A plan - Symmetrical vehicle combat -> Bringing back counters

Discussion in 'General' started by Tama, Jul 26, 2016.

  1. Avatarix

    Avatarix Member

    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So if this is sticked it means this will be happening for real? Or the topic is still open for discussion?
     
  2. Xyaminou

    Xyaminou Member

    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hell no
     
    Avatarix likes this.
  3. A-z-K

    A-z-K Member

    Messages:
    3,241
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the consensus is that people would rather keep the asymmetrical balance and spend another 6 years playing around changing values in the tech tree than have something which fixes heavy balance overnight because "the spirit of the game".

    :3
     
  4. VulcanStorm

    VulcanStorm Developer Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Probably so we don't get another suggestion thread like it. Since we already have one.
     
  5. Tama

    Tama Developer Staff Member Web Developer

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd still very much like to hear a coherent counter argument to the only important point I was trying to make; "Both heavies should have the same slot loadouts, because that will open up more tactics for both teams and allow more diverse gameplay". Most of the counter responses in this thread are about unimportant other stuff, or just say "hell no" - what am I supposed to do with that, as feedback? It doesn't tell you why someone disagrees - it doesn't even make it clear that the person has read and understands what you're suggesting.

    The strategy limiting problem has been painfully obvious to me throughout the years I've played, and I'm vexed as to why we haven't fixed it yet.
     
    A-z-K likes this.
  6. Tama

    Tama Developer Staff Member Web Developer

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What do you mean exactly? So, you agree with other changes, completely unrelated to this post? Or you agree to the core of "same slot loadouts", but you don't want to make removing asymmetry a goal itself? Or somewhere in between? Really, I just want your opinion on "Both heavies get the same slot loadouts".
     
  7. Tama

    Tama Developer Staff Member Web Developer

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Could you be a little more specific, about why giving both heavies the same slot loadouts would "ruin the game" be "the worst suggestion ever" etc etc.
    You've spent a lot of words on making it clear how you feel, but not why. In particular, I agree with you absolutely, that Empires is about an ever revolving set of counters, and the strategy limiting problem shows why symmetrical slot loadouts would lead to more of that, and less locking down into research paths by faction. So please explain why I am wrong and what I have misunderstood.
     
    A-z-K likes this.
  8. Xyaminou

    Xyaminou Member

    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Same reason the re-make of slaughtered cannot be called Slaughtered, if you modify the very basics of the gameplay then it's not the same game anymore.
    And symmetricality is the laziest way of balancing something.
     
  9. Tama

    Tama Developer Staff Member Web Developer

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your first point is that changing Empires changes Empires. I agree.
    Your second point doesn't have any bearing on what I said. Balancing is not my main point; it's solving the strategy limiting problem. However, I do agree that symmetricality makes balancing easier. Although Empires doesn't need to be fair to be fun, so, like I said, this has no bearing on my suggestion.

    So what do you think of both heavies having the same slots?
     
  10. Xyaminou

    Xyaminou Member

    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It will not solve the "strategy limiting problem" at all.

    Long story short, taking the example from Real Time Strategy games, you usually have 2 options when playing competitively. Oversimplifying, of course.
    Defensive: bolster you economy and hope to survive until you reach the point where you can mount a proper counter-attack
    Offensive: rush and hope to kill your opponent before he reaches his counter-attack point.
    (not mentioning all the counter strategies and whatnots, they always fall under Defensive or Agressive)

    Empires however, only has one type of Strategy, Offense.
    There is no economic research, and even if the "recent" add of vehicle recycling provides a chance to mount a counter-offensive, with experienced and balanced teams, turtling will always result in loss.

    Again, this is an oversimplification of Strategy in most RTS, I don't feel like writing an essay.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2016
  11. Tama

    Tama Developer Staff Member Web Developer

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why not?

    This is the strategy limiting problem, as applied to Empiresmod:
    NF only has one cannon slot for its heavies. Therefore, it is unwise to research railguns as your main or first heavy weapon as NF. This means that BE does not need to research good counters to railguns; assuming that would be absorbant armour, BE decision not to research arbsorbant will lead to NF not needing to counter that in turn. Each of these decisions bubbles back to the other team and causes increasingly small sets of strategies to choose from.

    How does the problem persist after giving both teams' heavies the same slots?

    Can you think of anything that would solve the strategy limiting problem?
     
  12. Xyaminou

    Xyaminou Member

    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're focusing too much on Weapons/Armor/Engines and not enough on what to do with them. Empires' research are VERY basic, no matter what you do with them.
    The Strategy part in Empires is no so much about what to research, but more about what to do with your troops, this is how a good commander makes a difference. And in that aspect there has never been a shortage of strategy.
     
  13. Tama

    Tama Developer Staff Member Web Developer

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You make a very good point; it is most certainly more about what to tell your troops. And I agree that Empiresmod is lacking a lot in terms of choice between economy and military for the commander (I'd like to begin a new topic about that).

    But I still think that the strategy limiting problem stands in the way of weapon / armour counters. In fact, I'd say that after ten years of balancing the game without addressing that issue, we've made the counters virtually non-existent in the process. If you brought back hard counters, the strategy limiting problem would be much more pronounced.

    (in fact, I think that if you brought in a feedback system to show the damage dealt with each weapon, people would get more grip on the counter system and that alone would make the strategy limiting problem more pronounced, because people would actually know better how to counter things)
     
    BlackRedDead likes this.
  14. BlackRedDead

    BlackRedDead Member

    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    at least i think that BE needs to get a second ML because that was always the biggest issue - rocket spamming NF tanks, especially nuke's - you can reach double the firerate with NF wich means that you can siege a base at the same effectivity with 1 NF hvy where you need 2 BE hvys for! (with nukes, idk BE double CN builds that have the same DPM potential or maybe even more)

    the second thing is that NF tanks actually have 2 MG guns on theire model, while at the actually balancing that can't stand out a double CN barreled & double ML tubed BE hvy (though its also very weightexpensive if not impossible to do!)
    it could be still an interesting element to allow NF to carry 2 different MG's on theire hvy's^^
    (again, i thing we should concentrate on the poor balancing of vehicles and theire equip first - then we can mind about equip possibilitys and if they need a change)

    i personally disagree in just synching equip slots, hvy's are the MBT of the factions that reflect theire faction specific combat philosophy - also we just need to finally balance the equip better! ;-)
    (weight and DPM should be coherent! - why not DPS? - because it doesn't cover reload times!)

    we can synch the meds to give some "fair ground" to play on (atm NF meds can have 1 more armor and also have more weight space!)

    but if you really want to synch hvy's you should also synch infantry and remove/add that damn shotgun pistol&fully automatic sidearm and other infantry weapons to be consequent ;-)
    (to be clear, i do not suggest that! - asynch gameplay is an essential empires feature and already got lowered much and often enough - while synching research was indeed a good idea in the end that also make balancing easyer when both factions can use the same weapons!)
     
  15. BlackRedDead

    BlackRedDead Member

    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i thought about counters too while i learning the actual balancing and changing it to my liking (to get a feel and test how things work)
    with making 1 armor resistent to 1 damage type like reactive to explosive or regenerative to bio or deflective against plasma (if there would be such a damage type)
    but then we have a major issue - how to identify them on the battlefield? - i mean yea after some time you get the fact that you (nearly) can't harm your opponent - but then he might already shoot you to death!
    1 idea would be a sound enviroment, theres the option to attach sounds to hits - but thats more for the driver of said tank and no indicator for the attacker :-/
    another idea is a visual hitmarker that changes from armor to armor - deflective can display ricochets, reactive explosions, regenerative maybe a green cloud, ...
    the question is just if that is possible?
     
  16. Xyaminou

    Xyaminou Member

    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't agree that there is an issue with balance, especially not between NF and BE. So can't help you there.
     
  17. A-z-K

    A-z-K Member

    Messages:
    3,241
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't see it that way, there are still places for asymetrics between the factions -
    • in infantry weaponry
    • in the fact that one jeep loads 2 & the other 4
    • one team having a 2nd seat on APCs that can be used to throw grenades, the other doesn't
    • the size of the chassis - countered by the number of plates they have
    But I think that fundamentally having a tank that can load twice as many of something does very much limit how you can design that weapon. It is compounded by the fact that not every tree has a GL, MG, end game CN & end game ML. At one point heat was a valid way to make sense of all this but that has been nerfed as a blancing tool, likewise for cost.

    I get that people are very much attached to the NF = ML & BE = CN meta, as it has defined the game for so long, but that doesn't mean that it is has merit on that basis alone.

    I do think that if slots were leveled weapon design would at least be more open to imagination, there would be no fear of pushing script changes more frequently because they would not potentially make one faction OP. Weapons could become more unique & niche, more powerful or satisfying to use. As it stands any decision to change a vehicle cannon or missile must be tempered with the forethought of how it will stack when you can load twice as many of them - this is particularly concerning for high burst-dps type weapons (salvo, salvo homing, HIT, etc) because on the one hand you have to prevent 2 of them from insta-gibbing an enemy tank which in turn is really going to limit them down.

    Particularly with 3 slot weapons it ends up with them not feeling particularly impressive.
    Just look at Rails - a 3 slot cannon that doesn't feel any better that a 2 slot cannon, haven't seen it researched in forever.
    Or Nukes, as I understand it you now can let off 2 of them on a NF heavy? & make what you want of that, but for a long time before that it was balanced using heat so it was impossible, effectively making it so that both teams (when mounting HIT missiles) functioned the same anyway as having the same number of ML slots. ​

    Ultimately what we have currently has never really worked great. We've been close (depending on how critical you are and how rose tinted your glasses are) and definitely had some great ideas but it has always been a matter of one set of problems for another.
    As I respect Security I don't think he's going to magically do what several others over several years haven't - Namely offer us the (soft or hard) counter based tech tree that makes commanding decisions interesting and games varied whilst also preserving balance for both teams right the way into the end-game.

    The thought that Heavies should get more similar in load out options won't ruin the game, it won't change it entirely or make it unrecognisable. But by all means explain why it will if you can.

    I think Tama asks a reasonable question as to exactly Why people oppose it beyond their personal preference for asymmetry.
    I personally prefer asymmetrical balance too - But I just don't think that it works well here. I love playing NS2 for that reason, for example - but the tech tree is so much more linear & the asymmetrical elements are baked into the classes moreso than the tech upgrades. It is a type of more manageable asymmetry, end-game Exosuits for example have only 1 or 2 configurations.

    To me the reason "that is how the game has always been & I like the game how it is" isn't really a good arguement or an arguement at all - it is just a subjective feeling. The factions would still be very different and you could even look at diverging them in other ways outside of weapons that have less chaotic interactions - maybe having unique research for each faction (not sure if possible), crew slots, different weight/heat/engine characteristics, etc.

    Finally I think the main thing people look past is the utility of weapons. Missiles have so many different mechanics compared to Cannons.
     
    BlackRedDead likes this.
  18. BlackRedDead

    BlackRedDead Member

    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    lol... please just go into the scripts and compare just the faction meds to eachother ;-)
    NF med can attach 1 more armor and has much more weight to use!
    also notable ingame, just equip an NF med with 4 layers of armor and the same weaponary where you normaly need to remove 1 layer at BE ;-)
     
  19. Xyaminou

    Xyaminou Member

    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who gives a shit about the scripts, this is fucking catface all over again. I'm talking about actual in-game balance not scripts pretend balance. Put 2 people of equal skill in an NF and BE meds and it will end up in 50/50.
    Once again you have no idea what you're talking about and you fail to see the big pictures.
    Please don't reply to my posts anymore.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2016

Share This Page