Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DoK: Balancing a Desert Too(Two?)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pbobbert
    started a topic DoK: Balancing a Desert Too(Two?)

    DoK: Balancing a Desert Too(Two?)

    As of patch 1.3.0

    Balance Recommendation Version 1.2
    updated March 15, 2018

    Abstract:

    The following proposed game-play and balance changes center around bringing more life into some of the units that are either over-costed or to difficult to achieve in most games. At the moment the game is very heavily focused around railgun units and scouting units. The proposed changes will encourage a wider variation in games and it will hopefully bring more replayability of the game and extend its longevity, while also deepening the game.


    Specific Aims I wish to address
    1) To widen the narrow strategical use for many units, and open viable build paths.

    a) The over effectiveness of surface to air vs tac-bombers and gunships.

    b) Coalition/Soban reliance on the railgun and late-game fall-off of AAV due to armour upgrades.

    c) Narrow window / map dependent use of Assault Ship.

    2) Artillery, while being so long to get that they are almost never used, are to death-ball-ey when they are obtained.

    3) Soban Carrier unit design.

    4) Assault Cruiser unit design.


    Bug Fixes or trivial improvements.

    1) Remove highground bonus from carrier super weapons, indirect fire ability's (Khaaneph siege cruiser barrage ability, siege cruiser emp ability, coalition and Soban artillery precision barrage ability), all ground-based machinegun style AA (production cruiser, LAV, base runner, etc.)

    2) Weird pathing with battlecruisers and Coalition/Soban carriers causing them to spin around instead of going in reverse while engaging the enemy and ordered to pull back

    3) One of the players in Taiidan passage 2v2 always has his carrier spawn on top of the blue resource, so he cannot start mining it until he moves his carrier off it. And everyone's carrier spawns backwards.

    4) A standardization of carrier power titlecard text. Example the Soban range system text is simply less informative than the Coalitions card.

    5) Carrier pintle mounted weapons more often than not do not fire in the direction they are facing.

    6) For some reason the Assault railgun and Heavy railgun built icons are swapped between Khaaneph and Gaalsien. This should really be fixed.

    7) Bugged Khaaneph Lv5 weapons (they have shorter range)

    8) Shooting through hills. This is really a problem on most of the hills Taiidan Passage. I dont know how difficult this would be to fix, but it would really benefit the game for it to be.

    9) The Game and Global chat buttons seem to be broken or miss-aligned sometimes, I need to investigate further.

    10) The soban targeting jammer, despite saying it takes 0 population, actually takes 1.

    11) The artifact slider bar has two positions for 5.


    Designer Note: If balance change is presented to a shared Coalition/Soban or Gaalsien/Khaaneph unit, they will only appear once.

    As always, comments and feedback are welcome and appreciated.
    Last edited by pbobbert; 18-03-2018, 08:23 AM.

  • pbobbert
    replied
    Version 1.4 complete pdf
    Updated October 15, 2018


    Please see the googledrive hyperlink or the attached file. I am no longer going to update the original posts anymore now that I have this in pdf forum, it just made the thread harder to follow anyways.

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=15P...3f15Udb6PrcY63
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • pbobbert
    replied
    I have to say the thing I am most interested in is your view on the turret.

    To start I should clarify my position. LAVs by themselves are not the problem. Only when you combine the AAV armour nerf (66% increase in LAV damage), the fact that AS cannot poke vs LAV because, how powerful a highgound turret burst is (1125 damage) which results in a scenario with no cost effective way to approach it. This is best demonstrated with how one-sided the coalition vs soban is as they both share the LAV.

    When and only when you combine all these aspects do you have a serious problem. And with any situation it is best to balance it from all sides a little bit.

    Railguns accuracy vs turrets will not fix the problem entirely, and will have minimal impact on the early to early mid game. If you have to tech to rails to unroot a turret, then the opposing player will have more LAV than you and just kill you. I do really like the idea of skimmer vision, but I haven't given it enough though as of writing this.

    The AAV really does need a buff. This game doesn't have the unit roster to call units "early game" and "late game", its stupid to do so. Its unlike other RTS games which units get replaced by better copies of themselves.

    The coalition BC is really not a big time player. I stand by my small changes.

    The missile battery has a worse ability, WAY worse AA capability, and doesn't heal. It better be cheaper. In fact as of now its actually slower, and given the quicker nature of the coalition units, it often gets left behind, where the missile ship doesn't have this problem to the same extent. Maybe they should both be movement 60.

    Onto artillery. They still would be very powerful, just slightly easier to get, and slightly more expensive. This should mean you see them more than once every 40 games or so. Going for artillery cruisers just gets you killed before you actually get there.

    Of the two units I would much rather the assault railgun lose the dart maneuver if uniquness is the tipping factor. But why does it need to be unique? Just cause? the dart maneuver would be the perfect thing for the assault ship.

    Super sonic missile barrage costs less than MWE and is WAY WAY WAY better than it (larger area, lasts longer, does like twice the damage, has instant time on target, is cheaper to use, and has the same cooldown). Its also on a carrier that isnt *** so investing in carrier power is quite valuable. In short, yes, it needs a nerf.

    Onto the Khaan stuff, honestly its just kinda wishful thinking and im not married to the idea, but I have put in a lot of hours trying to think of how to make this work. A lot of folks dislike how the khaaneph have access to the HGC which is thematically speaking a very gaalcien super secret unit. In tandem the AC should not be part of the coalition or soban faction, so I saw an opportunity.

    Despite the units being similar on paper, I think they would be different enough that in combination with the different build paths taken could lead to a fun variety in the faction, and would help to differentiate the khaaneph from the gaalcien.

    I also have the idea of merging the assault cruiser with the gaal siege cruiser to make a more different khaaneph seige cruiser (so no indirect auto attack). Cause you are right (I even said it in the post) the assault cruiser is just a ****ty seige cruiser.

    Because I feel like it, ill flush out that idea right here for your viewing pleasure.

    Gaal Assault cruiser:
    Something like 3100 hp
    has AC cannons
    has overcharge abilty
    has (with upgrade) seige EMP
    has siege barrage ability
    has the AA research upgrade

    Khaan Siege cruiser: MORE MISSILES
    Instead of EMP, give it the direct fire missile volley from the assault cruiser as an upgrade (make it like 1800m range)

    Leave a comment:


  • Catharsis
    replied
    As recently i have taken an interest in balancing this game and therefore i have read through it. I will take a few of your suggestions to talk about. Some points i will not adress as im already my own series of balance suggestions and i have already tackled the issue there. so to begin

    I agree with removing the highground bonus where it doesnt make sense and just your general buglist.

    -coalition-

    The AAV really doesnt need a buff, it is supposed to fall of in the lategame as it is so damn amazing in the earlygame.

    100% agree with you proposed coalition nuke changes

    Turret however should keep its highground bonus but the railgun accuracy should be reduced and skimmer sensors should outrange the turret.

    I couldnt disagree more with your support cruiser changes. This will make the coalition practically raiding immune as skimmers/lavs will take forever to get through the extra armour and healing. This while the coalition and soban are already more raiding resistant with turrets/alms/AAVs. Also it will remove any hit and run advantage the gaalsien and khaaneph have. In short this will break the game something fierce.

    The battlecruiser is 100% fine as is

    The missile battery should not have a better ability, more speed, and cheaper cost than a missile ship.

    Flat disagree with artillery changes, they are at a perfect place as is.game ending units and perfect counters to ALM spam or overdefensive play


    -Soban-
    ALM really dont need changes in my opinion

    I disagree that the soban carrier should be a frontline damage dealer and i prefer it to fulfill a support role

    Amazing targeting jammer suggestions!


    -Gaalsien-
    AS needs a more unique ability than dart but i agree with the cost reduction

    AR good changes but i think it also needs a far lower production time.

    Missile ship needs more health if anything

    Interceptors, i cant disagree more. With the interceptors being so expensive and fragile they will be low in number and need to be able to impact the game with those low numbers. If you go interceptors you wont be able to afford a ground army, so they need to be effective against ground targets! You want to counter interceptors? keep your units moving as interceptor accuracy is far from perfect. less missiles have a far greater impact than you realize i think. With these changes strike fighters deal more damage while also being also to afford a ground army. This change is nonsensical to me and straight up invalidates gaalsien/Khaaneph air. Yes vs interceptors your units will die, but as coal/soban a lot of damage is wasted in overkill on cheap units and as gaal/khaan you have better aa range. I agree interceptors are really good and scary, but their fragility should be exploited more than making them essentially harmless.

    Siege, same story as with the coalition

    agree with carrier speed increase although i would increase it more

    Missile barrage nuke doesnt need nerf

    PC AA, YESSSSSS and some range, see my pc aa upgrade suggestions


    -Khaaneph-
    Remove the HGC? whoaaat? why though? The Khaaneph also need a ranged superiority unit

    but let me adress the weird addition of the assault cruiser to the khaaneph. WHY? the khaaneph already have a frontline cruiser that is short range and effective against all targets. That role is filled, if anything the Gaalsien lack such a unit. There is literally zero reason for the khaaneph to have the assault cruiser, I just dont understand the reasoning here.

    Love the carrier power, armour and missile suggestions

    Leave a comment:


  • pbobbert
    replied
    Version 1.3 complete pdf
    Updated June 8 2018


    Something is broken with the forum pdf attachment system. Please see the googledrive hyperlink. Not gonna update the original posts anymore now that I have this in pdf forum, it just makes the thread harder to follow.

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Gu...9hKJqVlNO3f0Gt
    Attached Files
    Last edited by pbobbert; 03-08-2018, 11:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • pbobbert
    replied
    Lvl 0 Sensor Range = 500m. Accuracy 25% optimal
    Lvl 1 Sensor Range = 800m. Accuracy 50% optimal
    Lvl 2 Sensor Range = 1100m. Accuracy 75% optimal
    Lvl 3 Sensor Range = 1400m. Accuracy 100% optimal
    Lvl 4 Sensor Range = 1700m
    Lvl 5 Sensor Range = 2000m

    What this now does, is more than double (6 to 16) the power requirement needed to get the behavior which I described as the worrisome case in the start. But it has a much smaller impact on early and late game behavior. If I have to say the main issue with my first draft was that it was too power efficient in the midgame.

    As before, the soban carrier shall have its missile system always active, firing 2, 125 damage missiles at a fixed range of 800m


    Gaalsien Base Runner: adjusting scanner change suggestions and emp ability.
    The gaalsien sensor array is the the best probing tool in the game, but it has two problem. Ones, its free, and two, its on an insanely long cooldown. This combination makes using it relies on having an egregiously large number of base runners. In order to bring it more in line with other scouting tools and deployables, I recommend a large cooldown reduction and a small price tag associated to launching scanners. More significantly however is the addition of EMP to the gaalsien base runner. At the moment gaalsien suffer from one large problem. They are just not very much fun to play, especially in early/mid game. On the other hand their late game (because of the free scanners) is very very strong. Khaaneph is basically just gaalsien with more fun toys, most of these being attributed to the baserunner and blast drones. In order to balance the gaalsien out, giving them EMP in addition to making the scanner cost money will result in a far more flexible and interesting game for gaalsien.

    -cooldown suggestion for sensor array changed to 90 from 120 seconds
    -cost suggestion for sensor array changed to 50 instead of 100 orange
    -sensor deployment moved to build bar (like soban targeting jammer)
    -healing ability no longer locks movement
    -heavy railgun EMP ability added


    Armoured Assault Vehicle: adjusting armour change suggestion
    This more accuratly would place how I want the AAV to perform in relation to sand skimmers and other AAVs. This way there is still a reason to invest in early level 1 armour if you choose, but its not quite so mandatory like it is currently. It also lessens the impact of the LAV nerf and despite testing, I think this will be fine, it will be just like in 1.2.
    -armour buff suggestion altered to 9 instead of 10


    Interceptor: Damage reduction
    I have long since thought that interceptors are to capable vs ground targets while also being an air superiority fighter. Also ints are too good vs air units to the point where you might as well not make any air vs gaal or khaaneph. This recommendation comes late into my list simply because it took me a long time to come up with an idea which was appropriate.

    -Reduce missile per volley to 2 from 3, attack volleys reduced to 3 from 4
    -Increase missile damage to 180 from 150.
    This results in a 20% damage reduction per attack, and a 40% reduction in attack run potential. This should make them feel more like an actual interceptor, rather than an OP flying death machines.

    With these changes, 3 interceptors will now take 2 volleys to kill tactical bombers, gunships, and precision bombers instead of only 1.
    Volleys-to-kill vs other ints and strike fighters remains at 2. But now strike craft carry more maximum damage per re-arm. Old ints = 1800, new ints = 1080, strike craft = 1200


    ALL AIRCRAFT:
    Increase population to 3 from 2


    Missile Ship: slight decrease in health
    This change will help to soften slightly the relation between surface to air missile platforms and bombers, it is to compliment the decreased anti-ground capabilities of the interceptor. This change is most significant with the precision bomber, which now will kill the missile ship in 2 bombs despite max health and armour upgrades.
    -health reduced to 1650 from 1800

    Missile Battery: slight decrease in health
    This change will help to soften slightly the relation between surface to air missile platforms and bombers, it is to compliment the decreased anti-ground capabilities of the interceptor. This change is most significant with the precision bomber, which now will kill the missile ship in 2 bombs despite max health and armour upgrades.
    -health reduced to 1650 from 1800

    Khaaneph Carrier:
    While I dont necessarily think the khaaneph carrier strictly needs this, I think it would be well suited given that their faction mostly gets by using the two OP units in the game (seige cruisers and interceptors) and I proposed to nerf both of those.
    -armour increased to 30 from 20


    khaaneph seiger cruiser:
    -population increased to 6 from 5

    Soban Battlecruiser:
    -population increased to 6 from 5

    Production Cruiser: AA changes
    To compensate the removal of high ground from these weapons
    -damage Increased to 25 from 20
    -accruacy increased by 25%


    Assault Railgun:
    Its not unknown that the assault railgun is in a bad spot. One aspect in particular that I am focusing on here is their performance vs mingling strike craft. Assault railguns have very slow rotation speeds. Of the three main armoured craft, assault ships, heavy railguns, and assault railguns, AS are the fastest, HR are the middle, and AS are slowest by a large margin. Increasing their rotation speed will help AS feel less clunky.
    -increase rotation speed to match heavy railgun.


    Dart Maneuver: Quality of life improvements
    60 seconds is just to long. For perspective sake, LAV boost is 30 seconds.
    -cooldown reduced to 30 from 60

    One of the strange nuances of dart maneuver is that it is clearly a hackjob of an ability that piggybacks off existing game mechanics. It is just a speed boost ability that increases movement to 160 for 2 seconds with high acceleration and it issues a move command, rather than an actual shunt maneuver. Its really hard to say, but I have a feeling it might feel better if the move speed was increased and the duration shortened
    -increase bonus speed to 100 from 60. This will make AS move at 170 and AR move at 200. Decrease duration to 1.5 from 2

    Cleaned up artillery change suggestions to be more clear

    Leave a comment:


  • pbobbert
    replied
    Version 1.3 changelist.
    June 8, 2018

    Buglist:


    The khaaneph base runner, production cruiser, and siege cruiser build icons (as well as unit selection icons) do not match their silhouette, they are using the gaalsien ones despite these three units having a distinct look.



    Soban Base Runner: Polish on previous concerns
    Part of my driving factor behind buffing the targeting jammer is that it sees hardly any use outside of the initial baserunner tuft over the first artifact. This is because 1, the deploy range is short. 2, the ability is very telegraphed and the projectile is slow such that it is almost always dodged. 3, given that the only units available at the time when the targeting jammer is used are LAV and sandskimmers, they are so quick moving they immediately leave the bubble. 4, it dies to fast. For reference about cost, blast drones costs 150, targeting jammers should cost less.
    -launch velocity of targeting jammer increased to match gaal sensor array
    -range increased to 1300 from 1100
    -cost reduced to 100 from 150
    -slow effect increased to 35% from 10%
    -cooldown reduced to 30 from 60 seconds
    -armour increased to 6 from 0


    Armed logistic modules:
    Any static emplacement should not get high ground damage. You are gonna put it up there for best vision and FoV anyways. Gaining bonus damage (from the games micro mechanic) in a circumstance which needs no microing is silly.
    -ALMs will have high ground damage removed as they are a static emplacement.


    Soban Carrier:
    After more thought, I estimate that mid game there could be a power spike with the soban carrier which would make it to strong. Essentially with power lvl 3 research all in weapons would be roughly equivalent to 2.5 gaalen heavy railguns on a 15000 hp chassis. I think you would would simply be able to drive up, building mostly LAVs, kill the enemies railguns with your carrier, and then win the match with little to no counter play. So how do I fix this?

    This change is all about getting the feel right. I want the carrier armed with railguns to feel good and not clunky like it does currently. Intuition is a heavy aspect of my proposal, so the fixed range of 2100m is staying.

    This would go hand in hand with my desire to use the regular railgun upgrade for damage increase (which I like because it adds uniqueness to the faction, but it also goes a long way to reducing early-midgame power spiking)


    NEW PROPOSED POWER SHUNTING OPTIONS-- "turret network" and "range systems" removed in favor of the following
    -Armed Logistics Modules: Tigntened the dynamic range, making lower levels better and higher levels worse. Most notibly is a huge reduction in stun-lock potential in exchange for an increase in damage capability.
    Lvl 0 Deploy range = 1650m Weapons Dissabled Armour = 5
    Lvl 1 Deploy range = 2150m (+500) Period = 4s Damage = 60
    Lvl 2 Deploy range = 2650m (+1000) Period = 3s
    Lvl 3 Deploy range = 3150m (+1500) Armour = 10
    Lvl 4 Deploy range = 3650m (+2000) Period = 2s Damage = 80
    Lvl 5 Deploy range = 4150m (+2500) Damage = 160

    And these are what the titlecard would read in order to make it all fit and match the style of others.
    Improves the weapon range, deployment range, and vision
    of the Carrier's logistics network.
    0 - Deploy range: 1650m. Weapons Dissabled
    1 - Deploy range: 2150m. Low ROF
    2 - Deploy range: 2650m. Medium ROF
    3 - Deploy range: 3150m. Power to module armour
    4 - Deploy range: 3650m. High ROF. Damage increased
    5 - Deploy range: 4150m. Maximum power to weapons

    -Railgun Batteries: Increase rate of fire, lvl 5 increase damage by 95. Railguns (in the typical soban fassion, are salvo 1,1 weapons)
    Lvl 0 Railguns off
    Lvl 1 Railguns enabled, Salvo Period = 5,10 seconds
    Lvl 2 Salvo Period = 4,8 seconds
    Lvl 3 Salvo Period = 3,6 seconds
    Lvl 4 Salvo Period = 2,4 seconds
    Lvl 5 Railgun damage increased by 95

    And these are what the titlecard would read in order to make it all fit and match the style of others.
    Shunt power to point defence systems to improve combat
    effectiveness.
    0 - Railgun systems dissabled
    1 - Railguns enabled, Very Low Rate of Fire
    2 - Low Rate of Fire
    3 - Medium Rate of Fire
    4 - High Rate of Fire
    5 - Railgun damage increased by 95

    -Targeting Matrix: combines carrier vision with weapon accuracy. By "optimal" I mean in correspondence to whatever the current soban railgun is. The Railgun Batteries accuracy is to follow this function. RelativeAccuracty MATH EQUATIONS BREAK THE FORUM where the value changing for each power level. This makes a curve where the rate of decay increases, meaning it has a larger impact at longer ranges.


    Last edited by pbobbert; 08-06-2018, 09:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • EmptySoul01
    replied
    Look fine if a other update comes but we have to see it in multiplayer cause most of the units will be different.

    Leave a comment:


  • pbobbert
    replied
    Originally posted by Tren View Post
    Dart maneuver tech could be off Skims as they are the "fork in the road"
    This is such obviously a better solution that putting it at the start of the tech tree, I will be changing my recommendation.

    Can you elaborate further on the assault cruiser? I can see it being used both offensively and defensively.

    As for the LAV. From my testing early game LAV vs AAV behaved about how I wanted it (I used a single +3 armour upgrade on the AAV to mimic the 14 damage 10 armour). However if things do turn out to be a tad to much, I would also put forth the suggestion to boost sand skimmer armour by 1 (but then you have to worry about early carrier dps and the like), to try to tackle the problem from the other end. But you are correct in your assessment, I think strike craft at the moment perform far to well vs non-railgun armoured craft.

    For the gunship and what you say is true too, they will certainly kill more strike craft. Hopefully this will make them worth making. Im not worried about bomber damage boost will help them kill LAVs better, they seem to one-hit the whole bundle anyways if they land on target. The gunship vs strikecraft improvements are intentional to help fill the role of the (now not coalition) assault cruiser.

    As for the final question. The original posts will soon eventually be updated to contain the information present in the changelog. Because of the spam detection filter, I dare not update all five posts in one sitting. But yes, the change-log builds upon the original posts.





    Leave a comment:


  • Tren
    replied
    A couple of considerations.

    AAVs vs LAVs
    with AAVs getting 10 armour again that damage drop on LAVs is effectively a 20% damage loss with the over all impact being a stock change of 7 damage per hit to 4.

    Dart maneuver tech could be off Skims as they are the "fork in the road" works out interestingly for AS tech as if you drop 600CU and 200RU (AS tech + dart) you have dart capable AS, would then be a matter of judging actual effectiveness.

    The assault cruiser changes push it more into a defence role, with the focus being on free missile barrages and more range, it is turning into a light artillery cruiser.

    I think an overall take away, is you are indirectly nerfing strikecraft heavily, the Gunship is very healthy, and Tac bombers are doing more consistent damage over the AoE meaning no survivors where LAVs are concerned.
    That combined with AAV armour up and LAV damage down just makes the LAV very weak, also Coal and Soban eco is more robust with SC self rep and armour upgrade.

    I'll think more on the rest, do I need to read the other posts too for a more complete picture on all the changes?

    Leave a comment:


  • pbobbert
    replied
    -------------------------------

    Version 1.2 change list
    March 15, 2018


    After more consideration I am proposing the version 1.2 update for my balance suggestions. Below are the changes. I will be updating the original posts to accommodate these changes so future readers dont have to sift though old material.

    As always, comments and feedback are welcome and appreciated.


    Gunship: quality of life improvements
    8 AA missile hits now, 3 ints or strikes kill in 2 or 3 volleys, respectively, same as if 1650. The only thing that changed was the surfact to air 250 damage missiles.

    -increase hp to 1700 from 1650
    -packet damage increased to 16 from 15 (this should alleviate late game falloff vs non-cruiser class ships)


    Tactical Bomber:
    This is to ensure the tactical bomber can kill a missile ship/battery even if it is moving. It also makes them kill artillery cruisers in 1 shot, instead of leaving them with 5 hp.

    -damage increased by 400 across the entire radius


    Coalition Tactical Nuke:
    - There auditory missile launch cue and visual indicator needs to appear earlier, by about 2-3 seconds. This would be as the missile is just rising, rather than peaking.


    Baserunner Cannon Turret:
    Simply due to the nature of some maps, there are not good places to put a turret on high ground. This change would simultaneously lesson the egregiousness of the high ground turret.

    -high ground damage removed
    -damage increased to 34 from 30
    -Railgun accuracy increased by 20%. This should reduce the mid-game map presence of the turret, and allow for a rebuttal to an early map-control dominated opener. Right now there simply isn't a cost effective way to handle a turret.


    Artillery Cruiser:
    -cost for precision barrage removed, cooldown increased to 45 from 30 seconds


    Soban Targeting Jammer: quality of life and cost improvements
    -health increased to 600 from 500
    -armour increased to 6 from 0
    -cost reduced to 100 from 150


    Baserunner Inventory Upgrade:
    -Added to Soban faction


    Armoured Assault Vehicle: armour restoration
    The AAV needed an armour reduction was not a good idea, now it just gets beaten up by skimmers and LAV blobs to much. The 1.3 change increased LAV damage by 40% early game, and by 66% late game.

    -armour increased to 10 from 8
    -Armour piercing rounds cost changed to 250/200 from 250/400


    Light Attack Vehicle:
    This is a long thought over aspect, but the LAV is simply to good at early pressure against sand skimmers. In an even fight the LAVs win (even with zero micro) more than 80% of the time. When using their longer range and boost, they are simply to effective. This is a 6.6% reduction in damage vs skimmers and other LAVs.

    -Damaged reduced to 14 from 15


    Support Cruiser Armour and Self Repair Systems:
    Pretty self explanatory, needing 2 support cruisers to keep them alive in an army is simply not a viable option until late-late game. This should open the door if you want to use a support cruiser sooner. Thats the blue resource from 2 railguns.

    -cost 150/150, 35 second research time, unlocked at start of game.
    -increase armour by 3
    -if not healing other units it will heal itself


    Gaalsien Siege Cruiser: redacting shift in research tree
    To be renamed "Artillery Cruiser" to distinguish from the totally different Khaan seige cruiser

    -gaal seige cruiser tech unlocked at assault ship(khaan, soban, coal unlocked via missile ship/battery)
    -research time increased to 100 from 90 (to accommodate price reduction on the assault ship)


    Gaalcien Super Sonic Missile Barrage: Cost and time nerfs
    -cooldown increased to 110 from 90
    -cost increased to 500 from 450


    Assault Ship: cost and tech
    -research cost reduced to 500:100 from 600:100
    -cost reduced to 200:35 from 220:40


    Assault Railgun: quality of life improvements
    It will make them slightly more resilient to rail guns, while it should go to make it a little more susceptible to the AAV in late game, this should help balance out the possibility of using the AR as a CC machine on enemy rail lines. A slightly largest HP pool will make poking with ARs safer.

    -increase HP to 680
    -armour reduced to 5 from 6
    -cost changed to 220/40 from 200/35
    -redacted idea about emp ability. It and the assault ship now share dart maneuver
    -new unit indicator, upside down of that of a missile ship. So you can tell them apart from heavy rails.


    Dart Maneuver:
    -unlocked from either the assault ship or assault railgun tech. If this is not possible, make it accessible from the start of the game, and increase its research time to 75 seconds from 60


    Interceptor tech: moved 100 orange from AS to Int tech.
    -research cost increased to 350/250 from 250/250


    Khaaneph Cruise Missiles:
    This is to compensate for the removal of high ground damage, which significantly impacts the khaan carrier in a more practical and real manner than the coalition nuke. Considering the high ground missle would do 600 damage. This is a real weapon the khaaneph use all the time.

    -damage increased to 480 from 400
    -damage vs carriers to remain fixed at 600 (the missile always does 600 vs a carrier regardless of high ground)


    Khaaneph Seige Cruiser: range upgrade reduction
    -reduced bonus barrage range to 500m from 700m


    Assault Cruiser:
    In order to make the assault cruiser a more useful unit it needs some tweaks. A duration increase (and also more mobility) of the overcharge should make it a more appealing option. And the increased range of the missile barrage should help cover for the lack of HGC. This will make the cruiser a "real" cruiser rather than a budget version.

    -cost increased to 600/250 from 550/250
    -build time reduced to 60 from 65
    -resource cost removed from missile barrage
    -missile barrage cool down reduced to 45 from 60 seconds
    -missile barrage range increased to 1600m from 1200m
    -overcharge speed now 105 from 93
    -overcharge durration increased to 15 from 10 seconds


    Gaal Baserunner:
    -scanner cooldown reduced to 120 from 200 seconds
    -cost increased to 100/0 from 0/0


    Honor Guard Cruiser:
    -AA change redacted
    Last edited by pbobbert; 15-03-2018, 07:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • pbobbert
    replied
    Thanks for the math on the gunship, it does sound like perhaps 70 ammo (75% increase) would be more appropriate. That would prevent the support cruiser snipe, but allow for increased use in real engagements, right now the gunship cant even take out upgraded rail guns.

    The Khaan assault cruiser suggestions are driven by lore more than anything else. But honestly its the thing I care the least about, I simply thought it would be a nice solution to the assault cruiser problem.

    The problem with the AAV is that after armour 3, the AAV stops being a utilitarian brick, and only becomes a smoke casting machine. Even against rail guns, their damage drops my 75%. And again, you have to run them with rail guns. The unit has every right to be useful. But this is mainly to decouple them from railguns to help address aim 3.

    We will just have to disagree on the battlecruiser point for now.


    The soban back with the alm spam were never OP, just dumb and frustrating to play against. But as we all know, Good balance != good gameplay. But cutting from the bottom was a bad idea, the ALMs went from being overused to almost never used. So we are back to the same problem, just the other polarity.

    And the soban carrier still under performs dramatically to boot. It takes roughly twice as much power into weapons for soban as it does the other factions to be om comparable footing, and because of it they have none left for range systems. The coalition and gaalsien missile systems alone are better than the soban rail PDs, and their gatling turrets are super effective vs strike and assault craft. But that is not my only point. The soban carrier has railguns on it, but they dont behave like railguns. Just yesterday I had to explain to another player that even though it has railguns on it, it actually is the worst at dealing with cruisers and other carriers. The best solution for the soban carrier would be to give it real railguns. Fixed at 2100m range, 165 damage (upgrade to 225) and then balance around that to make them fair. Maybe long range accuracy vs non cruiser and carrier class units can be mixed into the sensors range upgrade (call it "targeting systems"). As I know you stressed that there would be otherwise very little incentive to upgrade this. Or maybe through turret rotation speed, that could be a limiting factor to balance fleet support while not changing carrier vs carrier fights significantly.

    As for the MWE, I am more interested in increasing its duration not its max damage, but its damage tickrate should not change, so max damage is just a consequence of that. The area change (44% increase, 20% radial increase) was intentional.


    Artillery are simultaneously the cheapest, quickest to build, and most powerful cruiser class unit. These changes help bring them in line while also making them easier to access. Hopefully it will depolarize the unit. The Artillery cruiser already has very low HP for being a cruiser. Its fine how it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tren
    replied
    Ok, lets go over this.

    The Gunship changes give just enough damage to kill a Support cruiser in 1 attack run,

    A gunship does 15x4(60) damage per shot and fires(in this case 80 shots)
    The support cruiser has 2 armour x4(8) in this case due to armour stacking vs Gunships

    so that is 52 x 80 = 4160 total damage vs a 4100 hp Support cruiser
    +70CU doesn't really cover +600hp, faster build time and double ammo btw


    It is important to keep in mind Coalition and Soban are designed as combined arms factions, their units and techs are generally cheaper with much of their tech tree branching out of the AAV (Assault cruiser, Battlecruiser, Missile battery and heavy armour upgrades all come from the AAV)

    With this in mind the AAV is designed as a utilitarian BRICK, high HP, high DPM, good armour, low cost and free LoS blocker ability.
    Its drawback is poor scaling vs armour which nose dives its DPM.
    But even then it is sturdy, kills low armour targets and provides utility.

    This unit has no right being a high damage mid-late game unit, they are very easy to spam and fulfill other roles.
    Should there be other tools in the Coal/Soban roster that could provide sunder, maybe, but a straight damage buff is not a good idea.


    Battlecruiser needs to be more responsive, not faster in a straight line.
    It needs turn rate and acceleration buffs.

    The Assault cruiser adds nothing to the Khaan or Gaalsien rosters, the Assault cruiser is effectively just a beefed up Assault ship and the HGC does a better job countering strikecraft

    Soban ALM spam was OP, the range nerf alongside the Soban damage buffs on the Carrier and BC have helped Soban compete in the late game.
    If you want a Soban carrier with superior range consider a flat 100m range bonus, this would also mean lv5 range would grant 2100m range, the same as a railgun.

    With your suggestions you have a Carrirer spitting sunder out to 2100m range opening up the armour on enemies for free,
    This would be a balance nightmare alone, as well as giving ALMs their deploy range back. or the mag rail upgrade buffing the Carrier guns.


    MWE is weak currently, but you want to buff the damage and increase the AoE size, its just too much, it is important to keep in mind when dealing with AoE, every 1m you add is covering more and more actual ground.
    I think just an AoE increase could work, but the damage buff makes it much more potent vs Rails and also makes it more effective as eco denial.


    Artillery...Artillery is a late game pressure tool, it is expensive to invest in and cannot defend itself.
    You are looking to reduce the range by around 800m, reduce the damage from 100x2 per shell to 90x2 and then jump the costs (100CU/50RU for C/S and 100RU for G/K)
    as well as shunting them around the tech tree, which functionally makes C/S cheaper to tech (125RU AA techs vs 350RU Assault cruiser tech)
    Functionally you end up with C/S getting easier access to arty while pushing G/K's back.
    If you really want to lessen the impact of artillery you want to increase the cooldowns on their barrages and the reload on their passive fire, this hampers their damage output.
    another alternative is the hp values, is 2500hp too much for a backline unit?

    I get where you are coming from but these changes are big and in some cases cripple certain units.

    Leave a comment:


  • pbobbert
    replied
    I think that upon further investigation you will find that the vast majority of these suggestions are far less drastic than you think. Certainly some of the proposed alterations are more of a gameplay change rather than a strict number adjustment.

    Ill go over your concerns in order.

    Gunship:
    As I mentioned in my original post, the hp increase would indeed increase the surface to air missile count from 5 to 7. That was the purpose, to increase survivability and increase use in prolonged fights (ammo increase). To go along with these a price increase would be rational, and the build time is excessive. Because of the price increase the rush potential would not change drastically. The simple fact of the matter is the gunship is irrefutably bad because of how quickly it dies to missiles.

    Are you certain about the damage to the support cruiser? that is certainly something I missed.

    AAV:
    To quote myself from earlier,
    The AAV is a very cool unit, but it hinges to much on rail guns. Which was actually one of my main points that I for some reason forgot to dictate in my original post, ill add an edit soon for any future readers. One should NOT have to build rail guns to win. And I will not truly be content with the game until I can confidently say that I can beat an opponent at my own skill level without being pigeon holed into building rail guns. Adding a damage upgrade would help them get by without a reliance on sunder, and would mean they can actually do damage.

    Battlecruiser:
    I actually chose movement speed on purpose; I wanted to maintain the battlecruisers feel of lumbering behemoth. In a fight this increase in movement speed will probably not alter the behavior drastically. But, coupled with the mobile smoke ability, it will lend to the initial advance. The speed I think is important because one would wish to have the battlecruisers at the front, and this essentially means you move your whole army at the speed of a battlecruiser.

    Assault Cruiser:
    I believe when you made this post was the period when BBI had removed my khaaneph post, so just in case I will reiterate that I wish the cruiser to be moved to the khaaneph faction.

    Soban Carrier:
    These changes would both help restore the MO of soban (their map vision prowess) while also simultaneously easing off the irritation of lots of ALMs. The cooldown remained unchanged so you still cant spam them. As for the guns, the Soban carrier has railguns on it, but I have adjusted their rate of fire to be very low all the way until power level 4. It would certainly behave differently, but I think that would help bring distinction between the factions. I cant think it would be any worse than or even as imposing as the khaaneph missile system. Perhaps the railguns should be turned off at level 0 though. A good thought.

    I do not see how the proposed AAV damage upgrade pertains to this at all.

    MWE:
    My that I mean to say that the damage tick rate and damage per tick (the DoT) will not change. Simply that the MWE will last 30% longer, and be capable of dealing 30% more damage in total.

    While the MWE is certainly valuable for those reasons, you cannot make the claim that the MWE is not designed to be used for offensive killing measures. I simply point out that it no longer can because of an indirect nerf, and could due with an adjustment to compensate.

    Gaalsien:
    Like all artillery, being that they are the most cost effective cruiser (by a long shot) for each faction, I proposed a reduction in potential.

    AS/AR:
    Certainly this will require some fine tuning. But starting with the shunt move equaling the dart maneuver seems reasonable. I picked 3 seconds because in my head I envision a AS being surrounded, then activating EMP. It will take probably 1 second to clear the radius himself, that buys you 2 seconds to get away and rotate to aim at the target again, probably 2 volleys from the AS. For the size I had intended for it to match the EMP taken from the HRG.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tren
    replied
    ​​​​​​While it is awesome to see someone else try their hand and balance suggestions, some of these are excessive.

    It is important to focus on the balance impact of changes, alot of the changes here all push into purely buffs or unexplained removal, these is no reason putting a speed boost tech on assault ships should require the Assault rail loses it.
    There is no given reason for the outright removal of the assault cruiser, an action that reshapes the Coalition tech tree.

    but lets break it down.
    The gunship changes
    the gunships would go from 5 x 250 damage missiles to kill to 7 x 250 damage missiles to kill, so 2 Missile batteries working together would need to fire 4 volleys to kill it.
    it builds 15 seconds faster allowing a Gunship rush to come out significantly faster.
    Finally the doubled ammo capacity means a single gunship can kill a Support cruiser from full hp.

    AAV
    damage upgrade is potent, but ultimately locked behind too many gates to be viable and costed such there are many better ways to spend your RUs, also AAVs can get a free +1.1 damage upgrade just by getting vet lv 1.

    Battlecruiser
    while I agree their mobility is a problem, most of this stems from turn speed and acceleration, keep in mind the battlecruiser moves as fast as a missile battery but the missile battery gets around just fine.
    Meanwhile you are looking at a cost decrease, a smoke buff and a 20% movement speed buff, this is a case of too much at once, and is likely to increase deathball plays, just shifting it to the Battle cruiser instead of artillery, also with 60 speed a Coal/Soban carrier could never escape Battle cruisers if they get in range.

    Missile battery, I am pretty much ok with this

    Assault cruiser....Y THO

    Artillery, this is just a massive set of nerfs, major range nerf, cost increase, harder to tech, why would you get them anymore?

    Soban
    2100m range carrier at lv0
    please keep in mind LAVs have great vision, this + the accuracy buff makes the Soban carrier very difficult to approach, also all power in weapons and a couple LAVs for vision seems like a no brainer, why would I put power in ranged system just for a bit of vision.

    we do not want ALM spam everywhere again, ALMs are effectively free when used primarily for pop cap, perma stun is not a fun thing to deal with.

    ​​​​​​Soban railguns being further incentivised by Railgun damage tech buffing the Soban carrier damage, which is always 2100m range.
    When you consider the impact of this, you could have just given AAVs + 2 damage and AAVs would still be screwed vs Soban, AAVs would struggle to get in range to do damage.


    We then have a buffed MWE, on a buffed Soban carrier,
    The AOE increase is already big, but then we have this "-Damage and duration increased by 30%, with no increase in DOT.* you are increasing the damage per tick and the time the AOE remains but no increase to DoT?
    The MWE is an area denial tool, it is able to deny eco or deny your enemy a location, you can block escape paths, deny a high ground option, the Soban nuke is not mean to do the killing but enable your army to.


    Gaalsien
    Siege is basically redundant vs HGC, do not pass air, do not collect siege tech. (also why the tech tree shift?)

    HGC AA change, fine, I am not sure it is worth getting considering the bomber and Gunship buffs

    Assault ship speed boost is something that could be a great addition, or makes them OP, but it is definitely something I'd like to see.

    Heavy rails lose EMP, it is rarely used but feels like an ability that should have a place

    Assault rails EMP
    Something to consider about the speed boost on Assault rails is it allows them to kite even speed boosting LAVs, which is important.
    This, depending on the AoE size would allow ARs to dominate Skims and LAVs, even if they do get the jump on the ARs.
    It is a nice alternative to the speed boost but probably OP.
    Last edited by Tren; 27-04-2018, 10:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X