degree turret. Not only would this give it more overlap with the Ranger, but it would also put the unit further away from its RA counterpart (which could only fire forwards) as well as not making sense from a realism/practical standpoint (the way the gun is mounted, combined with how boxy the vehicle is, should make effectively aiming towards the rear physically impossible, and allowing it to shoot through its own rear end like it did in certain previous versions of APB just looks ridiculous).

180 degrees is sufficient IMO, maybe even allowing up to 270, but it should NOT have a full 360 traverse.

Thank you for explaining it 

I’d also like to add that if you start your turn before they pass over, you won’t have an issue. You have plenty of time to take them out already. They aren’t that much of a threat that you need to start tweaking other things. 

[des1206]

Guys, are we getting off topic with the APC discussion?

No one is worried about a powerful, decently armored, teleport almost anywhere tank messing up gameplay? In the hands of a good player, the CT will almost never die since they can just retreat if they time things well. There was a reason no C&C game since Ra1 has included a long range teleport unit for balance concerns (imagin a tanky unit that's microed well to retreat right before it gets destoryed).

If you ask me, the key problem lie with retreating and we need to prevent the CT from teleporting out of a battle anytime its health is low. 

Edited August 18, 2018 by des1206

[Coolrock]

2 minutes ago, des1206 said:

Guys, are we getting off topic with the APC discussion?

No one is worried about a powerful, decently armored, teleport almost anywhere tank messing up gameplay? In the hands of a good player, the CT will almost never die since they can just retreat if they time things well. There was a reason no C&C game since Ra1 has included a long range teleport unit for balance concerns. If you ask me, the key problem lie with retreating and we need to prevent the CT from teleporting out of a battle anytime its health is low. 

Discussion just happens anywhere. Don't worry too much about it.

I don't think the Chrono Tank is "messing up gameplay", as I've yet to see them be used in a way I thought they'd be used. They're meant to be a hit and run vehicle currently. Almost any 2v1 situation should destroy a Chrono Tank. Every time they teleport back to base, they're using money to repair the tank. If they have a Mechanic on the other hand, that's a different story.

As far as teleporting units in C&C games...

 

Huh?

[Raptor29aa]

The Chrono tank is not a heavy armored vehicle in the first place. A single Hind can tear one apart easy, a shock can, group of kaptains can easily bring one down, a yak can. The Chronotank is a glass cannon much like the phase tank. My main use for the Chronotank is for V2 hunting and mad tank defense period (just be prepared to lose your Chronotank to a kov... pack an RS to finish off the job). If there are infantry, tanks, or hinds... I’ll most likely not engage the threat. 

[des1206]

12 hours ago, Coolrock said:

As far as teleporting units in C&C games...

 

Huh?

Oops I can't believe I forgot Ra2! But those units are not tanky (very easy to kill), and their long "phase out" time self-balances.

[Coolrock]

26 minutes ago, des1206 said:

Oops I can't believe I forgot Ra2! But those units are not tanky (very easy to kill), and their long "phase out" time self-balances.

While a bit tanky here compared to how they were in Red Alert, they also don’t level buildings quickly. On top of that, you can’t have huge amounts of them since this isn’t an RTS. Keep in mind that due to the huge price tag, losing one is crippling to the Allies. It’s not something you want to blindly rush in with, which 80% of the time is exactly what they’re used for right now.