The rationale behind the changes in each release is given in this file, along with comments from players to back it up.
Infantry detection is very wonky. Furthest subcells cannot detect a unit in the next direct cell.
- Orb - 2024-04-10: Infantry detection changed without changing phase tanks :P Now tbf no one uses them to crush anyway, but I ran a lot of tests with phase tanks when making that change.
This provides more of a reason to pick England and nerfs an otherwise incredible value unit (even if people don't use it often enough.)
- Orb - 2024-04-10: I actually quite like the spy change, but in the original game spies could infiltrate all buildings - I think that should remain if possible. Perhaps infiltrating a structure type also reveals all structures on that type on the map (is that even possible?) just a thought.
- Blackened: Making spies do something like the OG or give them vision of just where those production facilities are at was something I'd considered. But if that's even possible it's beyond my yaml capabilities.
Allies no longer have the ability to dictate when a fight happens as they can constantly move around while subs have to stop to shoot. This makes it so surprise attacks are extremely effective but both sides microing becomes very hard to get kills in small battles. Still no tracking on Torpedoes(as in BI 4.1).
- Pun - 2024-04-10: submarines being turreted is definitely weird. Could some facing tolerance be added instead? As well as opportunity fire?
- Orb: You could do like a 45 degree arc in front right or something?
- Blackened: Subs being turreted definitely is wonky. But the reasoning I think makes sense. Allies can just move their ships constantly and since they are turreted the don't have to ever stop. Facing tolerances really don't help.
Help make torpedoes less avoidable.
The buffs were unwarranted. Now matches release.
Harvs are known to jump off mines when they really shouldn't. Will allow map makers to have tighter ore field layouts which also helps with non 3 ref builds.
Lets thieves chase retreating tanks easier without dying, lone rifles now have a shorter window to kill thieves.
Makes them more like Ctanks without completely nerfing their other stats. Kiting is still possible but now requires stutter stepping micro. Vision under gap is reduced to equalize them with other units.
Standardized cost. Now let's you build a little faster and without stalling in early game.
- Orb - 2024-04-10: Grenadier change is unnecessary. That's the original price, and I don't think the logic justifies changing it
- Blackened: gren's also being 160 is unnecessary. it goes both ways.
Now only slightly slower than infantry. Allows for quicker retreats/traversing between points.
- Unano - 2024-04-10: Mammy buf might make them a bit OP. As a prolific mammy spammer I think they are in a good place already personally
- despro: mammoths seem fine to me as well
- ZxGanno - 2024-04-11: stat changes are hard to judge. just play them. faster mammoths sounds neat
- .won: yeah not sold on that mammoths are already pretty damn good
- Blackened: Mammoths are good in tight quarters. But can easily fail when you need to rotate with them. Mammoths on big maps are a liability. You're better off just going with more ht
- Mint: I thought mammoths were in a decent spot tbh. But if they are still slower than inf it might not be a huge buff for them.
- Moods: I think the turret speed needs a slight increase maybe not speed i donno thats my opinion
Greater blanket protection.
Demo trucks can now kill a WF or conyard if close enough. Does not affect damage to other armor types.
- .won - 2024-04-11: I don’t like the demo trucks
- ZxGanon: well blackened is just buffing the demo truck. always felt weird that a nuke cannot blow up a base
Rifles were unintentionally doing a lot of damage to steel.
Same as rifles.
- .won - 2024-04-14: I think it needs more of a nerf. Maybe husk and reduce crushing rate( if possible). Think that wouldn’t change their main role, hunting tt, hunting falks and arty but it would prob reduce LT spam
- Blackened: I think returning husk would just reintroduce the reason it was removed before. I would lean more towards stripping it's HP buff or a speed nerf since crushes are only half the problem.
- .won: The only thing I don’t like about a speed nerf is it affects other things. Same with hp
- anjew: Dodge % is a joke anyway. You can have 99% dodge rate but if infantry are in the process of dodging, it’s 100% crush rate
- Blackened: 1) Scouting against them is harder than most other rushes/BO's. 2) Crushing swings battles. 3) Unlike apc crushes, LT have decent heavy/wood damage so you aren't just relying on rockets to kill material. 1 is certainly not an easy fix just due to the nature of the game. 2/3 are very connected and act like a multiplier. So my proposed solution would either to: 1) nerf their health/speed slightly. This makes them still good building harassers but makes crushing a bit harder to pull off. 2) Nerf their speed and their wood/heavy damage. This more or less does the same thing
- .won: I agree with blackened, I think my problems are a bit clearer but I like his solutions
- Pun: heavy damage is only a problem in overwhelming numbers. For a single LT it takes a century to kill anything that isn't light armour. I'm not sure if a damage nerf is a good idea
- despro: increase cost
- happy: cost icnrease to [the price of] APC could work
- Blackened: LT do a little bit more than half the damage a MT does to heavy when you factor in heavy damage+ROF. For wood damage LT are actually a fraction of a second faster at killing buildings (than MT)
- (Not) New: A new trait could be introduced for Light tanks so that instead of being crushed outright, the infantry unit is rolled over and injured. The prone time would be reduced, allowing the infantry to recover and return to firing more quickly.
- Moods: I still think the issue with trip ref is the inf not so much the lt .. but i guess speed nerf cud be kinda good it shud be slightly slower the flak imo. Trip ref with apc is also insanely strong
- Pun: I think it's fine that mass light tanks can crush infantry blobs. What the issue here is, is that this move is so decisive that it can very quickly lead to a win, and that it's difficult to scout
- (Not) New: i think nerfing health and speed is right way to go
Speed reduced to make destroyers/torpedoes better against them.
To help deal with gunboats while kiting and also shoreline harassment. AA-range remains unchanged.
- Pun - 2024-04-10: won't destroyer now outrange teslacoils in addition to turrets? btw what about making the destroyer depth charge count match the OG?
- Blackened: DD already outranged turrets and tesla coils. This does make it easier though. Making DD have 1 less depth charge makes them the same value as gunboats with less speed/vision/detection.
To help lower the gap between v2's and artillery. Artillery now only shoots 2.5x faster than v2. Makes missed v2 shots slightly less of a concern.
Gives minor utility to silos as a defense tab build radius provider, can help smooth out mistakes in building placement.
- bete - 2024-04-10: Silo change ❤️ 😄
- despro: silo change cud be weird
- Blackened: also silo change helps with wf rushes/wf first builds if ore patches are really far
- anjew: as long we get normal sell value, silo looks good
- Moods: U dont think silo build radius is gunna be abused a little ? ... Well i guess we will see. I like the change.. i will also be someone who abuses it/utilizes it
- .won: It does nothing. Not saying it’s g good or bad but it’s just a change to make a change
- Pun: 1. It's widely used in ore maps 2. It's used by lower skill players by it's intended westwood purpose 3. There's a whole notification signaling you to build them. Adding buildradius is probably fine though
Makes it so specs can hear when gps is activated/terminated again.
- happy - 2024-03-13: ild like to see a drastic hp nerf to Tesla tanks while keeping their damage. Like make them a ground only mega flak. Same hp and armour as a flak just a glass cannon
- Blackened: That would definitely cripple tt deathballs. Not that necessarily bad. I also thought about maybe making them non turreted like chrono tanks are might make them harder to use without totally changing them.
- .won: you could also reduce TT range. because you cant chase them, even with thier counter(flak/LT). I would want to see a combo of reduced range, reduce speed and maybe reduce HP. but slight on each
- bete: TTs nerf is bad idea. Soviet's long term goal would be to survive early game and then try to use it's tech advantage. TTs and Shookies are easily countered by air units.
- tux - 2024-03-14: Would buff in other ways. Nefr the crushing its quite annoying
- goat: i dont know if i think its overpowered, but i think a rework would be nice. i agree with blackened that the main issue is probably ic though
- despro: blacky thinks tt are strong but he doesnt think the fact that they can crush is the issue as others believe (fwiw i think the crushin is a problem)
- .won: I would agree I dont think crushing is the issue, I think the range/kite is the issue
- Pun (Referencing 2022-08-24): IMO [Tesla Tank] don't synergise with other unit queues. They synergise only with mobile flaks but those are also vehicles. Tesla Tank damage is incredibly low. Except that this is offset by Iron Curtain, which flips the script and carries it to victory. Removing crushing would fix this. Tesla tanks depend on snowballing. TT's provide value incredibly slowly and have no stopping power, so if you don't have many on the field all other units just prove more useful.
- Blackened: TT really only need IC and flaks to be effective at every role. TT damage really isn't that low tbh
- tux - 2024-03-13: how about giving chronotanks much better turn rate
- Blackened: ctanks don't need a buff they're solid as is
- despro - 2024-03-14: the thing with ctanks is that sum plebs think they shud be spammed and end up spammin them in allies vs allis (like blackened against me in ragl final) and then mrj ruins them
- Pun (Referencing 2022-08-24): [Chrono Tanks] don't synergise well with army compositions. It does its job really well but regular rocket soldiers + tanks do that job just as well in most cases. The other issue is that you can't attack move them, if they target infantry all of their damage is lost. Chrono crushing as a concept isn't great. This is extremely broken when in higher numbers and we should always keep that in mind when doing changes to CT in the future
- Blackened: CT are kinda like artillery for heavy armor. They absolutely wreck heavy armor. CT also get completely shut down by mrj.
- Blackened - 2024-03-15: [Proposed] lesser arty turn increase (just to see if doubling it was maybe too much) though, I'm fine with just no change
- (Not) New - 2024-03-16: I don’t see what impact changing turn speed has on a unit that is heavily guarded and doesn’t depend on speed.
- Blackened: Turn speed would help when arty get caught slightly out of position by letting them quickly retreat. But im just not sure if arty really need anything
- Hans: Arty is cheaper than V2s if my memory doesn't go wrong? Would it work that higher the price for $50 or $100? Or increase the inaccuracy? Or lower the attack speed (slightly longer reload time)?
- (Not) New - 2024-03-20: Cut the splash damage of artillery, it would increase the time it takes artillery to stop infantry attacks and lock down the map.
- Blackened: ftr, what you're describing sounds very similar to TD arty and I think those things are more hated there than here.
- Blackened - 2024-03-15: [Proposed] thief getting an HP increase. The only thing they can really get are harvs or if they are very lucky a tank. The fact that they have less effective HP than a rifleman means they can picked off too easily. engi= 3 rifle shots, thieves=4, rifles=6. Moving to SD tech seemed a bit OP. Other options would be a speed increase and or quicker cloak?
- Moods: i was gunna suggest making theives uncrushable.. but then i realized what horrible effects that wud have if a theif is in a cell with 4 other inf, making them also uncrushable
- Blackened: i dont even think that'd be too op considering right now thieves fucking die so damn easily. plus since they're faster than infantry it'd be hard to actually keep them in your blob
- (Not) New - 2024-03-16: Thieves could do with a large buff as they are currently useless. Maybe a rework of how detection works so they are able to hijack vehicles more easily. They need to be able to hijack stuff, true to their original name. At the moment they steal cash and get the odd harvester.
- Kaution: Instead of health buffs or anything like that, wouldn't it be better to make em perma stealth. Inf will still be able to make em visible and I don't think it's too OP
- tux: I think the issue with that is that they can just sneak around and get harvs way way too easily
- Blackened: NN's idea of making them perma stealthed but uncloak on an attack order would be better, but still too OP imo.
- Pun - 2024-03-18: IMO thief should be slightly faster than a medium tank. Currently he can't even catch harvesters. His speed was nerfed when he was on SD tech, but now we can unnerf part of it.
- Unano - 2024-03-19: Something should be done to give something to soviets to make up for allies being able to revive dead mcvs. I thought the hijacker should get that power before but it wasn't very popular so maybe theres another way
- Blackened: I think buffing thieves to just make them viable may be an asymmetrical balance to husk recovery. Allies can recover husks from eco raids, and save an mcv that got killed ... soviets can steal harvs/unprotected tanks.
- (Not) New - 2024-03-20: Simply increasing the HP of the Thief won’t work; opponents will just send out two rifles to eliminate it. It must also have a speed boost and a prone cut to make hijacking easier. As for cloaking, I propose allowing it to remain permanently stealthed, unless it comes within a certain distance of a vehicle, at which point it becomes uncloaked.
- muleyyy: i dont like the idea of the thief being cloaked up to a distance, i think thats too strong, what about their view range? and cut the lead time before they cloak when stationary. so you can advance and then stop to avoid being spotted, but you are still revealed when moving
- Blackened: I'm thinking increasing the thief hp to 8000 (Which gives it 2 extra rifle shots) and making its speed 85 again is a good start
- goat - 2024-03-21: i think stealth is just a wonky and poor mechanic in openra, i certainly dont think it should be buffed
- Unano - 2024-04-20: make hijackers able to revive husks
- Blackened - 2024-03-15: [Proposed] In a similar vein, infantry stealth detection is quite wonky. Needs to be increase slightly. Current range is 1 cell. But that means units that are in the back subcells cannot detect. I think making it 1.75 cells would fix this irregularity.
- (Not) New - 2024-03-16: Infantry stealth detection changes make sense
- Pun - 2024-03-18: I'm definitely not opposed to increasing stealth detection radius on riflemen
- Blackened - 2024-03-15: [Proposed] Controversial, but I think demo needs a slight damage buff. It should be able to kill a conyard/wf on a direct hit. Right now it leaves it with like 5% hp
- anjew: Buff demo damage is the most based thing you’ve ever said
- .won - 2024-03-16: cmon buff demo, nah. demo isnt for targetting structures its for army
- (Not) New: As demolition is the USP of Ukraine, is lacking, and demos are the only demolition unit. They need some series of buffs to make them and the country worth using. Stopping people sitting behind static d with 50k army shouldn’t be discouraged, at the moment 1 rifle can kill a demo
- Blackened - 2024-03-15: [Proposed] Either give minelayer a weapon so it doesn't run in front of your units anymore or make it slowly do damage to mines to help clear mine fields. Not married to this idea at all. It's more of a QOL change than balance
- Moods - 2024-03-16: Fwiw i like all the other ideas [other than thief]. ( the minelayer idea better be becuz of the moods vs milkman game 😉 i think thats a really good idea )
- (Not) New: minelayer changes make sense
- bete - 2024-04-11: This is nerfing Minelayer isn't it? You take risk to make minelayer instead tank and then you make it easier to counter... not sure
- Blackened: I dont see it having s big effect on 1v1s but more on 3v3+ when minefields can get super big.
- Yara: Would it be technically possible to create/configure certain tanks to (1) detect mines and (2) to ignore them aka they can drive over them without loosing health points? ... I just thought it could be a nice ability to give certain tanks , maybe mammoth, the ability to ignore them, as mammoths are not that great currently. But the mine layer is also not that great and should perhaps not be weakened any further.
- (Not) New: Currently one minelayer can make a 30 min minefield obsolete. Maybe requiring more micro to make mines harder to detect eg you have to move minelayer to a spot and then press f /shift que it to see if there are mines there?
- mrtbsc - 2024-04-28: bit late on this one but how bout giving rangers and flaktruck the ability to detect mines then?
- Orb: I think that could work
- Blackened - 2024-03-15: [Proposed] grens cost decrease to 150. The 160 is a hold over from ra95 and it makes no sense. We've changed the price of other units I see no reason this "tradition" should be kept.
- (Not) New - 2024-03-16: Unless the aim is to make early game gren drops easier, it seems pointless to change the cost of greens for the sake of change
- Blackened - 2024-03-15: [Proposed] Mammoth tank speed increase ever so slightly. Same reasoning as HT Speed change. Mammoths are so bad on a big map its actually a hinderance to build them.
- (Not) New - 2024-03-16: mammoth changes make sense
- Blackened - 2024-03-15: [Proposed] V2 projectile slight increase. Would help distinguish them a bit more. Arty has ROF but v2 should have precision/accuracy. This helps them hit their intended targets better.
- tux - 2024-03-16: Maybe v2s could have more spread
- Pun - 2024-03-18: When it comes to V2's I still think their reload delay is too long. About 2 seconds should be shaved off. And I'm not against making the unit a bit more expensive
- Blackened: I don't see a reason to increase the price of v2 though. Just make it better.
- Blackened - 2024-03-15: [Proposed] Increase mobile gap shroud. This is from 4.0 but wasn't used in 4.1 Wanted more thoughts.
- (Not) New - 2024-03-16: Unsure about MGG
- Blackened - 2024-03-15: [Proposed] 4.0 also had moved british spy to SD but cost 1000 (500 after RD). While it was interesting I'm not sure it's a good gimmick. My suggestion was to remove vet bonus from regular spies and make it a british spy only thing. I think that alone would make the UK a faction worth playing.
- (Not) New - 2024-03-16: British spy needs an ability unique to Britain. Changing the cost doesn’t make much real difference. Removing vet bonus would be too op to make exclusive to Britain though
- Blackened: I think nerfing 2 of the 3 allied factions is a good thing when people say allies are better and it would actually give reason to picking sub factions for allies
- (Not) New - 2024-03-20: I’m not a fan of veterancy, it gives a big boost, akin to a super soldier serum, and there’s no way to reverse it. So I think increasing it is the wrong way to go. For British spies, I suggest maintaining their current veterancy boost while reducing it for other Allied countries. Additionally, British spies should gain the ability to take control of defenses/disable them within a certain range and drive away construction yards. This would help counter defense spam and prevent bases from becoming impregnable. Similar mechanics are already present in missions, so it wouldn’t introduce a new element to the game.
- Blackened: I'm not really a fan of any of those other changes.
- Pun: I disagree with making spy even more niche. I definitely am against making a subfaction unit. in the OG when a spy was next to a production structure it showed what it is producing
- (Not) New: Veterancy has little to no impact afaik, so is a real difference being made?
- (Not) New - 2024-03-20: As for GPS, I propose that for France and Germany, it reveals only half of the map and/or it’s duration is cut.
- .won - 2024-03-19: i think LT should add back in husks
- Blackened: LT husks would probably help with their mass crushing. Could also give them zero vision like that had a long time ago.
- tux: Idt lt hp shld be nerfed more lol. They are already terrible. Their only roles are rifletanking sub min5 and cheese
- tux - 2024-03-21: One thing id like for phasetrans is to revert the weapon. Give it damange back. So it'll have half the dps of a ctank. Then itll be pretty good at harv raiding
- happy - 2024-04-14: apc needs a cost reduction with an equivilant hp nerf to fit into double ref standard. would be a subtle buff to drop cheese
- Kaution: Yeah fair. Usually flak just feels better in terms of build
- Pun - 2024-04-14: One nerf to crushing could be adding a speed penalty for vehicles when in critical health. Ofc not go fully vanilla which also adds a penalty for <50%
- Blackened: this could work but god I hate having to deal with unit speed differences from veterancy already.
- Pun: Lets change veterancy as part of the same package
- (Not) New: i think this is a great idea, solves the problem and mirrors the real world
- Blackened: I feel like veterancy rework almost needs to be an exclusive fix because its not like it's a few units you're tweaking with but involves pretty much everything.
- .won: And what about air, do they slow down on damage too?
- Pun: I have played with this feature, and it felt fine. Though you definitelly don't get the dopamine rush of escaping with 0 health as often
- ZxGanon: if vehicle crushing is an issue to some degree. rather than adding this slow upon crushing mechanic from CA (which is retarded btw). rather add critical hp slow down
- Blackened: biggest cons to slow on critical imo is you're gonna get even more snowbally games. since retreating is naturally going to cost more.
- ZxGanon - 2024-04-14: veterancy rework for ra1 is necessary. it will only make RA more fun to play
- (Not) New: veterancy is a pointless mechanic in ra
- Blackened: its certainly not pointless. but the current version makes it unwieldly
- ZxGanon: [Veterancy could have a meaningful impact] by giving vet1: bonus damage, vet2: durability, vet3: selfheal and a new heroic weapon. could also add bonus movement speed to heroic units to make them more microable
- Pun: Only the damage buff in infatry matters
- ZxGanon: ora ra1 is such a weird game that infantry is so important here. also btw a fact for ppl that dont know if there are units with too many different speed stats on the field does harm game performance. so if you limit movementspeed buffs only to heroic you can circumvent that issue
- Pun: One of the issues with current veterancy is that it's too hard to get and you aren't that rewarded for getting them vetted
- Blackened: the first choice of a rework is 100% going to be reducing elite from 4 promotions to 3
- (Not) New: is temporary veterancy eg it wears off after a while, an option to reduce snowball impact? veterancy decay was the one i meant, units lose it if they arent actively engaged in combat for a while as in company of heroes
- Unano: The game is so snowbally already tho. Buffing vets will just make that more
- Pun: I've seen people take up strong stances that they want to keep veterancy this rare. That it makes max rank units a much more special occasion
- Mint: fwiw I like the veterancy idea, a little evolution would make this game interesting
- Moods - 2024-04-15: Interesting vet mechanics will never shine becuz infantry always are doing the killing or dealing the final blow. So you wont see a highly vetted tank
- despro: idk mates i think vet is pretty shitty in a game like openra. theres just too much spam that dies way too fast
- dang_shot: i also think unano is right that buffing veterancy should in theory also increase snowballing which i dont think is ideal
- .won: Yeah despro is right units die too quickly. Like cool general rifle, 1 shot from yak it’s done
- Upps - 2024-04-15: Making vehicle better, cheaper, better scaleable (max production speed on 3 WF). Finally use the Armor class concrete for defences for bunker breaker roles (Tanks, Arty/V2) etc.
- ZxGanon: 3 wf scaling sounds neat but Id argue that vehicles need a speed buff across the board they are way too slow compared to infantry
- tux: that'd make crushing really good though
- Upps: idk about a massive tanks speed buff because thiefs need to catch up, that would make harvester stealing maybe to powerful. dont forget its also easier/cheaper to scale to max production of infantry 7x500=3500$ compared to 4x2000=8000$
- Moods: You never ever see 4 wfs.. There cud definately be a better balance between infs/vehichles then there is now
- happy: as upps said, the investment of 4 wf makes it not worthwhile. infact i rarely go above 2 unless sim leading purely cause i used 2nd wf to bypass the time loss of tanks going to the frontline. its much better macro to go 7 rax or open the air queue. i think the 3wf total idea might be good
- dang_shot: i think a lot of the "newer" players actually often get to 4 wf [in the late game], kav, creo, fazzar and so on
- Moods: The only time 4wf is worth it is for mammoths.. everything else is like a -1 second reduction so even if they do do it, it doesnt make it worth it
- dang_shot: i dont think thats true
- Blackened: nah 4wf is always worth it
- tux - 2024-04-16: i honestly find that infantry kind of become much less relevant in the hyperlategame by that time 4wf is quite likely anyways
- Upps - 2024-04-16: What do you guys think about using concrete armor class for defences? Make tanks better against them V2 arty also. MiG and longbow, too. Reduce rocketman damage against concrete compared to heavy armor. reduce BH and Yak damage against concrete (because AA can get overrun otherwise). Buff turret against heavy armor to stop Mammoths in late game ( check projectile speed)
- ZxGanon: sounds interesting
- (Not) New: As much as I dislike static defences shutting down flanks. It’s hard enough as it is to stop trip ref/mcv skip to tanks, with defences, eg blackened vs happy game 1 last ragl.
- Pun: And also prevent aircraft from sniping aa guns in teamgames. Tbh I always found it weird that anti-tank defences get absolutely obliterated by tanks
- Blackened: Concrete armor defenses would be a huge buff to soviets and make Allies vs allies very hard to break through defensive lines.
- Upps: Depends on the stats we should ignore the anti concrete stats which are current only in use for walls complelty. I wouldnt change the Tesla vs Turret/Turret vs Tesla counterplay we have
- Blackened: Mt does 1.15x4000=4600 damage value to heavy armor. Ht =9200 Mammoths are 1.2x4000x2=9600. Rockets do 5000. So I don't think giving soviets even more of an edge in base defense clearing is gonna help.
- Unano - 2024-04-20: I think we should put tanya in both factions
- ZxGanon: funny in og ra1 tanya was available for both sides. which is boring
BI-4.1 was produced for and used in RATL S03.
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2024-03-13: Liked
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2024-03-13: Liked
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2024-03-13: Liked
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2024-03-13: Liked
- bete: Heavy tank has a lot HP, damage, not sure why speed them up?
- tux - 2024-04-15: one thing i do think would be good tho is increase heavy tank speed a little. mediums are 72
- ZxGanon: ez. ht 70 med 85
- Upps: HT good buffed in speed in RATL
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2024-03-13: Liked
Reverting accidental change due to SAM site buff in BI-3.0.
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2024-03-13: Liked
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2024-03-13: Liked
Naval transport is carrying much more than in the release, but the visual looked funny. This should help break the immersion less.
Readjusted stinger/aa to do proper damage (latest release changed the values).
Reduced naval yard and sub pen detection because subs were getting too easily picked off. Now subs can outrange the detection so you must deliberately put your structure in danger to provide vision.
Feedback:
- Unano - 2023-10-13: Could flame towers be given the same range and vision as pillboxes? pills can decimate your inv without being seen, but the flame tower cant, and can easily just be dodged
- Moods: Flames are shit compared to pills
- .won: flames are good, the only issue with flames is they suck with micro
- happy: That’s what I’ve noticed playing, pills are much better at pushing off some small flanks but when it’s army vs army into my base I prefer the flame towers. its odd to me that vision is atleast not matched
- Moods: In theory it shud be offsetted by teslas being amazing... but they arent
- tux: I do agree [teslas] are pretty bad. pillboxes are still incredibly strong. flametowers are also nice
- .won: nah tesla are fine. they are better than turrents what more do you want
- Margot: splash of flames are wonderful. pills are nice too
- despro: base defences r ridiculous in openra. stop talkn bout buffin tha tshit
- tux: increase tesla range ffs
- despro: if u want to buff tesla thats prob the worst way to do it tux
- Unano - 2023-11-10: Tesla should be cheaper so that it is more viable
Feedback:
- happy - 2023-10-13: the yak is pretty shit also
- despro: yak is not shit
- .won: yaks are pretty good wtf
- tux: yaks are great
- happy: ill take a bh every day of the month vs a yak
- Moods: There jus unreliable with attack move
- Unano: Yea I think this too - they like 90% kill a v2 then circle around for another pass instead of moving on the the next target - which basically means their suicide run failed
- .won: to snipe stuff they are fine, if you wanna attack blobs yeah, not that good
- anjew: tbh i like the yaks but mainly because you can make crash money. migs are too fast, heli too slow. yak is just right
- goat: i prefer yaks [to blackhawks]
- Blackened - 2023-11-10: Reduce yak minimum range 1/2 a cell. -- this will buff yaks and also make them behave more consistent.
- Unano: Shorter minimum range on yaks sounds like an interesting idea
- Upps: better Yaks im a fan of this
Feedback:
- Unano - 2023-10-13: Yak just dies no matter what since someone made a balance change that lets rockets follow them 10000miles
- .won: Yeah I dont like that, but thats the same with BH. i think the tracking has to be reduced a bit
- happy: the heat seeking rockets are really annoying
- tux: if you nerf rocket tracking bh rushes just get even worse
- anjew: [This change] introduced a change to the Nike missile, which redeye inherits. i think its an oversight
- .won: you used to be able to out run rockets if you had a distance. now you cant out run them
- dang_shot: i have never played with the previous tracking, i dont mind how it works now but interesting observation that i think anjew is right that it was not the intention
- Unano: Its a huge nerf to yaks as they used to be able to get away sometimes with a bit of micro
- happy: it is [a problem] if the rocket soldier has unknowngly been buffed to 11 cells of AA range and its not recorded anywhere
- Pun: I just went and checked RAGL 11 to see if it contained the bug, and it did
- anjew: yeah i just checked as well. so we've been playing with it for a very long time already
- goat: its an oversight, but i think people are making it a bigger deal than it is (not to say it should not be changed), but it is mainly relevant the closer yak is to the rocket. i personally dont mind the added tracking but i think its justified to change it back as it was not intetional. however for those who think yak is weak i dont think you should expect this change to matter
- Upps - 2023-11-10: Shorter Rocket tracking a yes from me they yaks fall from the sky more often then needed
Feedback:
- tux - 2023-10-13: migs are great
- Moods: Migs are fantastic
- Unano: Migs are great until longbows come out
- tux: also why did they get a hp nerf lol
- Moods: I voiced against that.. stupid pointless nerf
- dang_shot: the mig got buffed from 7500 to 10000 hp back in 2020, but then later it proved to cause issues in specific scenarios (i think widow did a lot of talk about this) and it was changed to 8000 for competitive balance like almost 2 years ago. i think migs are fine but they do require babysitting
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2023-11-10: reduce ore scan radius from harv/ref to 8/10 from 12/24. -- This will fix a lot of maps.
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2023-11-10: I think soviets are desperately in need of some increase in speed.
- happy: I think heavies need to have a speed atleast a bit greater than inf so they stop getting stuck behind. Mediums to get a bit slower I’m also coming around too after being master flanked a couple of times
- Upps: adjusting speed of HT and a slight cost increase of MT im okay with that
- creo: is increasing speed of heavy tanks better than reducing it for mts? heavy tanks are disgusting if they get into ore line. i'm a little skeptical of a speedincrease
- Pun: vehicles need buffs not nerfs
- tux: Tbh i like tanks as they are
- Blackened: I dont think MT needs a cost increase because I think HT needs a slight buff and I don't like the trend of making tanks cost more and more which always seems to happen.
- Pun: 2023-11-20: I wanted to ask isn't it a bit overkill to increase medium tanks cost when heavy tank speed is being buffed?
- i like men: I think from my perspective the logic is more so that currently MT has a better hp/cost than HT and I really think it would make more sense if it was the other way around given you get more medium tanks. IN my opinion the HT speed increase would not change this
- Orb: I'd rather see medium tank lose their health buff than get a cost increase
- despro - 2023-11-20: i think ranger hp shud be buffed
- Pun: ranger is just too squishy atm, it dies at the sight of infantry
- i like men: the ranger buff is indeed to counteract the infantry turning
- Pun - 2023-11-10: I'd like mobile flak to be more tanky as well [as ranger]. but it's anti-air needs to be touched then as well
- Unano: flak should be marginally faster so that it can scout better and has a better chance of trading vs air - which it is supposed to counter
- bete - 2024-03-13: If you increase speed of Flak they will be able to hunt BHs too easily. Tricky.
- Upps - 2023-11-10: cost reduction of Thiefs down to 350$
- creo: why cost reduction of thieves? i think their design is a little questionable. their value can be insane. it's the kind of unit i would not like to touch
- tux: Move them back to T1.5 bruh. Bring back the Early apc thief drop rush
- Pun: thieves just need to be slightly faster and cloak quicker. [Thieves on T1.5 were] dark times. The counterplay to thieves at such an early stage was miserable
- creo: i think this is a better change than cost decrease at least = )
- Upps: Thiefs are not likely to catch anything atleast make them cheaper.
Including changes from Total Naval Overhaul 1.0 (TNO 1.0).
Import from Combined Arms - all vehicles get a 50% speed nerf when crushing.
- (Not) New - 2023-11-06: pls leave crushing as it is [in BI-4.0]
- creo - 2023-11-10: some us have already talked a bit about this on the competitive team discord, but personally i believe 50% might be a pretty noticeable nerf to heavy tanks especially. i think the main issues when it comes to crushing are light tanks and tesla tanks and we talked a bit about only doing the nerf to light vehicles which i personally would be a good idea!
- Blackened: slowdown is just in general a nightmare nerf for vehicles. APCs/Lights are gonna die to 1/2 rockets now because they are staying in range 50% longer. Trying to retreat your harvs or mcv but infantry is in the way? too bad they're dead now. Oh your tank tried to run over technician as you retreat? yeah its dead now too. I don't even want to imagine what a 50% slower mammoth looks like.
- Pun: after the 50% crush speed nerf vehicles could be buffed back up by different stat changes. like making them cheaper
- Unano - 2023-11-06: Please take the gap gen buffs out [of BI-4.0]
- Pun: Gap gens should definitelly get a 1 cell buff
- creo - 2023-11-10: i don't think the shroud provides very interesting gameplay in a game where vision is already pretty limited. i think there quite a few issues with targeting and i think this change will be more annoying than fun. i don't think it will cause any real issues in 1v1, but i could see it be rather annoying in teamgames. i also think it promotes a more turtly allies play forcing opponent to engage and for soviet i think it can be rather troublesome as their snipers are only v2 and their actual vision providers in yaks will likely not have a good time as there is likely to be aa gun in the shroud
- Blackened: Gaps can annoying to play against and feel like an unfun mechanic but people say that about vision in general tbh.
- despro - 2023-10-26: the worst change in the latest balance thing is makin chrono autotarget tanks
- Unano - 2023-11-06: and also [take out] the chrono tank [and phase] auto targetting [from BI-4.0]
- Blackened - 2023-11-10: I'm 100% not a fan of chrono/phase tanks losing infantry targeting.
- creo - 2023-11-10: i agree with you about not being a fan, sometimes you might want them to target infantry and i also don't think it's worth it to remove the potential target micro!
MAD tank removed chronoshift, charge delay 192 (up from 96), spread 14c0 (up from 7c0), damage buff vs heavy and concrete
A single MAD tank now takes out vehicles and structures with heavy or concrete armour.
- anjew - 2023-11-10: that IC difference looks to be big
- despro - 2023-11-27: was ic rly only 1500
- Blackened: Yep I said they same thing. Chrono is too but until chrono has better misfire protection it isn't as much as a concern
The price drops to 500 once radar is built.
- Blackened - 2023-11-10: the british spy change just seems like it wouldn't be worthwhile
- (Not) New - 2024-04-11: It seems like a forced sell for any veterancy structure near your opponents blob else your opponent has veterancy from the beginning of the mid game.
- Blackened: I really don't expect people to suddenly start making 1000$ spies in droves
- Unano: Seems ok - don't think its a game changer tho
- .won: I think spies on sd are fine tbh but I wouldn’t mind a bit more detection
- ZxGanon: spys on sd seems like an aidband fix rather than a proper justification to implement game changing designs. thats boring and lame
Feedback:
- Unano - 2023-11-10: Ranger only really dies to flak / light tank in the early game, and can easily outrun either. Is the idea to make it even easier to keep it alive and give allies a larger advantage with scouting
- Pun: with the infantry targeting changes ranger became way too squishy. this is the compensation
- creo: buffed ranger sounds great to me = )
- Upps: 2023-11-28: why more health for rangers, I dont get it. its a scouting unit not a combat unit. Its great in scouting and deny enemy riflescouts
- Gacius: exactly. only nerf that it needed anyway was vision 8c to 7c
- despro: it got nerfed a lot with the facin changes. this is a welcome buff
- .won: i think ranger was fine as is
- Blackened - 2024-03-13: [RATL S03 Feedback] Didn't like
- bete: Ranger hp increase is kinda ridiculus for me.
This brings the cost per armour closer to the heavy tank.
- Blackened - 2023-11-10: I dont think MT needs a cost increase because I think HT needs a slight buff and I don't like the trend of making tanks cost more and more which always seems to happen.
- Fazzz - 2023-11-20: Also I honestly think the Arty change is a nerf
- i like men: The arty change is Pun's change, it only reduces the range by 1 cell but increases mobility by quite a lot. Is it a nerf? Could be, but I personally think it makes them better to use
- Orb - 2023-11-28: if we're changing the arty can we buff its none damage? At the moment it one shots standing infantry but not crawling infantry, it used to but when I nerfed it I didn't consider this. You'll probably have to adjust its AOE (more falloff) to compensate but direct hits should kill crawling infantry. The damage output is inconsistent at the moment because its actually less useful in fights when infantry start going prone
- Pun: But does it need such a buff? One should not forget how cheap it is
- Orb: Well, that's kind of besides the point, it could be nerfed/buffed to be rebalanced if its too strong. I think the range nerf is going to be quite significant
- Blackened: The range nerf makes it better btw not worse. its weaker in arty base wars. But for army vs army the lower ttt is gonna make them more lethal. Coupled with more mobility I'm slight worried tbh
- Unano: Yea I was honestly thinking these arty changes look a bit OP, but was just waiting for a chance to try them out
- Blackened - 2024-03-13: [RATL S03 feedback] Didn't like
- bete: Arty range was op, so reduce range was fine. But they are more mobile now?
This keeps the MCV build time the same (40 seconds with one WF on normal) but means credits are consumed at the same rate as other units.
- Blackened - 2023-11-10: Cheaper mcv also is just kinda random if you keep the same build time. It's not like money is particularly an issue when your building an expo mcv
- Blackened - 2024-03-14: the mcv change just gets away from special modifiers. So it's less of change for the sake of change and more change for the sake of simplification. I dont think a 350 price change is going to have a huge impact.
This has a range of 18c0.
Feedback:
- Unano - 2023-11-10: Also silo protecting refs just sounds so contrived and illogical
- Pun - 2023-11-20: The silo infiltration protection is never getting merged into main openra fwiw. It's way too gimmicky and hidden away
- Kaution: Silo protecting from infiltration of ref seems odd. Trying to make the silo have a purpose just because
- goat: i actually think its a cool interaction
- Orb: seems kind of jank. also spending 100 credits or whatever to remove a game mechanic is also not that interesting. Change name to "Observation Silo" and give it a little camera with some vision. Oh I got it, and it detecs spy
- happy: the change isnt gonna do anything 😄 spies are pretty rare, doubt anyones thinking in their mind fuck i need a silo to defend against spies
Naval units have steel armour type. This is a decrease in damage taken from tanks and infantry, but an increase in damage taken from missiles and artis.
Naval units only autotarget subs with torpedoes or depthcharges.
Subs can be damaged while underwater and surface upon taking damage.
Infantry, ground defences and spy plane have underwater detection
Sonar pulse reveals shroud 10c0, detects subs, must be targetted on water
Subs cost 750 (down from 950), Turnspeed 24 (up from 16), Speed 85 (up from 78) Cloak delay 20 (down from 50)
Torpedoes no longer seek. Speed 170 (up from 85), spread 320 (down from 426), wood damage 35 (down from 75), Steel damage 65
Feedback:
- Pun - 2024-03-14: Blackened would adding collision to torpedoes solve the issue of them not tracking? Currently they just pass underneath ships that weren't targeted. to me it's the most frustrating issue
- Blackened: I think it would. I did try and play around with close enough to see if I could. Cuz yeah I agree part of the problem I think is visually the torpedo passes underneath the ship but technically thr ship is probably in the next cell. Maybe if torpedoes always explodes when they reached the cell the were fired at could help too. Would make running from subs in a straight line easier though
Missile Sub tier 2 (down from tier 3), Turnspeed 16 (up from 12), cloak delay 20 (down from 100), Detect Cloak 7c0 (up from 4c0)
Missile Sub Missile reload delay 250 (down from 300), none damage 80 (up from 40), light damage 48 (up from 30), heavy damage 38 (up from 30), steel damage 48, speed 215 (up from 162)
2inch damage 3500 (up from 2500), steel damage 105, speed 682 (up from 426)
Gunboat Depthcharge reload delay 100 (up from 60), range 6c0 (up from 5c0), speed 148 (up from 125), inaccuracy 1c0 (up from 0c128)
Destroyer turnspeed 24 (down from 28), reveal shroud min 4co (down from 5c0), reveal shroud 5c0 (down from 6c0), detect cloack, 3c0 (down from 4co)
Stinger wood damage 66 (down from 88), light damage 66 (down from 88), heavy damage 100 (down from 120) steel damage 100
StingerAA light damage 58 (down from 100)
DDDepthcharge burst 3 (up from 1), reload delay 150 (up from 60)
8inch none damage 100 (up from 60), light damage 75 (up from 35), heavy damage 35 (up from 25), steel damage 40, speed 215 (up from 204)
This does not include any weight restrictions, so it's possible (but risky) to include 10 tanks in a single transport.
Sub pen/Shipyard cost 600 (down from 800/1000), health 75000 (down from 100000), Power 20 (down from 30)
Corresponding changes to fake sub pen and shipyard - both now cost 60 (down from 80/100).
GPS no longer crashes when used alongside lua code.
This is to prevent parabombs from taking out an Allied Tech Center in a single run.
Exactly the same as BI-3.5 but for release-20230225.
Includes bug fix for IC footprint (thanks milkman!)
Exactly the same as BI-3.5 but for release-20230225.
The new release includes a change to the way speeds of ground units are measured, and so there is now an override for the Ranger to make it match BI-3.5 (speed 164, up from 160 in the release).
Play notification for spectators when any player uses the GPS support power.
Previously there was a bug that caused the game to crash if the Tech Center was killed or sold while the GPS was active.
Feedback:
- Gacius - 2022-04-17: overall BL 3.3 is good aproach
- Blackened - 2022-04-17: 3.3 changes are all fine I think.
- BeTe - 2022-04-17: 3.3. definitely. It's something community is discussing for a long time... It's actually not big difference and should make game more interesting, more "active".
Differences since BI 3.2:
Importing the fix from Orb which includes being able to aim the first blast from flame towers.
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2022-04-17: Defenses getting the targeting buff is good
- i like men - 2022-02-07: I believe we should also give pill box another nerf, most likely just reducing fire rate
Feedback:
- tux - 2022-04-01: hate the def nerf in bi 3.3 :(
- BeTe - 2022-04-01: I don't even notice difference.
- Kaution - 2022-04-17: Defenses needed a nerf so I'm for the slight nerf on it.
- Blackened - 2022-04-17: a slight nerf overall is fine I think since people want less powerful defenses
- Unano - 2022-04-17: vanilla. static defences in theory pays in other ways - for example being static. but tbh the nerf has felt fine so meh
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2022-04-17: My initial thoughts on defense nerfs felt that ft got nerfed more than pillboxes. But I don't see how that's possible. So I assume it was just bias
- Widow - 2022-04-17: i deffinitly think that is possible. often the second volley is what kills, if that one comes later, then perhaps medics kick in, or the army that got hit first move further away, thats why we need testing
Taken from PBA.
Feedback:
- Gacius - 2022-04-17: it was said before that prone time from 4 to 2 seconds feels good
- Kaution - 2022-04-17: Prone time, feels better and more rewarding to retreat
- Pun - 2022-04-17: Prone time reduction has seen pretty much universal praise. It's just a good change
After the initial 3 minutes charge then it can be used for 1 minute and then takes 3 minutes to recharge (i.e. the same as BI 3.2). The global timer for charging has been replaced by a global timer showing when the GPS is in use. This change allows Allied players to build a tech center in secret, although use of the GPS will still be global.
Most of the work for this, including creating the audio files, was done by Pinkthoth.
Feedback:
- Kaution - 2022-04-17: Satellite changes is refreshing and the adjust timers feels more right.
- Blackened - 2022-04-17: The GPS single click is an improvement. I have no feedback on the time change.
- Unano - 2022-05-14: I like it from what I've seen, but I don't play allies much
- Gacius - 2022-05-14: it's actually good. not OP for being free maphack. and yet low cooldown makes it fresh. also activating it isnt that complicated, two clicks and done, gps for 30 seconds
- Blackened - 2022-05-14: Ava isn't as sluggish as it used to be. But still very very slow
- Widow - 2022-05-14: I think it works as intended which is great, it really makes late game more interesting and way less stale IMO, and because of its faster initial charge time it gives tier 3 an effect way faster which is cool. i also feels like alot of the people who where initially skeptic has turned after playing with it regularly. The other thing is also since B 3.3 the gps timer is hidden from opponent since it makes less sense now, that gps isnt this OP thing you absolutly must kill before the timer is done. that also makes tech rushing as alies way more viable. since you dont have this gps timer poping up telling Tier 1.5 spam opponent to come kill you asap
Against:
- .won - 2022-05-22: I’m not a huge fan of it. Yah it’s good for a v a but not good for a v s
Shock Troopers further reduced to $300 (from $400 release/$350 v20211230), reload delay 60 (from 70), damage vs heavy 50 (from 60)
Trying to rework the faction specials and reduce spamming of static defences.
Maps and balance history: https://github.com/erratic-c-programmer/PBA
Feedback:
- Duke Bones - 2021-12-29: The only problem I have with the Power is it kinda screws WF first up. Any lp is crippling
- Kaution - 2021-12-29: Makes a bo less viable imo which makes it less diverse and shouldn't be the case imho
- Gacius - 2021-12-29: I love [the changes]. Now every faction has identity, unit variety has been increased for all factions and Allies in late game feels awesome with MGG's, MRJ, Tanya and rest of the arsenal. Shockies and Flamers now will be seen even moree often and will be part of every soviet army
- .won - 2021-12-29: wf first is dead if we do these changes and removing camo Pills removes anyways to deal with arty, and your buffing t2
Camo Pillbox to England only (England can't build normal Pillbox), $700 (from $750), -30 power (from -20 power), reload speed 45 (from 30)
Flame Tower $700 (from $600), -30 power (from -20 power), reload delay 75 (from 65), burst delay 25 (from 20)
Parabombs to France only, requires Radar Dome (rather than Airfield), 4 minute charge time (from 5 minute)
- ZxGanon - 2022-01-01 we made france bombs take only 4 minutes to charge and its on dome tech. feels much better
Flamethrower to Ukraine only, requires Radar Dome (rather than Flame Tower), $250 (from $300), health 5000 (from 4000), vision 5 cells (from 4 cells), projectile speed 250 (from 170)
Feedback:
- .won - 2021-12-29: I think shockies should go back to t3 with a buff. they are kinda a trap unit in t2
- Unano - 2021-12-29: yea in general shockies suck. i guess there's prob a good way to use them, but its really hard
- Pun - 2021-12-29: RA already has a ton of trap units, i don't thing it's a problem
- Kaution - 2021-12-29: i watched ganons stream. shockies were just shooting HT, tickling it
- ZxGanon - 2021-12-29: I liked building up shockies in my army. they didnt feel broken and I also dont wanna see ppl succeeding with shockie only spam. just adding a few in the mix can be really nice and devastating
- ZxGanon - 2021-12-31: shockies might be too expensive or their heavy damage is too low. its either of those right now they just take up the slot of rocket soldiers
GPS global timer removed, global notification when launched, charge time 3 minutes (previously 4 minutes in BI 3.1), reveals for 30 seconds (previously 1 minute in BI 3.1)
- ZxGanon - 2021-01-29: the gps rework was overdue anyway since the current version is just boken. the 3 min 30 sec change is btw a specific decision. 1 minute was way too long and basically foces opposiing players to sit a around and do nothing while its active. while also 4 minute charge up time felt too long
Feedback:
- Unano - 2021-12-31: That gps is so cool
Feedback:
- Duke Bones - 2022-01-04: Besides the other changes, the prone change I love. You can actually retreat from engagements without losing 1/3 of your Infabtry
Based on BI 3.2, but without changes to Migs or GPS.
Phase Transport uncloaks on load as well as unload.
- TTTPPP - 2021-09-16: It would be another (small) nerf to the PT, but would hopefully make then less annoying
- SarahSicaria - 2021-09-16: I think its ok
- upps - 2021-09-16: I think thats fair, reduce the cloak time by a bit and im up for that.
- i like men - 2021-09-16: I'm okay with either. I do not think it will have an impact in 1vs1 but can see it being a good change for teamgames
- Spies disguised as Tanya now have the skull icon.
Remove mechanic and most of the husk changes (husks are still restored to 15% though). There were various views on this, but the main issue was that it allowed stealing an allied husk to gain double tech in team games.
- .won - 2021-08-16: Is there a way to stop the time out of a husk on cap starting? I tried to cap a husk and the timer just went to 0 so I couldn't
- SarahSicaria - 2021-08-24: 16 seconds would make it near impossible to capture any husk. thats way too long. even 8 seconds is a lot
- DVoid - 2021-10-01: but surely dealing with mechanics means destroying enemy mcv husks etc to prevent the enemy using a mechanic to bring it back. simple.
This avoid flame towers missing with their first shot.
Allies on T3 were previously incentivised to turtle for 8 minutes and then they got an almost game-breakingingly good support power. This aims to reduce the benefit of turtling, while still providing the option to deploy GPS to prepare for an attack.
Created by Pinkthoth.
- dang_shot - 2021-11-02: i think the gps tested in BI was good and a good compromise, but i understand punshos logic
- ZxGanon - 2021-11-02: I vote for the new and improved gps satelite. pretty good. makes allies interesting to play
- Bain - 2021-11-02: Yeah I like the idea of limiting the time for gps, but I still feel soviet late game is stronger then allies just due to the IC
- i like men - 2021-11-16: overall I think [8 min permanent GPS] has a at least in my opinion poor impact on the game as it makes it stall out when the gps gets up and essentially functions as a permanent maphack. I think I dislike the effect it has on the gameplay, so I like the idea of a more dynamic one. I also think it's we will get to see more gps usage with this change because it's pretty rare we get to see a gps survive long enough now
- moods - 2021-11-16 And ill chime in on gps.. the feature is kool too not have permenant... but the timer relly shud be low. Like every 2 mins it reveals for 30 secs or sumthing. Not this 4 minute shit. Cuz thats a huge nerf compared too 8 perma. And since chrono not working properly and IC is still super OP allies need that perma gps too have some leverage lategame
Against:
- DVoid - 2021-10-01: i dont think the gps should be changed either. the enemy can try to destroy the tech centre if they dont like being watched. i use soviets so my opinion on this is unbiased and not for my benefit in fact the opposite.
- Pun - 2021-11-02: I don't think it's a great solution tbh, I'd rather just remove gps from the game
By increasing the price we were pushing MTs closer to HTs. Reverting the small change to try to keep them distinct.
Add skull icon to make it slightly easier to snipe Tanya.
Created by Darkademic
- upps - 2021-01-12: Tanya is fine in general... A detection help like a hero symbol for everyone ingame in vision range would be helpful too.
- Blackened - 2021-09-07: idk if its been talked about but a commando icon would go a long way with nerfing tanya without actually nerfing her.
- Longely - 2021-09-07: yeah that is a great idea
- dang_shot - 2021-09-09: tanya is still strong i think. i have several games with nerfed tanya winning game for me
- Unano - 2021-09-22: Skull idea sounds interesting but i dont think it goes far enough personally. The problem isnt spotting tanya, its the fact that a t1.5 - early t2 blob cant get near her to even try to kill her before she kills so much. And the fact she can be churned out so easily to go again
Against:
- happy - 2021-09-09: thats one of the two parts that made tanya good, does this blob have tanya in? and can i get a snipe off before she kills me. which was easily achieved before adding an icon to her. but now as soon as you have vision yes tanyas there run ez
- Kaution - 2021-11-16: I dislike the skull.icon. She gets sniped so easy back yaks or bh now
Add second exit for slight improvement to left/right balance.
Iron Curtain - Fix hit box and selection box.
Initial release.
- Mechanics now take 16 seconds to capture husks and cost 400 (down from 500),
- Husks are restored with 15% health (down from 25%)
Mechanics were being built after husks appeared and were hardly ever used for repairing damaged tanks on the battlefield. The low risk for restoring husks could cause Allies to snowball. Conversely they were a risky unit to keep in a blob. More data supporting this change is given based on RAGL Season 10 data: https://forum.openra.net/viewtopic.php?p=313241#p313241
Slight nerf as MTs were performing slightly better than HTs.
Feedback:
- Blackened - 2022-04-17: I also don't know if the demo change is actually a good change but :person_shrugging:. Either way. I'm just not a huge fan of the hp decrease. Speed change was fine.
- Therapist - 2022-08-23: yes reduce the redius of demos. They can trade by blowing up 3 times it's initial blast radius away from itself. and kill off infantry. It's kind of ludicrous to be honest
Sniping Tanya had a very small impact because she could be rebuilt very quickly.
Feedback:
- happy - 2021-09-07 from what ive played so far she already seems nerfed enough
- .won - 2021-09-07 although i do agree with happy i think tanya is in a pretty good spot. especially in the BI
The aim is to make it easier to sweep a minefield.
The MGG generally acted as a reverse GPS - allowing the opponent to track a blob through the fog of war.
They now come from a single badger (down from 3), with health 40000 (up from 30000) and 10 bombs (up from 5) Each bomb has range 6c0 (up from 3c0), fall speed 50 (up from 40), spread 1000 (up from 768), damage vs none 40 (up from 30) and vs wood 60 (up from 30)
- Pun - 2021-09-13 as for parabombs, I just though it would be better if there was a clear way to dodge them, this change also nerfs map edge performance. The slow bombs weren't cutting it
Feedback:
- Pun - 2021-11-03: we've seen really good parabombs in goat vs kav
- ZxGanon - 2021-11-03: parabombs in kav vs goat looked fine
- dang_shot - 2021-11-03: i like the change a lot
- Duke Bones - 2021-11-03: I don’t mind the new parabo[mb]s but a wider area would be nice even if it’s not as wide as before. Most people don’t line their buildings up in such a neat row and the wider spread could hit more. I’d be fine if it were the same damage but spread out a little wider
- Pinkthoth - 2021-04-17: Parabombs is a free dmg support power that no other faction has, I think the 1 badger change is great.
Against:
- Unano - 2021-11-03: my opinion of the update is its far too easy to dodge
- Blackened - 2022-04-17: It's the parabombs from previous iterations I don't like. They got overnerfed
Against:
- Moods - 2021-09-24: Migs already take more babysitting then any unit. Your nerfing health which means you gotta be even more perfect with a unit that already requires perfection for 2000 a pop lol.. its jus gunna result in even less ppl making them... its already an exlusive unit only a few ppl use
Small buff to the dog attack, although it's expected they'll still mainly be used for vision.
Often missiles explode before reaching their target. By increasing the max range then players will have to be more careful not to fly near to SAM sites.
- memers.club - 2021-07-21: The SAM site is crap compared to all other options IMO
- .won - 2021-07-21: I also think currently the SAM is a bit shit, defs the worst of all AA options
- poop - 2021-07-21: i always thought sam sites fukin sucked
Against:
- Pun - 2021-07-21: SAM currently is ridiculously good, it just can't handle MiGs. Like the only reason you dont build them is because flaks are mobile and sams are not
Previously it was possible to hide a SAM site or missile silo behind the IC. The new footprint prevents this and also matches the Chronosphere.
For:
- goat - 2021-09-22: just here to say that i think the ic change is really good
- i like men - 2021-09-22: I thought the IC nerf was the best change actually hehe. Was not aware some were opposed to it
Against:
- SarahSicaria - 2021-09-21: Not sure why this is being nerfed, the IC is in a perfect spot imo. If the IC really must be nerfed, increasing the recharge time would be better, not decreasing the effect duration
- Major Kusanagi Motoko - 2021-09-21 +1. this suggestion makes more sense. The effect duration is already moderately short, while the cooldown of 2 mins is rather quick.
- Orb - 2021-10-11 The footprints are really important for nostalgia reasons. Like we had a pretty long discussion about changing the adv powerplant footprint in TD. I think you need a strong reason to change the footprint and the stated reasons I don't think justify it enough. I've never had an issue with people "hiding" things behind the IC
- Therapist - 2022-08-25: I think sarah is right about the ic. Lasts 500 ticks, slightly longer recharge time.
Modified production queue timings (except vehicles): 100, 86, 75, 67, 60, 55, 50 (rather than 100, 85, 75, 65, 60, 55, 50)
Included from RATL/S10 balance.
Included from RATL/S10 balance.
Included from RATL/S10 balance.
This is to fix a bug introduced in the release.
Some of the changes from BAIN 2.0 were included in the release. See https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/18236/files
Slightly smaller buff than BAIN 2.0.
This was the same as RATL balance, but without the changes to barracks, WF and production queues.
This was BAIN 2.0 but with some changes.
All production queue timings to 100, 83, 71, 63, 56, 50 (rather than 100, 85, 75, 65, 60, 55, 50 and 100, 75, 60, 50 for WF)
Feedback: https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/files/4740507/BAIN_FEEDBACK.pdf
This means the MRJ doesn't rush to the front of a blob.