Reborn TS: Reborn News Update (3 October 2019)

[devilslayersbane]

I'm quite partial to the change of adding a defensive weapon the the AAPC. Especially with that lone one in the right-hand image.

I don't think that the argument of "oh, this vehicle can only drive and thus isn't fun" is a fair argument for this, though. The Chinook in APB is similar, but what keeps the Chinook fun is the careful balance of the high-risk, high-reward gameplay from a successful drop. The Chinook can't be targeted by Tesla coils, but can be easily seen by ground vehicles. The biggest thing that keeps the Chinook fun though, is it's mobility. It's the heaviest helo in APB but can still easily outrun most ground vehicles that pose a significant threat.

The AAPC doesn't have this mobility. But it does have many of the drawbacks that the Chinook has, which skews the balance in favor of the high-risk. The defensive gun, if mildly powerful against the main threat the AAPC faces, can skew that balance back.

 

[Nodlied]

On 10/7/2019 at 9:21 AM, Raap said:

Some context for the GDI APC gun, which is still in concept stages.

It is most likely going to be an auto cannon weapon, something no TSR unit has right now.

Damage-wise it will be worse at anti-infantry than the Wolverine, and worst against vehicles and structures than the Titan. It would be a sort of "sub-par jack of all trades, master of nothing". Useful to help finish off low health enemies, but mainly to help make the driver have something to do while driving. It's also a decent tool for communication; Being able to fire upon the intended target so the crew knows, without having to directly communicate, what the intended target is.

Being an auto cannon, it would mean it has a relatively low RPM (something like 1 round per 0.75 seconds, give or take).

The issue with such a weapon is that it will likely overshadow both the Titan and the Wolverine due to its mobility. I'd argue that speed is the most important stat of the three classics (firepower, armour, mobility) and as such, giving it a general purpose gun might throw the balance completely off the rails. We've already had issues with balancing the Attack Cycle and the Hover MLRS. Both units need their mobility to function as intended, but a speed+firepower stat too high, and they become overpowered. A stat too low and they become almost useless. That's the issue with units that rely on their high-mobility for balance. (Both as an actual speed stat, and a general mobility stat, such the ability to move in 3 dimensions.)
 

Similarly, the AAPC needs its mobility to deliver its cargo. Its purpose is to transport infantry from point A to point B as fast and safely as possible. It is a job that it currently does very well, if not a bit too well. If it really needs to fight something, its cargo can unload and do the shooting for it. It doesn't need a pop-gun for that. It already has: cargo space, speed, protection, and the ability to go where Nod can't; water. Nerf its speed and it becomes bad at its role. Give it a gun and it'll likely turn into a light mbt, which isn't its role. 
 

On 10/9/2019 at 8:19 AM, Raap said:

The Nod APC can dig, a very useful function that is difficult to counter. We're also considering giving it a harmful drill like the Devil's Tongue. 

 

It's a very small weapon, it doesn't even the vehicle silhouette. 

As for fun; This is subjective. For each person saying X is fun, there is someone saying X is not fun. The general assumption here is however, that units that "got nothing to do besides moving" is more likely to be considered not fun by more people.

Either way, play testing will dictate if this is a keeper or not. I'm personally optimistic, since the Mobile EMP overhaul did in fact see positive feedback, and those changes were made primarily for very similar reasons (with the added effort put into making it not a frustrating unit to fight as a Nod player).

The Nod SAPC's ability to dig is indeed a balance issue at this moment in time, in fact, it needs a counter to function in a balanced manner. That said, it is a gimmick. A gimmick that tends to get old really fast. In fact, if we look at the test server statistics and results, the AAPC is miles ahead in terms of usage over the SAPC, let alone the poor sod that is the Orca Transport. If anything, those are the units that are ''not fun'' and the units that need the attention.

The AAPC isn't for everyone in its current form, that much is likely true. However, we need to understand that not all units will be fun for everyone. Will we give the Harvesters and MSAs guns as well to let the drivers have something to do? Not everyone will enjoy the same units equally but reaching out for this by giving the AAPC a gun won't really help it in its intended role: moving infantry from point A to B. Like mentioned before, people will likely buy it as a combat unit instead, which isn't the thing it is supposed to be. I've heard the argument that, for $800, why buy the AAPC if one can buy the Titan. The answer is because said person prefers the Titan over the AAPC due to its capabilities as a stand-alone unit which doesn't require teamwork. However, the intended role of the AAPC as a unit generally requires teamwork. If one puts emphasis on teamwork as a player, the AAPC can, in many cases, be more viable than the Titan. It depends on what a player prefers. If one prefers to go alone or have his own unit, the Titan, Disruptor or another unit will fit better up his/her alley.

As for the Mobile EMP, that change was necessary based on a balancing principle, not a subjective reason one such as this one.

 

On 10/14/2019 at 9:45 AM, Raap said:

Any change is technically a violation of source material. But there comes a point where you have to make some changes. The source material is an RTS from 20 (!) years ago. 

What is important here is that the changes do not violate the "feeling" of the universe. The EMP Cannon does not do this because it logically makes a hybrid of two source materials; The Mobile EMP vehicle, and the EMP Cannon defense structure. The latter does not exist in TSR so by merging it into the Mobile EMP, we effectively added something from the original source material into TSR.

Likewise, any other additions or alterations applied to TSR that deviate from the source material, are not necessarily bad, as long as they do not exceed the realm of plausibility, providing that the rationale behind the change(s) are well grounded. 

To continue on from my wall 'o text above, the Mobile EMP needed a change because it couldn't be balanced in its RTS form: the near instant wave of EMP. We have balancing measures in terms of reload, gatling logic, mobility, armour, EMP duration and AOW, but we couldn't get it right. Changing this new unit, which had balance issues, to a new format thus made sense. The AAPC, which is a unit that has been in the game since the 2013 release and has done its job ever since, is instead being changed on a subjective reason.

The argument to deviate from source material, I agree, isn't as important. Sure, we're limited to TS in terms of many things, but we have made changes for the better of the game. Handing the AAPC a gun, is, at least from my point of view, not one of those improvements. Instead, I consider it a detriment to an otherwise good unit that may very well affect the game balance negatively and/or make it more difficult to balance the game right.  

[FRAYDO]

On 10/15/2019 at 3:29 PM, Nodlied said:

wall 'o text above

haha nerd

+1 to everything stated

[NodGuy]

1 hour ago, FRAYDO said:

haha nerd

+1 to everything stated

+2