Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RA balance changes September 2019 #17077

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 5, 2019

Conversation

@Punsho
Copy link
Contributor

commented Sep 10, 2019

Ranger

  • Anti-light damage from 40% to 30%
    • It makes Mobile Flaks better counter ranger. Now a full health Flak will always win 2v1s and will have a better chance at winning 5v2 (Flak is always the smaller number here)

Light Tank

  • Speed from 128 to 118
    • This change was proposed earlier along with Mobile Flak speed nerf but due to Light Tank underperforming at the time it was rejected / delayed. It is being merged due to reasons mentioned below. Its speed will now be the same as Mobile Flak.

Opportunity fire was a great addition to OpenRA, but nothing comes without cons. It caused more balance issues then we have expected and we have another example on our hands. About a month ago a new light vehicle meta started to emerge. A build was found that let's you build 5 rangers, 1 Ranger and 3 Light Tanks, something in between or 4 mobile Flaks and it let's your MCV out at a standard double refinery build timing. Currently it favours Allies, in a SvA matchup Soviets have to fully give up map control until heavy tanks roll out in order not to waste assets. Changes proposed above are there to help Soviets fight for map control

Tesla Coil

  • Reduce Range from 8.5 to 8
    • Teslas will no longer fire on ghost structures. It makes teslas fall more inline with other anti-ground defences as all of them have the same or less weapon range than vision. Another solution was to increase their vision instead but due to popular opinion that Soviet base push is too strong this one was chosen

Badger

  • Speed from 149 to 180
    • Direction of Parabombs in the playtest can now be selected but as a counter-nerf bomb fall speed was drastically decreased. This lead to people feeling underwhelmed as Parabombs can no longer wipe out armies as they used to. Despite that, Parabombs remain to be one of the strongest if not the strongest sub-faction traits. Though considering that Badgers are planes they move at a turtles pace. It was previously necessary as mentioned above, Parabombs could wipe out armies with little to no time to react. Now they will be given a speed of yaks. It will make Parabombs more effective farther from the edges and sound effects will feel more impactful as there will be a delay between dropping bombs and them exploding
  • ParaBomb ReloadDelay from 10 to 8
    • Adjustments to account for the speed increase
  • Reduced ammo from 7 to 5
    • Badgers only drop 5 bombs each so having 7 ammo is redundant

Mig

  • Minimum range from 3 to 2
  • AttackTurnDelay to 30
  • ReloadDelay from 30 to 50
    • For easier Mig handling
@Punsho Punsho changed the title RA balance changes RA balance changes September 2019 Sep 10, 2019
@fruestueck

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Sep 10, 2019

Sounds good to me.
Are there any thoughts on sam sites? Currently they seem underperforming compaired to allied AA guns.

@matjaeck

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Sep 10, 2019

sam sites ... AA guns

I think we shouldn't touch too many critical aspects so late in the cycle. The PR already introduces changes that - if aimed at for stable - will only recieve minimal testing.

@pchote

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Sep 10, 2019

OpenRA.Utility(1,1): Error: ra|rules/aircraft.yaml:122 refers to a trait field AttackTurnDelay that does not exist on Aircraft.

This belongs on AttackAircraft instead.

@Punsho Punsho force-pushed the Punsho:Balance branch from 480e66e to 68c8719 Sep 11, 2019
@Punsho

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 11, 2019

OpenRA.Utility(1,1): Error: ra|rules/aircraft.yaml:122 refers to a trait field AttackTurnDelay that does not exist on Aircraft.

This belongs on AttackAircraft instead.

fixed

@abcdefg30 abcdefg30 added this to the Next Release milestone Sep 12, 2019
Copy link
Member

left a comment

Ok.

Copy link
Contributor

left a comment

Not game breaking. Added a few comments / questions.

@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ V2RL:
Armor:
Type: Heavy
Mobile:
Speed: 128
Speed: 118

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@matjaeck

matjaeck Sep 14, 2019

Contributor

I thought the reasoning behind light tanks being a bit faster than flak trucks is that they can chase down / counter flak trucks (which are much more versatile) in the early game. Is there a consensus between the competitive players that this is needed/wanted (and not just you changing balance to counter a build you don't like to play against)?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@Orb370

Orb370 Sep 14, 2019

Contributor

The original purpose of the speed reduction was so that flaks couldn't chase hinds well. The indirect "buff" to the light tank didn't seem like it would hurt. However, with the range increase as well 1 light tank will chase down and obliterate a whole flak squad. It's a bit too swingy.

There is some contention on this in the community but overall I'd personally rather try it first. The alternative is reverting the speed reduction on the flak truck. I think leaving things as they are would be bad.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@airetaM

airetaM Sep 17, 2019

Contributor

The original purpose of the speed reduction was so that flaks couldn't chase hinds well. The indirect "buff" to the light tank didn't seem like it would hurt. However, with the range increase as well 1 light tank will chase down and obliterate a whole flak squad.

This shows how fragile such a balance system can be, how one small change effects many other things.
Another bad side effect with this change is that Lighttanks are loosing some important speedpoints if you use them for infantry crunshing.
Thats an important ability, i would say most important in the early game.
The soviet units for that is the apc with speed: 142

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@ubitux

ubitux Oct 4, 2019

Contributor

How about increasing the vision of the flak (only the vision, not fire range), so that they can stay away from threats?

Benefits:

  • still nerfed against hinds/BH
  • makes the LT less OP against both sov vehicles
  • balance the huge map awareness advantage allies can have with the ranger

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@Punsho

Punsho Oct 4, 2019

Author Contributor

It also makes flak much better at killing infantry early game and being a spotter for them. It also makes it very significantly more affective versus aircraft. I am not strongly against this change but it is not necessary now and some of these consequences may be undesired. If is going to happen it will not be this release cycle

mods/ra/rules/aircraft.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -45,9 +45,9 @@

Maverick:
Inherits: ^AntiGroundMissile
ReloadDelay: 30
ReloadDelay: 50

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@matjaeck

matjaeck Sep 14, 2019

Contributor

Can you elaborate how this is improving MiG handling? Are you aiming at #16668 with this?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@Orb370

Orb370 Sep 14, 2019

Contributor

These are my changes. The reload delay increase is so that Migs don't fire multiple volleys per attack run. It feels a bit luck/gimmiky that the Mig may do double DPS or not, depending on angling and which way the enemy vehicle is moving.

On the handling side of things, it prevents ammo wastage by the Mig. It's easy to fire two volleys on auto-attack when you only needed the first volley to kill the target.

ChuteSound: chute1.aud
Health:
HP: 30000
Aircraft:
CruiseAltitude: 2560
TurnSpeed: 5
Speed: 149
Speed: 180

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@matjaeck

matjaeck Sep 14, 2019

Contributor

The comment below applies here too.

@@ -47,11 +48,11 @@ BADR.Bomber:
Aircraft:
CruiseAltitude: 2560
TurnSpeed: 5
Speed: 149
Speed: 180

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@matjaeck

matjaeck Sep 14, 2019

Contributor

This makes it very hard to shoot down badgers before they have dropped their payload. Did you/the people who tested the changes (have there been any tests?) consider to nerf their health as a counter measure?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@Orb370

Orb370 Sep 14, 2019

Contributor

Shooting down badgers to prevent damage is only really a factor in team games. Now that you can choose the angle of bombing that might not matter anymore either.

It might be more worthwhile to talk about making badgers untargetable like spy planes.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@matjaeck

matjaeck Sep 14, 2019

Contributor

This would allow a team of Ukrainian players to coordinate and destroy most buildings without leaving their opponents any chance to defend. I would agree that parabombs are broken atm without a minimal approach distance. The speed boost makes them even stronger (they ignore 4 AA guns) but is probably not game breaking, so go ahead.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@Orb370

Orb370 Sep 15, 2019

Contributor

Right. I guess my argument is that being able to choose the direction will cause that anyway, even without the speed boost.

Something to keep an eye on.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@Punsho

Punsho Sep 15, 2019

Author Contributor

Current parabombs die to 3 aa guns if they have full line of sight and badgers are flying on top of them. With the speed increase one badger lives but is left almost dead. 4 aa guns still obliterate them.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@matjaeck

matjaeck Sep 15, 2019

Contributor

Whether they need a health decrease depends much more on the fact that players are getting the ability to control their direction rather then on the speed increase. For this cycle I suggest leaving health as is and observe the consequences.

I noted health specifically in the context of tge speed boost since it has a immediate effect on how much damage they take. That directional parabombs without mininal distance will break maps like Oregardens is out of question and not a problem of this PR.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@netnazgul

netnazgul Sep 19, 2019

Contributor

I would agree that parabombs are broken atm without a minimal approach distance.

Minimal approach distance doesn't solve the

This would allow a team of Ukrainian players to coordinate and destroy most buildings without leaving their opponents any chance to defend

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@matjaeck

matjaeck Sep 19, 2019

Contributor

It would not solve all the potential issues with the directional parabombs that I became a bit worried about (the directional cursor feature is great, don't get me wrong!). A minimal approach would however establish a "safe zone" where you could place your tech structures. Badgers would need to enter the zone from a angle where you can better defend against them.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@GraionDilach

GraionDilach Sep 19, 2019

Contributor

@matjaeck Do note that increasing the speed means there is a bigger distance between the bombs as well and a single position takes less damage ultimately.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@netnazgul

netnazgul Sep 20, 2019

Contributor

@GraionDilach this PR (at least as far as I know) counters it by reducing reload delay for parabombs.

@Punsho Punsho force-pushed the Punsho:Balance branch from 68c8719 to 070f1a7 Sep 15, 2019
@Punsho

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 18, 2019

Possibly closes #16335

@pchote
pchote approved these changes Oct 5, 2019
Copy link
Member

left a comment

This has been open long enough that any major objections should have been raised by now. Merging in preparation for the next playtest.

@pchote pchote merged commit 38f5d2c into OpenRA:bleed Oct 5, 2019
2 checks passed
2 checks passed
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.