Jump to content


Photo

MO 3.3 // Feedback & Suggestions (Balance, New Features, Modifications etc.)


  • Please log in to reply
3335 replies to this topic

#2781 TeslaCruiser

TeslaCruiser

    Elitist condescending prick, Arrogant cunt

  • Members
  • 313 posts
  • Location:Chile
  •  mp bot

Posted 03 January 2018 - 03:03 AM

And ooo, try to ignore the insults. They are just showing to the world, how hard anime ruined their social skills.

#2782 StolenTech

StolenTech

    title available

  • Members
  • 314 posts

Posted 03 January 2018 - 09:05 AM

thing is : the suggestions he's making are coming out from being outplayed with these certain mechanics in the game and instead of trying to outsmart the player by either guarding his engineer with a knightframe or constantly dropping repair drones (because for an attentive player you would have at least 3 repair drones by the time you reach T3) he is blaming it on game balance, please use the units the way they are meant to be used first then make a suggestion that would help a situation which seems unfair despite you using your assets to their maximum potential. 

 

also

 

- The Allies would get the "Operator G.I.".

His special ability is that he can deploy into a sturdy little dugout which can garrison 3 troops.

 

Allies already have GI's which are cheaper than initiates yet almost as effective when deployed, keep that in mind and make more of those next time.



#2783 CLAlstar

CLAlstar

    The one and only master of Scorpion Cell

  • Members
  • 1,034 posts
  • Location:Poland
  •  Worst MO Player

Posted 03 January 2018 - 12:14 PM

Soviet repairs:
- What Destroyencio wrote. I end up as soviets with several drones, they are not micro heavy, repair cranes can also fix air and jets. If you want faction that lacks additional repairing options, then its Epsilon.

Engineer variants:
- Allied - I dont think its even possible to do. Also adding mini garrisons greatly increases T1 rushing potential, because of the firepower boosts and protections.
- Soviet - What Destroyencio wrote.
- Epsilon - You just made Hijackers redundant. Also you cant force fire hijacker into mind controled vechicle.
- Foehn - Triggered by default "dog cannot eat engi" option from cncnet ra2 launcher. Even with the downsides you mentioned sounds absolutely broken, esspecialy in early phases of game on tournament maps where you are attempting to deny enemy derricks. Not to mention capturing enemy's one.



#2784 PACER

PACER

    RTS Lorewalker

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  •  Too much to babble about

Posted 03 January 2018 - 12:26 PM

Seriously, Foehn engies do heal in nano clouds, which makes Foehn factions in Unholy Alliance mode utterly unbalanced.


In-game speed vs real life speed?   
Malver in Obisidian Sands?   
Strength-Agility-Intellect subfactions?    


#2785 Solais

Solais

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Members
  • 1,505 posts
  • Projects:Multiple projects at Croteam

Posted 03 January 2018 - 04:10 PM

Maybe Epsilon could have a repair sub. Considering that the Stinger can't swim, Epsilon seems to have a disadvantage when it comes to repairing naval units (or units near the shore) on the go. (While Allied got Backwarp, Soviet got Drone, and Foehn got Leviathan.)


Edited by Solais, 03 January 2018 - 04:10 PM.


#2786 GoodGame1324

GoodGame1324
  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 02:06 AM

I agree epsilon needs some way of repairing naval units out in the deep ocean but i dont think i like the idea of a dedicated repair sub, as u would have to stop ship production and its useless on land unlike the soviet repair drone.

While we are on the topic of naval, i think it would be a good time to suggest that the soviets should get some form of t3 heavy naval units, similar to the epsilon nautilus and the allied battleship. Due to the lack of a t3 heavy unit on sea, i feel the soviets are kind of weak out on the water. At least foehn has the angelshark to compensate for a lack of heavy naval unit.

#2787 harkins2011

harkins2011
  • New Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 02:38 AM

Will a 'Reveal Map' skirmish option, as suggested by StolenTech around September, likely to be realised? The shroud-revealing support powers (including gap generators) and shroud-affecting features (sabotaging radar centres) must, of course, be removed with this option.

 

I ask this humbly, for the option, in my experience with other CnC mods, provided another strategic perspective in combat. Being able to see the organisation of military and base of the enemy would invariably warrant a different approach in battle, such as discouraging the construction of shroud-blanketed artilleries. Furthermore, this option would provide—for some players—a more authentic battle sensation as most real-life battlefields do not have this offending opaque shrouds.



#2788 isaac103

isaac103

    title available

  • Members
  • 298 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 02:51 AM

Will a 'Reveal Map' skirmish option, as suggested by StolenTech around September, likely to be realised? The shroud-revealing support powers (including gap generators) and shroud-affecting features (sabotaging radar centres) must, of course, be removed with this option.

 

I ask this humbly, for the option, in my experience with other CnC mods, provided another strategic perspective in combat. Being able to see the organisation of military and base of the enemy would invariably warrant a different approach in battle, such as discouraging the construction of shroud-blanketed artilleries. Furthermore, this option would provide—for some players—a more authentic battle sensation as most real-life battlefields do not have this offending opaque shrouds.

I know Twisted Insurrection had this option too. Pretty fun too just to play against the AI and see how they build up their bases.



#2789 PACER

PACER

    RTS Lorewalker

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  •  Too much to babble about

Posted 04 January 2018 - 11:42 AM

Will a 'Reveal Map' skirmish option, as suggested by StolenTech around September, likely to be realised? The shroud-revealing support powers (including gap generators) and shroud-affecting features (sabotaging radar centres) must, of course, be removed with this option.

 

I ask this humbly, for the option, in my experience with other CnC mods, provided another strategic perspective in combat. Being able to see the organisation of military and base of the enemy would invariably warrant a different approach in battle, such as discouraging the construction of shroud-blanketed artilleries. Furthermore, this option would provide—for some players—a more authentic battle sensation as most real-life battlefields do not have this offending opaque shrouds.

 

In terms of multiplayer battle sensation, how soon will the Fog of War option be introduced?


In-game speed vs real life speed?   
Malver in Obisidian Sands?   
Strength-Agility-Intellect subfactions?    


#2790 ahmed.osama

ahmed.osama
  • Members
  • 77 posts
  • Location:Egypt
  •  Visit Egypt as a tourist and don't live in it. you will die slowly...................

Posted 04 January 2018 - 05:53 PM

Will a 'Reveal Map' skirmish option, as suggested by StolenTech around September, likely to be realised? The shroud-revealing support powers (including gap generators) and shroud-affecting features (sabotaging radar centres) must, of course, be removed with this option.

 

I ask this humbly, for the option, in my experience with other CnC mods, provided another strategic perspective in combat. Being able to see the organisation of military and base of the enemy would invariably warrant a different approach in battle, such as discouraging the construction of shroud-blanketed artilleries. Furthermore, this option would provide—for some players—a more authentic battle sensation as most real-life battlefields do not have this offending opaque shrouds.

well. why we dont say that you are playing like you were in a real war. in real wars (despite its a different time-line or whatever  -_-) you have to cover your base with anything like gap generators to preventing your enemy to know what is happening in your base.

it will be very bad (in pvp) when someone knows what are you doing in your base.
for example you are preparing for attack with 10 tanks and surprise something (demo truck or any anti-unit) attacking your tanks i think  it will be very very annoying. 



#2791 harkins2011

harkins2011
  • New Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 08:09 PM

well. why we dont say that you are playing like you were in a real war. in real wars (despite its a different time-line or whatever  -_-) you have to cover your base with anything like gap generators to preventing your enemy to know what is happening in your base.

it will be very bad (in pvp) when someone knows what are you doing in your base.
for example you are preparing for attack with 10 tanks and surprise something (demo truck or any anti-unit) attacking your tanks i think  it will be very very annoying. 

 

 

That is quite correct; but hitherto, this is, singularly, an option, optional for pursuers of different military stratagems and schemes, and optional for players of different tastes. 

 

It is akin to the disabling of "Superweapons": the players would evidently behave differently in both psychological and physical mouse-clicking, which inevitably manifests in their style of playing.

 

With this proposed option advanced, it will do away with 'preparing for attack with 10 tanks and surprise something attacking your tanks', the revealed shroud being an encourager les autres not to follow this ill-fated strategy. Disperse these tanks to follow alternative paths, since it is revealed, would be of no consequence to the commander if venturing to the unknown with strike forces was always an eccentric outrage. Sending spies would be a riskier manoeuvre: the revealed paths warrant greater attention to the topography and displacement of dogs. The sending flights of Kirov airships will too be dispirited, thus the player must oblige to have recourse to other tactics. The playing styles and mood affected by this change are legion.

 

Players are wont, therefore, to 'change their minds', and it is variety which springs from conditions, and these conditions multiply from a manifold of options.



#2792 Handepsilon

Handepsilon

    Mapper and Mix Hacker

  • Members
  • 1,597 posts
  • Location:Indonesia
  •  No, I don't main PsiCorps. I suck at it.

Posted 04 January 2018 - 11:43 PM

Doing this means that in certain maps (imagine Dune Patrol II) the non Foehn player has time to capture both derricks at the start of the game before the Foehn even reaches it. Appart from that, the fact of having engis being vulnerable to dogs makes it more dynamic, making you pay attention to the them and protecting them, and less "click and forget".

Non Foehn players already have the oil rush advantage, because they have dogs to intercept engineers whereas foehn has no dogs to intercept said engineers.
Think about it... an engineer is always gonna beat a knightframe to the destination.
Then you have the T1 jackal dominating non foehn players with oil rushing over waters.

Last time I checked, Kframes and Engineers aren't too far apart on speed. Maybe try covering them instead?

I like gnomes

 

YunruThinkEmoji.png

(Sorry for any double posts, my mobile browser is messed up atm)


#2793 mrvecz

mrvecz
  • Members
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Czech Republic

Posted 05 January 2018 - 07:51 PM

 

 

 

.

 

With this proposed option advanced, it will do away with 'preparing for attack with 10 tanks and surprise something attacking your tanks', the revealed shroud being an encourager les autres not to follow this ill-fated strategy. Disperse these tanks to follow alternative paths, since it is revealed, would be of no consequence to the commander if venturing to the unknown with strike forces was always an eccentric outrage. Sending spies would be a riskier manoeuvre: the revealed paths warrant greater attention to the topography and displacement of dogs. The sending flights of Kirov airships will too be dispirited, thus the player must oblige to have recourse to other tactics. The playing styles and mood affected by this change are legion.

 

Players are wont, therefore, to 'change their minds', and it is variety which springs from conditions, and these conditions multiply from a manifold of options.

 

 

Instead of using tactics, the battle would turn to the "Who can spawn more units/Who's faction units are better stat wise"

 

Think about it.

Example:

you play as Yanks vs Russians

Enemy sends Kirovs, you send Aeroblazes, enemy sends Rhinos, you send Abrams/Guardian GI's to counter them, enemy sends Tesla cruisers, you send Warhawks, he sends tigers, you send bulldogs, he sends more Rhinos, you send guardian GI or Abrams, he sends Volkov with desolators, dogs, flak troopers and conscripts, you send more warhawks, Tanya and Seals, he builds tesla cruisers and tigers, you send stormchilds, bulldogs and abrams, he .....

 

And i could go on and on...

Thankfully, such thing could only happen in PvP since AI cannot counter like that.



#2794 TeslaCruiser

TeslaCruiser

    Elitist condescending prick, Arrogant cunt

  • Members
  • 313 posts
  • Location:Chile
  •  mp bot

Posted 06 January 2018 - 03:23 AM

Foehn Stun Grid needs some work. This "defensive structure" is actually a spammable magic tool which transforms enemy infantry into stun dudes.
First, if you see infantry approaching you build the grid, second, you keep the grid on hold, and then... then you wait for the right moment, lastly, you type "lul" and/or "foehn balance" at chat.
I think this is as stupid as emp mines used to be if not worst in a way because its AoE is quite large and the effect happens fast enough to catch enemy troops on the move. Foehn also has a powerful early anti moob in the form of huntress-jackal so I don't think they really need this kind of tool.
My suggestion is to make the delay between placement and activation longer. Effectively restringing its usage as a defensive weapon.

If its current meme form is to be kept intact, then a price increase should be considered.



#2795 harkins2011

harkins2011
  • New Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 06 January 2018 - 10:05 AM

 Instead of using tactics, the battle would turn to the "Who can spawn more units/Who's faction units are better stat wise"

 

Think about it.

Example:

you play as Yanks vs Russians

Enemy sends Kirovs, you send Aeroblazes, enemy sends Rhinos, you send Abrams/Guardian GI's to counter them, enemy sends Tesla cruisers, you send Warhawks, he sends tigers, you send bulldogs, he sends more Rhinos, you send guardian GI or Abrams, he sends Volkov with desolators, dogs, flak troopers and conscripts, you send more warhawks, Tanya and Seals, he builds tesla cruisers and tigers, you send stormchilds, bulldogs and abrams, he .....

 

And i could go on and on...

Thankfully, such thing could only happen in PvP since AI cannot counter like that.

 

 

These are examples of potential but inferior behaviour: who would have supposed a human player able to detect that many? And why, pray, would the player manage with such an ungainly force at once?

 

'Who can spawn more units' is the fatigue of every match imaginable, and 'who's faction units are better stat wise' is the fate of poor selection upon the eve of battle. Overall, this option is, as you suggest, only a mere catalyst.

 

I did allude, though now I have the impression it was unnoticed, that this convenient scrutiny forgoes the usual arduous shroud-revealing formalities, with the purpose, it must be understood, to better comprehend the battlefield for all players. The Foehn Rev. have no dogs, is it not fair that they lack early reconnaissance forces? Only the allies have gap generators, is it not fair that others cannot have their own bases hidden? If these happen to be the 'balance' for the irascible Foehn Rev. and the perturbed Allies, then it shall be so; the player is always the one choosing.


Edited by harkins2011, 06 January 2018 - 10:08 AM.


#2796 StolenTech

StolenTech

    title available

  • Members
  • 314 posts

Posted 06 January 2018 - 11:28 AM

I just suggested the mode so I can be a lazy bastard when testing my maps to make sure the AI has enough build space and won't freeze, and the suggestion overall isn't a competitive matter but rather it's for fun and giggles.

 

scouting should always be a part of the game, albeit this game having no fog of war (and possibly never will with this engine) kind of makes it useless after the first 3 minutes of the start of the match.

(unless you happen to be a good player and stop your enemy from scouting, that's an essential part if you're not just planning to sit in your base till T3)



#2797 Handepsilon

Handepsilon

    Mapper and Mix Hacker

  • Members
  • 1,597 posts
  • Location:Indonesia
  •  No, I don't main PsiCorps. I suck at it.

Posted 06 January 2018 - 01:46 PM

That, or you sabotaged his radar


I like gnomes

 

YunruThinkEmoji.png

(Sorry for any double posts, my mobile browser is messed up atm)


#2798 TrollWarlord

TrollWarlord
  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 06 January 2018 - 03:58 PM

I don't know if this thing is necessary or not but I think Epsilon needs some sort of healer unit/healing support power. Allies have Medics (and I think Medic IFV is available at next patch), Soviets have Drakuvs, and Foehn can utilize those nanite clouds to heal its infantry. This is to further increase the survival rate of Epsilon infantry units in the battle, especially to those infantries that doesn't heal while in the poison clouds.

Well Stalkers should do the trick, but its T3 and HQ-exclusive infantry unit.


Edited by TrollWarlord, 06 January 2018 - 04:02 PM.


#2799 ahmed.osama

ahmed.osama
  • Members
  • 77 posts
  • Location:Egypt
  •  Visit Egypt as a tourist and don't live in it. you will die slowly...................

Posted 06 January 2018 - 04:32 PM

I don't know if this thing is necessary or not but I think Epsilon needs some sort of healer unit/healing support power. Allies have Medics (and I think Medic IFV is available at next patch), Soviets have Drakuvs, and Foehn can utilize those nanite clouds to heal its infantry. This is to further increase the survival rate of Epsilon infantry units in the battle, especially to those infantries that doesn't heal while in the poison clouds.

Well Stalkers should do the trick, but its T3 and HQ-exclusive infantry unit.

you are right but put in your mind that epsilon had cloning vats so why they need a healer when they had double.



#2800 harkins2011

harkins2011
  • New Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 06 January 2018 - 08:10 PM

I just suggested the mode so I can be a lazy bastard when testing my maps to make sure the AI has enough build space and won't freeze, and the suggestion overall isn't a competitive matter but rather it's for fun and giggles.

 

scouting should always be a part of the game, albeit this game having no fog of war (and possibly never will with this engine) kind of makes it useless after the first 3 minutes of the start of the match.

(unless you happen to be a good player and stop your enemy from scouting, that's an essential part if you're not just planning to sit in your base till T3)

 

When I made mention of you in my first post, I meant to convey an analogous instance clad in memorial praise; but if I happen to impute you into my logic, it is was an accident clothed in classic error.

 

The same may be said of the options 'Superweapons', 'No Naval Combat', etc. (and many other instances parallel). Some should exist in every match, but here we are, with options to disable them. If 'scouting should always be a part of the game', then disable this option prior to starting a match. Every opposition hitherto offered can be resolved with a single click—the question is whether or not this option is worthy amongst the ranks of the other skirmish options. To this I have offered the aforementioned musings. DTA and TI have this option, and, forsooth, nobody complained.


Edited by harkins2011, 06 January 2018 - 08:12 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users