Doc rabbit already made a dual turret for nf heavy, just need a single barrel for be. Honestly isn't bad to do that, make both chassis types available to research. I am kinda on the opinion that we can have a 90% balance with our current asymmetrical teams, 100% probably not because how certain maps end up favoring certain weapons, but considering the number of maps that favor one side that doesn't feel like a huge deal. Still, I'd like to see both chassis types available for research, real easy to do with just scripts too.
How would that work in the research way? Or how would it be useful to research single cannon chassis? By having 2 mls with single cannon and having 1 ml while dual cannon for both sides? Or some shorter way to single cannon heavies and then longer for dual? Or just simply giving the player the choice of using either dual or not, while only making one research? (I guess not) Anyway interesting ideas along with the A-z-Ks post Even though I "usually" like to have noticable differences between teams. I guess you could then make those differences rather more in the types of weapons each team researched, not just the missile/cannon team dis/advantages, which are forced on teams and would also give some other choices for commander, depending on how it would be implemented. ...I guess giving the option to either have 2 cannons but 1 missile or vice-versa would not work as good, as eventually it would make teams focus on either cannons or missiles somewhat randomly. How do you see it?
Actually, something possibly neat is if it had the prerequisite system. Basically get 2 missiles to unlock dual missile heavy or get 2 cannons to unlock dual cannon heavy, with maybe a heavy with just one missile and one cannon a basic heavy that needs no further research. The only problem with that is I don't know if it supported some OR operator, and the last time I talked to candles about research this apparently does exist but is commented out of the code for some reason.
You mean research either 2 different cannons or 2 different missiles? Or rather something like separate research for each weapon where there would be single or dual options (or just 2 same time)? Iam just not sure why would you need to research 2 different weapons, to for example put 2 cannons of the same kind on the tank. Unless the second weapon would be some kind of progression weapon? (EDIT: Or I guess different weapon and dual weapon, could be progression enough..it still seems tiny bit odd to me though) Or I guess, lets say I would get HE and have single cannon and then get Rails and get dual cannons? Or I could just get HE and then get ranged? And I somewhat have a feeling that both teams would mostly go for cannons anyway, but not sure here. ( I guess I would )
Like get ranged then cannon or plasma or whatever. I guess you don't need that, probably would make more sense if we had tiered weapon research, like ranged tier 1 then 2 then 3, and you'd need tier 3 to unlock the dual heavy. I think I was thinking more of missiles, I know I usually end up getting at least 2 missiles. My thought was getting a second weapon made that intuitive sense that everyone likes to talk about, getting more missiles for a tank that holds more missiles, but that might make more sense if we limited weapons to one type a tank, meaning you couldn't have dual ranged, you'd need a second weapon to fill that second slot. Not that I would advocate that, that really just limits choices. All that said though considering we can't do prerequisite research atm I would simply see it being after advanced chassis you'd see 2 heavy tanks available for research, dual canons or dual missiles. Same time to get either one, 3 minutes. I feel like I can see why you bring it up though, as you say one type is more likely to get researched. I guess it was to place more power of decision on the commander, if you researched just one thing and got both types that places power on the player.
I see how it could better work with missiles, like getting BIO and UML for example. It wouldnt feel as useless as getting a cannon you might not even want to use, or something in that way. But yeah, the choice of research between dual cannon or dual missile heavy seems more fine, I would say. Anyway, I would definitely like to see this in action, even just to test it out. Even if it was just dual cannons every time. It would be interesting even just to see how things would go if both teams had dual cannons, or just dual missiles. What armors would they get and what weapons and how would it all look :D Even how good the asymmetry seems, it definitely complicates things balance-wise. Especially when there is such situational difference between the two, as A-z-K nicely described. Its a nice thing, but it might not be as nice as it seems EDIT: Iam just thinking if both teams would then rather in majority go the same weapons/armor path if they would both go dual cannons/missiles or there would be differences...or how to make them not to go too similar paths every time. As asymmetry indeed does exactly that.
I think the decision should always come down to the commander & shouldn't rely on stacking particular research/prerequisites, becuase the tech tree is complicated enough already. However you could nest the research for additional hard points like Lazybum says - I think that would probably be my preference. So both teams first reach heavy chassis with 1xcannon & 1xML, then from there choose either an additional ML or Cannon hard point. I don't really see a situation where you would even want a tank with 2xcannon and 2xML so I would think it should be possible to research both But only build one or the other. As I said, asymetry is a nice part of the game I wouldn't want to do away with, but this solution would allow (to some extent) to keep that element but also allows freedom to choose which side of the fence a faction wishes to sit on. Then things can be balanced more homogeniosly. It would spice things up in game by adding another pivotal research decision. I think this has one other major benefit to balancing - more freedom for script changes because both teams will have the same advantages. Things will find a natural balance and even if one particular weapon is favoured, it will not colour the outcomes of a match. Therefore script changes could be more frequent and less tested without fear of "breaking" the game - players would simply adapt and one path will become the defacto standard and it could then be addressed.
I forgot Doc had done that but I do remember seeing it. Wasn't sure if it was in a finished/useable state. I agree that on paper we can get things very close to balanced, but I don't think it can be done purely on a spreadsheet & the amount of play testing available is pretty small. Ultimately I don't see how any changes can be quantified until they are committed and used for a couple of weeks.
I moved this thread to suggestions since it is all about how to fix the imbalance of heavies. My opinion is that, even if we can reach a 90% balance with heavies as they are, it makes the balance easy to break with future script updates. We should have, after the heavy research, one research for Dual Missile Heavy and one for Dual Cannon Heavy, with corresponding models to match. This has the added bonus that the commander has another meaningful tactical choice to make.
Conversely, making both "dual heavy" types available to both teams means the game will be very robust if we, for example, push through a script change that changes resists or damage values that end up somehow making missiles or cannons better than the other. It means the game will go on, with good commanders picking the correct type until the issue is rebalanced.
Gents - all I'm asking for is a +30 weight improvement for BE. Then see how that stacks up. And Security, if you "feel" no difference between NF and BE - you sir are the only one. I DO NOT want NF and BE to be equal, and much of the changes to this game have been moving in that direction. The more variables we have on the vehicles, the easier it is to make them balanced and provide each team unique benefits and drawbacks. Removing or making useless features, like heat, limits your options. Seems everything is nerfed - speed, heat, armor, weapons. Creeper had to buff HE canon to address the known issues with it being almost useless, and he has improved BE's ability to counter NF's ML's.
It's better to nerf nf so infantry don't have such a horrible time. It's still going to be bad, but just a teeny tiny bit better. Edit: someone pointed out that im kinda ambiguous here, what i mean is that lowering nf's weight is better then raising be's weight because giving be more armor hurts infantry more i feel then help balance heavy tank balance, while lowering nf's weight means less weapons or armor which is both good for infantry. How did creeper buff he though?
I only heard Creeper say he buffed HE to resolve the issue. I will ask him for details next time we're on. The reason I ask for raising of BE's ability to carry more weight is they are 30 away from a decent secondary weapon. Dual HE Canon + BIO ML, or to add another sheet of armor. NF has +2 sheets of armor, dual UML, and a canon over BE. I'd rather they keep that armor and weapons and let BE be a bit stronger and slightly longer tanks battles than to weaken NF. Note to get this right it will take a few iterations and analysis between each iteration. Hopefully not just randomize everything again and see where we stand. BE can be very decent vs NF if they outnumber NF and at close range. We played Gauntlet last night, some very decent players on NF and had HE Pew Pew, Guided and Nukes vs HE Canon. BE obliterated our every tank , removed our early lead from middle, took out all of our refineries but one. I learned they did this due to their positioning themselves four abreast and banging on one tank at a time killing them in seconds. I was tipping my hat until I realized that setup was pure luck. We slowly got tanks out one at a time over 30 minutes. We stayed together and shot mostly from distance. UML+BIO was very decent with HE Pew Pew at range. BE sucks at a distance due to the arc. They didn't stay together or rush, so we dominated them. A good game was had by most. I also learned the way to use Reflective and how to combat against Reflective most effectively.
