45 replies to this topic

[Alias]

Anyway would usually lose if they weren't expecting it.

A "good" turtle player doesn't exist. All they do is sit in their base spamming defences and generals powers.

ShockWave is the only mod I play online, and I don't play "noobs", I usually only play ShockWave team members as I know they play fair and square.

[Stubbs]

I think Alias raises a fair point, and Pendaelose shoots himself in the foot by saying "Infantry are good for their price". Sorry, what was that? "Good for their price" means IMBALANCED. Infantry should be just right for the money they cost, otherwise you would be stupid not to build loads of them, as well as requiring them more just because the enemy is also building lots of them (and getting the good deal). They really are too cheap at the moment. I played a game against my friend and my Manticore was killed in seconds by 10 or so rocket troops - ridiculous seeing as the Manticore cost more and is supposedly a counter to infantry.

I have two points:

Firstly, all units should be PRICED FAIRLY. Top tier units should not cost more than 2 units of half their effective strength (if anything they should be a better deal because they required a lot of researching). I am aware that having both more health and more firepower complicates the actual value of the unit, but from reading what Pendaelose has said before, top tier units are not actually worth what you pay for them.

A top tier anti-infantry tank costing $2000 should really kill $4000 of bullet infantry before succumbing to them, since it is meant to be a counter, but die to $1000 of enemy tanks. $2000 worth of rocket troops should have an equal chance of beating the anti-inf-tank if nothing intervenes since the two units are "opposites" but cost the same in resources. I am pretty damn sure this is not the case at the moment, but it really, really should be.

I don't like the ridiculous ease with which infantry die either, but I think making them overly cheap and numerous is not the answer. It would be far better if they just took longer to die - make them suppressible... you should be able to pin down a group with a giant Gatling cannon, but they should not die in seconds - they should stop moving as fast, fire back less and gradually die. I'm not saying they should gain any advantage from this, but they should be able to hold out longer, doing less damage until help came to take out the turret - essentially lengthening the fights and making infantry feel a workhorse of your forces.

Pendaelose, you say you want realistically useful infantry, but real infantry do not get wholly eliminated in seconds by a single machine gun.

So I propose this, however unpopular it may be:
- Infantry are priced considerably higher, but with far more effective health.
- Missile troops can kill 2x the value in tanks before dying, and bullet infantry can take out 2x rocket infantry of the same value. Missile troops take out 1x the value of anti-infantry vehicles (or slightly more, due to their slowness).
- A Gatling turret should take out about 1.5x its value in missile troops before falling to them, but not as quickly as it does now (since missile troops are only an ok anti-building unit, but are weak to bullets).
- Infantry health would be effectively far higher. When they are damaged X% they should be suppressed for Y seconds, during which time they fire with 25% of their maximum speed but only take 50% damage. Damaging X% again before time Y is up means they will never recover and stay suppressed.
- Bullet firing units should automatically switch fire to targets who are not suppressed, as they obviously would in real life, hence spraying bullets all over and pinning squads down with sufficient fire while they gradually perish.
- Standard tanks should still suppress enemies, but still do very little damage. I am pretty sure real infantry are damn scared of giant explosions appearing all around them and do not march on, firing away.
- Obviously the % loss of health needed to trigger a unit to become suppressed is something I can't guess at and would have to be tested.
- In larger groups, the infantry could overwhelm a single defense and most would be running towards it at any one time, firing at 100% speed. In small groups they would have no chance (again, realistic).

I am well aware that such a system would require significant work... but suppression needn't be animated at all really (perhaps a faint yellow hue applied would work ), and really is just numbers changing and units re-acquiring the closest vulnerable unit with each shot (or number of shots for chain-guns). It would also look significantly cooler if machine guns were shooting at multiple targets, and would make infantry vs infantry fights look a lot better as well. Additionally, certain units could be more resilient to being pinned down (cyborgs), and the Horde bonus for China could reduce it as well.

I will probably get shot down by Olli and Phoenix, but I think a system of having more durable infantry at a much fairer price, who take far more effort to finish but can be held off with the right weapons, is the way forward. Infantry rushes would not be so potent because they would be slowed down by anything firing back, and anti-infantry tanks would do a far better job of dealing with mass infantry... instead of killing 2 or 3 before dying under a hail of fire.

Another thing... I think the "rock/paper/scissors" mechanics should NOT apply to whole teams versus whole other teams. That is plain stupid... nobody will play Flame General if, when they choose it, the other person switches to Tank General... and then player 1 will change from Flame to Infantry to turn the tables. Then player 2 would want to change from Tank to Flame. Every team should be able to counter anything from any other team, by choosing the appropriate units, at any tech level (ESPECIALLY #1), even if it means playing in a bizarre style. Otherwise, this mod is plain not balanced and certain generals will be clearly less useful than those who can play any opponent.
E.g. gatling/flame tanks are available to the Tank General and should be his main weapons against Infantry - and they should be EXACTLY EQUAL in strength to enemy rocket troops, for the same money. Later, Manticores should be exactly equivalent to ATGMs, but ATGMs should be slightly better than gatling/flame tanks because they are not basic units.

I would hope people agree that spending money on X should never be a definitely better choice than spending that same money on Y - it should depend entirely on what your opponent is building and how you want to play. If you build $1000 of tank hunters and the opponent builds $1000 of hummvees, and you both send them at each other at once, very little should survive - like you both just went for Scissors, nobody should win. If you send $1000 of tanks towards $400 of missile troopers, you should just scrape a victory, with a smoking tank limping home. And if you send $400 of tank hunters into a column of tanks you can expect to cause $800 in damage before they are killed.

Can I ask that nobody picks up on the little things in here, like the 2x effectiveness idea I have used for my examples all of the way through, and that they listen to my actual points.. which were:
1. Infantry should last longer and be more realistic and fun to watch.
2. Scissors should not be cheaper than Paper, just because Rock can just about win out over Scissors. It makes Scissors the sensible choice to win, since Scissors has better odds of emerging victorious.
That is essentially what is happening with infantry being ridiculously cheap. They should be exactly as easy to combat as the same value in tanks, but at the moment it is cheaper to counter tanks than it is to counter infantry, and if that is not ringing alarm bells, I don't know what should.

[Alias]

Thankyou Stubbs, for (semi) supporting my point. I do agree that 3 rocket soldiers downing a gattling tank really isn't fair (especially considering the prices and roles).

I'm liking the suppression idea.

Cheers,
~Alias.

Edited by Alias, 15 September 2007 - 06:07 PM.

[Pendaelose]

you've overlooked 2 critticle factors though.

1. If late game units are made more cost efefctive, and early game units less cost efective you shatter the idea that all tech levels have value. In that balance it would be almost imposible to defende vs an enemy of higher tech. I like the tech tiers, but I've gone to great lengths to make sure lower tech's can compete.

2. Late game cashflow is different from early game cashflow. Players who invest heavily in money makers will find the cost of late game units laughable if they were priced on the same scale as early game units. Its simple rules of inflation... more money has to equal higher costs or the balance goes to shit.



early game units should still have a role in the late game, and technology alone should not give you victory. this is why lower tech units are very cost effective and good for thier cost, and late game units are very powerful, but thier cost is scaled higher.

Good players build a mix of both because both have a place in the late game. From Fafnirs to RedGaurd, every unit has value, and are used best when mixed togeather.



now, it would be very nice if infantry were supressable like in company of heros, but I also think it would be overwhelmingly aubsurd to see infantry soaking up machine gun fire and never dying. theres only so much you can do on the sage engine and I'd rather leave infantry frail than have them tougher than tanks.

There HAS been talk already about changing the bulk of anti-infantry weapons though. gattling cannons being a perfect example. Let them do the same damage, but also give them a scatter value so they don't hit on the first shot. vs small groups of infantry this type of rebalancing would work very well, but vs large groups it could actualy work the other way around, but it would certinaly be an incentive not to bunch up your troops.

there were several ideas in the infantry topic, with the goal being to make small groups highly micromanged infantry much stronger, while leaving massed infantry voulnerable. Super-tough infantry is not a viable option. Super weak anti-infantry weapons have limted viability as well...



As for the idea of Rock-Paper-Scissors being an imbalance between generals... have you considered that Flame/Chem Generasl having inate advantages over infantry general, or Tank/Laser Generals having inate advantage over flame general is simply the result of each general having a distinct style? Ofcourse the rock-paper-scissors can be softened, which I've gon to lengths to do... everyone has anti-tank, everyone has anti-infantry, everyone has AA, but if you get rid of it completely you have reduced all generals to a simply state of like-ness. that would suck. I like each general having a very distinct style. Its inevitable that some styles will be better at countering another, but thats not a bad thing. It means you need to play a general who suits your style, not that every general needs to be hamoginized until they are all the same.

Edited by Pendaelose, 15 September 2007 - 07:46 PM.

[Stubbs]

1. If late game units are made more cost efefctive, and early game units less cost efective you shatter the idea that all tech levels have value. In that balance it would be almost imposible to defende vs an enemy of higher tech. I like the tech tiers, but I've gone to great lengths to make sure lower tech's can compete.

Then keep them equally cost effective, I don't care. But less - where is the logic in that? Having fun with the best units works against you?

2. Late game cashflow is different from early game cashflow. Players who invest heavily in money makers will find the cost of late game units laughable if they were priced on the same scale as early game units. Its simple rules of inflation... more money has to equal higher costs or the balance goes to shit.

What are you on about? You can make many low level units, or far fewer better ones. You are talking like you can no longer build the lower ones later. Units should always be FAIRLY priced - if they are not then they are either underpowered or overpowered.

early game units should still have a role in the late game, and technology alone should not give you victory. this is why lower tech units are very cost effective and good for thier cost, and late game units are very powerful, but thier cost is scaled higher.

Is technology defined as inventing really bad ideas? You are meant to get better - if you get left behind in technology, you deserve to struggle instead of enjoying both economical units and the cash you didn't invest in teching up. Why tech up if technology is not important? You wouldn't.

now, it would be very nice if infantry were supressable like in company of heros, but I also think it would be overwhelmingly aubsurd to see infantry soaking up machine gun fire and never dying. theres only so much you can do on the sage engine and I'd rather leave infantry frail than have them tougher than tanks.

I said they took 50% damage. I think you will find tanks take quite a few more bullets to destroy than 2 infantry units. You seem to be deliberately trying to find fault instead of actually reading what I have written. You want infantry to be more useful - here they are lasting longer and feeling a better purchase and an important unit for holding the line.

there were several ideas in the infantry topic, with the goal being to make small groups highly micromanged infantry much stronger, while leaving massed infantry voulnerable. Super-tough infantry is not a viable option. Super weak anti-infantry weapons have limted viability as well...

I never said weaker weapons - just 'weaker' while they were under heavy fire e.g. so Gatling tanks stand half a chance of killing them or a turret actually holding them off a bit. And AGAIN double hitpoints ONLY WHEN UNDER FIRE (e.g. ducking) is not "super" by any means - how many bullets or flames do infantry can survive now? Well it's technically less than twice that much that I have in mind. The whole idea of suppression is to make the infantry WORSE. I suggested double health and 1/4 damage output - just pinned down, requiring time to finish off, as in real life, waiting for reinforcements.

As for the idea of Rock-Paper-Scissors being an imbalance between generals... have you considered that Flame/Chem Generasl having inate advantages over infantry general, or Tank/Laser Generals having inate advantage over flame general is simply the result of each general having a distinct style? Ofcourse the rock-paper-scissors can be softened, which I've gon to lengths to do... everyone has anti-tank, everyone has anti-infantry, everyone has AA, but if you get rid of it completely you have reduced all generals to a simply state of like-ness. that would suck.

That is just nonsense, seeing as I never suggested homogenising the current units or the powers - and those are all that separate the factions. All I said is that the units have to be balanced - EQUIVALENT, not identical. You seem to think that somehow the Tank General and Infantry General would end up the same if balanced how I envisioned it - nonsense. They would be entirely different, yet able to fight each other with equal strength.
"Innate advantages" are frankly retarded - I don't want to win a game only to be told I had a big advantage all along; nor do I want to pick a team that can never beat another when a player of the same skills plays me.

Yes, I think Chem and Fire Generals should be anti-infantry, but the Infantry General should have strong enough APCs and Snipers to adequately deal with a pure toxin tractor/dragon tank and toxin/flame trooper threat.. An example of a supplementary unit that you have already put in: that tank the Airforce General gets. If the enemy did build solely Gatling tanks, you could just build a bunch of those tanks to go beat up the AA units. You aren't playing to your strengths, but you are stopping the enemy exploiting your main weakness. Those same tanks against enemy tanks aren't a good choice, but they don't need to be because another option is available for that (aircraft).

With a few flame and toxin-proof APCs, the Infantry General could negate the overwhelming weakness to the aforementioned two generals. Flame General should have a standard missile troop (if he doesn't already, I haven't been able to play recently due to not being home) to fight tanks... and he has Thermite Tanks which are basically normal tanks to fight back with anyway. He should also have one aircraft with high-explosive weaponry if he doesn't already. Just building solely these anti-vehicle units would force some infantry out of the opponent, and the Flame General suddenly sees use for flames again.

Basically what I am saying is that a speciality for the side should not entail using ONLY that type of unit. There should always be a tool for the job, even if it isn't the sharpest in the box. And by that I mean a cost-effective tool as well, not one that is more expensive than what you are trying to counter.

To use the rock/paper/scissors metaphor again... no side should BE one of those implements. But one side can have the sharpest scissors, one the toughest rock and another the most... supple paper. But you should always have at least a blunt pair of scissors to give you an advantage over someone who is spamming paper, thinking he can win by wrapping everything up. Every team should have all of the tools, but everybody has a certain one that is their favourite and is used to best effect. Nobody should be lacking the tool to defeat somebody who is using just one thing for the entire game.

So no, the tank general should not be able to beat the flame general every time. The Flame General should have specific anti-tank weapons that can economically beat an unskilled Tank player if he refuses to send any infantry or aircraft alongside his tanks. If he does not, the game is broken and needs to be fixed.

I'm all for lots of very different generals, but they do not need to have a pokemon or R/P/S strength pattern - I mean, look at Starcraft. It's not like Protoss beat Zerg beat Marines beat Protoss - that game is BALANCED (even if I do hate it). The three teams are very different but there is a counter to everything, and I am pretty sure the sublime balance is why the game is still being played today. Good balance is one of the main things that separates a good game - or a good mod - from the chaff.

[Pendaelose]

While I disagree with alot of that I can wrap the whole thing up.....


I don't feel like argueing about it. I've had a shit day, and I'd much rather read something possitive.



I'm very very happy with the overall balance of Remix. I play it and I enjoy it. I also know for sure that many other people enjoy it as is. that is the ONLY factor that matters here.

If you feel that you do not enjoy it, thats ok. Go play Shockwave or Contra, or some other game... I don't care. I'm not here to force you to play Remix. I make a mod I like, I hope you enjoy it too. If you don't you have tastes different from my own, and thats ok.



I'm not in the mood to be gnawed on by otherpeople's idea of what it should be while what it IS is just fine. I have fun, the poeple I play with have fun, why should I change that? I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, and if there was one out there I'm not interested in what it has to say. I don't do this for fame or fortune... I don't get paid, and nobody knows who I am outside this forum... Instead I just do it because I like what I make.


You have a very different concept of how the game should be balanced, and quite frankly, I firmly disagree with it. Your stance is based on $ for $. I am a firm beleiver that system sucks, and there is no amount of whining that will change my mind about it. I price things based on how much I want to see them in the game vs howmuch other people want them, and I use low cost as an incentive to encourage the use of infantry. Its more like supply and demand... if they become cheap enough, they will become a valuable purchase. Even at 50$ per troop I find that 80% of players still don't use them for anything... that should tell you something about balance. No matter how strong they are people won't buy them... ... If you can't sell seomthing, its clearly overpiced.

Why are the costs on late game units so high??? because at those prices players still buy them. I could raise all those costs 50% or more and players would still buy them. That should tell you somthing about balance too.

Money is not the only thing to base balance off. Your welcome to disagree with that, but right this second, no one is welcome to bitch about disagreeing with it. I'm just not in the mood.


topic is over and close.