Empires 2.23 Released

Discussion in 'News' started by Kylegar, Mar 14, 2009.

  1. -Mayama-

    -Mayama- MANLY MAN BITCH

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If infantry should support tanks than why can I produce
    a flood of tanks and make infantry obsolete. Tanks give
    a single player to much firepower without a weakness.
    Tanks are rambos. Empires calls itself a teamgame but
    I can eradicate a whole squad or more with a single tank
    easily. That means the teamplayers lose against a single
    rambo in a tank. TANKS DONT NEED SUPPORT, TANKS
    ARE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE TEAMPLAY ELEMENTS OF EMPIRES.

    A engi driving a tank that survives a mine is almost immortal,
    same for a gren if he has a repair pad.
     
  2. [PRKL] Werihukka

    [PRKL] Werihukka Member

    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Couldn't agree more. This summarizes my thoughts well, too.

    In the previous version, infantry could actually support tanks. In 2.23, if you have a tank, you don't need any infantry support.
     
  3. Private Sandbag

    Private Sandbag Member

    Messages:
    7,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well hold on for a second. firstly, I've been at university for the past 8 weeks and only got back on friday, and I spent most of saturday sleeping off an epic sleep deprivation. I'm aware that i'm a tester, but I can't test at uni simply because I don't have a computer that can run empires at uni, nor the time.

    now, I'd like to address one of the points.

    firstly, addressing the infantry-tank balance. "If its an infantry game, why even have tanks?" is a rather polar and silly statement, trying to imply that changing the balance of infantry-tank power would make tanks obsolete and pointless. clearly this is fubar.

    however, it's not so damaging as the horrible idea that because tanks cost res and infantry don't, that tanks deserve to dominate infantry of all aspects. I hope that at least testers understand why this is silly, and that the developers have a firm grip on why it's a terrible idea. resources simply correspond to holding of terrain for a period of time. they are there to benefit the team which holds terrain with tanks and structures. so far so obvious. the team which holds territory for a longer period of time deserves to be able to field more tanks. The problem is then that people leap from this, to "tanks deserve to anihilate all other classes". An easy way to picture this is simply to look at tanks as the 5th class, one faster, stronger by far, invincible to small arms, able to repair himself in seconds, and able to do more damage. holding a larger segment of the map should give you these, sure, but the idea that you should be able to dominate the other four classes just because you hold a greater portion o the map is wrong. put even simpler, so people can really grasp this. imagine if, on a 5 point map of TF2, you got "res" for holding the middle point. this res could be spent on a new 10th class, the superheavy, which fires rockets out of its minigun. you're saying "the superheavy costs res and the others don't. it deserves to anihilate all other classes" and i'm saying "the other classes should have a role to play and the superheavy should require support and teamwork to ruin the other team, not just getting as many superheavys as you can and marching in"

    other problems with the game becoming tank dominated, such that tanks being the only thing capable of destroying other tanks, is that it means that the infantry have but a bit part in the larger game of "who can amass the most tanks". This means that while the tanks are doing the actual work, the infantry, which will generally be many players on the server, run around the edges and generally become more marginalised and useless as the game progresses and tanks become more powerful. I'm sure this is something we've all experienced, the point where without a tank you are next to useless.

    by the way, tanks transporting infantry IS tanks supporting infantry. that is essentially tanks improving the mobility of the infantry. I'm not even looking for tanks supporting infantry or the other way around though, I'm looking for a game where they each support each other.

    this domination by the team which has the most tanks because they have the most territory is the main factor that has lead to the "slippery slope" gameplay of empires, where the losing team has no chance of a come back because they have to field more infantry than the other team.

    in summation, I think that a game where infantry and tanks complment eachother would be more fun.

    we can discuss spawns and the way that increasing the armour of the CV makes the CV assaults you describe much much less likely to succeed another time, It would be frankly rude of me to reply here and give you the compulsion to reply to that as well.

    and come on, we're adults here i hope. but, "common sense beats biased opinion again!" is not something i'd expect from an adult. what you meant to say was "I believe my subjective design philosophy would lead to better games than yours", right?
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2009
  4. Roflcopter Rego

    Roflcopter Rego Member

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believed that infantry to tank balance was being addressed. If it isn't, well, there is no one who believes that infantry don't need a buff against tanks here, so you should do it. All that is needed is a quite considerable buff to the RPGs (mortar is fine, shouldn't be anti-tank anyway).

    expensive rax is just another gameplay point. The only negative is when it cripples the start game, which apparently is being addressed. APC spawns ftw.

    MKIIs need 2 things to balance them: similar LT and AFV models and bio cannons/plasma missile (or something to bring equalibrium to the 2). Both are on the to-do list that really needs to-doing.
     
  5. Jonat

    Jonat Member

    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps the farfetched concept was, that tanks were the primary damage dealers and infantry were the additional support (ie, rpg's firing with main damage from tanks, to help get that target down faster.).

    But now we're talking pokemon, aren't we?

    When it boils down to gameplay, the majority of the time it's infantry on vehicles, unless it's one of those rare games where both sides are fairly well matched with vehicles on both sides. So why decapitate the last ditch defense? You've had a crummy com so far, the enemy are rolling on your last rax, resources are stretched already.

    Whereas in 2.21/2.22 you might've been able to hold on, maybe even eventually push back if your team was good, in 2.23 it seems designed at whoever can field the most armour at anyone time.
     
  6. -Mayama-

    -Mayama- MANLY MAN BITCH

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The major reason why tank fights and tank versus infantry
    combat is so stupid is: Tanks dont have weak spots. Infantry
    can be flanked or outsmarted and will die fast and easily.
    A tank player doesnt need to be carefull. If you would make it
    possible that a tank could die with 1-3 hits, you wont see tanks
    ramming each other and tanks running amok in enemy territory anymore.
     
  7. McGyver

    McGyver Experimental Pedagogue

    Messages:
    6,533
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When did you need infantry support when having a tank (with armor/engine) in 2.22?
     
  8. [PRKL] Werihukka

    [PRKL] Werihukka Member

    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Early in the game and in non-commander maps. Also, latter squads could even destroy heavy tanks with good teamwork. For example, rail heavies can't do much about infantry, and thus need infantry support. Also tanks could support infantry. Now infantry need more tanks to encounter tanks. Artillery tanks could use infantry support when other tanks had something else to do and so on... The list of situations is endless.

    There are many different situations where tanks could use infantry support. If you haven't played enough to see that, you haven't played very much. Also, I was talking in general, not only when you have all the armor, engines and chassises.
     
  9. dizzyone

    dizzyone I've been drinking, heavily

    Messages:
    5,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Don't start thinking I hate your guts, I just hate it when people start putting words into my mouth and write out shit without thinking about what kind of message they actually want to convey. If you just want to throw down one liners, then just throw down one liners, about how much this patch sucks, how much I suck etc. Don't use big words in long posts, if all you wanted to say is that you're bored at uni and need to show people what a spiritual guy you really are.

    If you actually have a point, then at least spend the time on working it out, I'm not saying that the above paragraph is true to you, in fact, you might actually have a real point to make. But how do you know I'm not aware of said point? The last thing you want to do is pretend I am not aware of it and claim how wrong I was, while having an argument that is as stable as a skyscraper made out of pink jelly.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2009
  10. Aquillion

    Aquillion Member

    Messages:
    1,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Um...

    I disagree. Tanks are central to the gameplay of Empires. Empires is, fundamentally, a tank combat game. The reason people fight over resources is so they can roll out new tanks. Almost all the game's research relates to tanks. If tanks were not central to the game, then res nodes would be unimportant, too.

    Tanks should require infantry support. The problem is, right now they don't, and an Engineer driving a tank can support themselves for everything they need. Tanks should have weak spots that they need infantry to cover.

    Some things work. I like stickies. The idea is, then, that a tank needs people to 'watch its back' so a rifleman can't just run up to it and sticky it. I think that that's a good gameplay element.

    But no, grenadiers shouldn't just be able to charge at a tank screaming "YEAAAARGH" at the top of their lungs and kill it in a 1-on-1 duel in open terrain. That's stupid. Tanks cost large amounts of res, and represent the effort of the whole team to roll out.

    Infantry should be able to set up ambushes and so forth, or should be able to harass and snipe at tanks from cover, and tanks should require their own infantry for cover, to rush enclosed areas where tanks are (or, should be) vulnerable and flush enemy infantry out.

    Splash damage should be weaker against infantry. Right now, cover is so useless to infantry that they can't use it to get an advantage against tanks. Cover is the main advantage that infantry has over tanks, and should not be easy to negate. We need more maps that make good use of cover and terrain that favors infantry. For that to work, though, there will also have to be fewer cover-negating weapons, and existing weapons that negate cover will have to be weakened.
     
  11. Ikalx

    Ikalx Member

    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Need faster RPG's...I can just about handle the damage they're doing, if I can get almost every missile on target, it also helps keep infantry out from under the tanks if they can shoot from further off. Sure, they ain't doing a great deal of damage, but at least they don't have to close the distance and duke it out close up.

    I understand though, that that may create rocket sniping problems again.
     
  12. Private Sandbag

    Private Sandbag Member

    Messages:
    7,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    anybody else think that just about everything dizzyone said in that last post was BS?

    for a start, the infantry tank balance and the current domination of infantry by tanks are the same thing. i don't need to put words into your mouth about how the game is increasing the domination of tanks, i can read the changelog. +20% tank armour across the board.

    of course i need to speak in general, you don't seem to understand the basics, so i need to go back to basics.

    If you don't understand the "slippery slope" arguement, read it again and perhaps think about it for a minute if you still don't understand. It's very simple.

    treat people without respect and you don't get respected.
     
  13. Aquillion

    Aquillion Member

    Messages:
    1,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Honestly, IMHO rocket sniping is a good thing against tanks. Tanks should have weakpoints. One of those is that they're big obvious targets.

    Rocket-sniping against structures is bad because it's pretty dull for both the person doing it and the team targeted by it. Regular-sniping against infantry is dull because infantry dies in one hit (and because, ultimately, something so infantry-focused and slow doesn't work in a tank-heavy game.) Rocket-sniping against tanks, though, is exciting, because the tank can dodge and move and fight back, and is probably going to be rushing the infantry position, or moving to a position from which they can aim at you, or whatever.

    Of course, it might be necessary to make it even more firmly established that RPGs are no good against infantry and structures (right now their slow speed keeps them from being used to snipe infantry at range -- if they were sped up, their damage to infantry might have to be tweaked instead.)

    I think what he means is that they intend to buff infantry weapons next, by even more than the tank armor... that was always the plan, balance out armor against other armor, so it's easier to balance infantry weapons against the new armor. They just haven't gotten to the second part yet.
     
  14. -Mayama-

    -Mayama- MANLY MAN BITCH

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never said that it doesnt need teamwork to get tanks, I said
    tanks are counterproductive to teamwork. A tank can easily kill
    5 people of the enemy team, that is in an big game 25% of the players.

    Its a game so why make it so that everyone that doesnt want to
    drive a tank is beeing only a supernumerary. Tanks should give you
    a small bonus not making 50% of the fps game (infantry) obsolete.
     
  15. blizzerd

    blizzerd Member

    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    fact is that in empiresmod, the tanks are just "upgraded/specialised infantry"

    sometimes an infantry can go to a war factory and buy a tank, thus upgrading his fighting abilities in a way, but handicapping the team resource pool for a certain amount of money

    additionally i've never seen a big tank war where there is not a single infantryman running about in between his group of friendly tanks placing ammo boxes or repairing his tanks, or even rifling off enemy engineers doing the before or just doing other supportive things

    the most successful armies are the ones that balance boots and armor in a way that they complement each other the best the cheapest way, enough engineers to keep the wheels rolling, and the guns firing, enough grenadiers to create enough decoys so the enemy tanks dont know what to fire at first, the gren getting dangerously close with mines and rpg, or the enemy tank shelling there front and enough riflemen to prevent the enemy from doing the same

    and a scout or 2 to go sappin there base while they are busy fighting
     
  16. Drag

    Drag Member

    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Easy solution, make grenadier or rifleman or scout tank driver A LOT better fighters than engineers. Give them proper class skills to take. Gren armor detection already is nice, but there need to be more substantial bonusses imo.
     
  17. -Mayama-

    -Mayama- MANLY MAN BITCH

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Making it so engineers can only repair their tanks close to a repair pad or even
    implement a small version of the repair pad which only purpose it is that engi's
    can repair tanks close to it would be a good start.
     
  18. dizzyone

    dizzyone I've been drinking, heavily

    Messages:
    5,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's get this straight, I don't give 2 shits about whether you respect me. I don't give a flying fuck whether you expect me to talk like an adult. I do this in my spare time and I don't intend to listen to your dumbass rants based on nothing and I don't intend to kiss your scroungy ass.

    Go do some research and stop talking out of your ass.

    You haven't counter argued any of my points made, in fact I didn't say I didn't understand your generalization of about a couple hundred game mechanics , I said it was a shallow assessment and that you could as well be describing a general RTS game. Saying something vague like the whole infantry support tank thing and expecting me to give you real examples only works once, after that it's obvious that you're just expecting others to figure it out and being a total douche that can't word any issues properly, instead generalizes and attacks someone's intelligence. NO, GET, THE, FUCK, OUT.

    Calling me bullshit? So you're saying that I didn't add +20 armor to the changelog?

    Your arguments are a joke.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2009
  19. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can't base a game around infantry if it's got tanks in it unless you make tanks as weak as infantry, and you can't do that if you make the tanks cost money.

    You could make it so that a tank will help infantry, the BF2142 goliath does that, as does the UT leviathan, but that is a bit limited in how much fun it can be.

    The only real way you could get infantry to be important in empires is by making them advantageous in some areas, but even that is a bit difficult, although it would be possible I think with a lot of coding and mapping and a substantial redesign to the way empires works, adding some new features and the like.

    Empires is a tank game, and it does tanking pretty well, the game will naturally progress from infantry to tanks as the round unfolds.

    I prefer infantry to tanks, but I recognise that there really isn't a way to make them both plausible all the time, and I'd rather the game have both than only have infantry.
     
  20. Mr. Weedy

    Mr. Weedy I will report bugs on the bug tracker

    Messages:
    2,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To make this sentence even more simple, the thing should be that the losing team's infantry only army should be as powerful as army of the winning team's tanks only army.

    Meaning that 2-3 grenadiers could take down medium tanks IF the opponent team had ONLY TANKS. Not the way it is now, the one team which has ONLY TANKS ONLY WINS.

    This would make the gameplay a lot more balanced, it won't be quaranteed that the team which has more territory, hence more res, hence more tanks would win the game. The team which can't affort the tanks because they have less territory and because they have less res, should still be able to defend themselves against masses of tanks.

    Currently the balance just utterly favors the team which has more territory, hence more resources, hence more tanks. It shouldn't be about the territory, resources and tanks. It should be about 2-3 grenadiers beat one tank, it should be x amount of infantry can beat y amount of tanks. Of course the balance shouldn't be around 20:1 as it is now. More like 2-3:1.


    And just to remind, the good solution isn't always to buff something. I have very often seen posts which only say buff this buff that. This just finally ends in bigger numbers. If we buff infantry weapons against tanks INSTEAD OF REDUCING THE ARMOR VALUES infantry will become superior against buildings. What happens then? We BUFF building HP and so on and so on.

    Edit: Dizzyone if you actually are trying to improve the balance of this game, read the text, take the central messages from them and ignore emotions in the messages. That would be what I would do if I were in your position and Private Sandbag has a lot of good points. Now it just seems that because you are attacked because your failure in balancing you are defending your failed balances even more.

    I see the situation like that instead of you trying to understand their points, examining the game data, gameplay happening in game and the wins and losses of each faction map after map and last but most importantly, understanding where you went wrong AND ADMITTING IT AND FIXING YOUR ERROR ON NEXT RELEASE. And not fix it by actually grapping to the actualy problem but changing everything around it so that the actual problem works then fine but the rest doesn't.

    Edit II: And Dizzyone, if you don't like doing the balances and scripts on your free time give me a shot. I'll try to do them on my free time. When you are a developer you have to listen to players who play the game, no matter how emotional their messages are or not. If you don't listen to players who play the game and assume that you know the best how the games go and base your changes on those thoughts it will only go to worse making more people angry, making people post more emotional messages and leave for other mods.


    A developer without players for his mod won't lead anywhere, a mod without a developer/developers won't lead to anywhere either.

    To loosely quote Immanuel Kant.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2009

Share This Page