13 issues compiled from competitive and top player insight

User avatar
triumph
Major
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2011 20:12
Contact:

13 issues compiled from competitive and top player insight

Postby triumph » Fri 6 Jun 2014 13:38

Over the last month I have compiled a set of issues that many top players and teams (Such as Nu, PLF and that jerk Mystic) have with W:RD. We love the game but these issues leave a lot to be desired. There is a distinct lack of unit variety with certain choices eclipsing others in a similar tier and there are types of units that are simply not picked because they are not effective in any way. Then there is the map pool which could be easily expanded to offer enough variety at any player count for the game to feel fresh.

Players involved and spoken with on TS:
Spoiler : :
Mystic
Random
Bash
Fussel
Bubba
Partizaan
Integ3r
Hartmann
SirScorpion
TheChivalrousOne
Johnny
Macky

Scroll to the end to find info about me, who I play with and against in a replay pack.

Here are 13 main issues about the game state with some suggestions where the dead horse has not been beaten because there are enough tank threads already:

Maps
Spoiler : :
1. Map points/settings issue. A map like nuclear winter cannot be played for a competitive 3v3 or 4v4 even though many maps are proven to be worthy of a large player count in beta. Implementing these changes will allow for more maps to be used in competitive play while respecting the Eugen vision ergo avoiding clown gaming.

    Nuclear winter from 1v1 to 2v2 so it can be played as 3v3
    Tropic thunder from 1v1 to 2v2 so it can be played as 3v3
    Hop and glory from 2v2 to 3v3 so it can be played as 4v4
    Tough Jungle from 2v2 to 3v3 so it can be played as 4v4


1a. Map imbalance issues. While it’s rare to see maps obtain added terrain features the zone balance on many maps could be tested for opening game fairness and the time it takes from reinforcement point to get to a naturally contested zone. 750 and 1000 air speed timings should be done to ascertain whether or not a 2x home spawn should be 2x air corridors. There are also maps that should or should not have side spawns. Cold war Z for example would have a lot less issues with middle side spawns removed or pushed back to create home areas with two initial spawns. A conversation between devs and top tier players needs to happen.


Inf
Spoiler : :
2. Infantry effectiveness. Some LMG's have horrible DPS such as the PKM and M60. These weapons should be brought in line with better but not quite top end LMG's to increase the value of line infantry and early shock infantry. The quantity on many early troops could be increased by 2 or 4 to give some additional playable upvet choices.

3. Infantry transport issues. Transports leave much to be desired. Low accuracy and damage output for many guns at range. Lack of a 5 point 1 armor APC for all factions line and early, general purpose shock infantry. There is a lack of ten point 150 speed transport for low tier soviet infantry like early moto and black marines. It would be perfect If the BTR60 could be used without an AP value and removed from spetz, konkurs-m, igla-n. The BTR-80 could go down to 15 to become viable for 90’s troops. Also, Czech lacks a 10 point transport that could be cloned from poland or it could have AP removed.


Armor and ATGM planes
Spoiler : :
4. Tank issues. Some involve low tier pushes being unwelcome by players of all skill levels. Medium tanks in general are not cost effective. Many upper tier tanks do not have a role without mediums to hunt. Majority of upper tier low ROF tanks are in a place of uselessness. Reduce Prices of Medium Tanks so that they actually become more useful. Adjust quantity and accuracy of tanks where needed.

5. ATGM plane issues. Top tier tanks with low quantity are hard countered by fast ATGM planes that do not require a lot of effort to implement. At the same time we are not seeing enough play from the tank hunters like the Su25T or the A-ten.
Bump A-10/Su25T ECM to 30% To make them more survivable and used on the battlefield and increase A-ten price if need be.
Suggest reducing AP on all Planes carrying ATGM with AP 30 to 28 or…
Reduce missile count to half on all High End ATGM planes with price reductions to promote taking tank hunters like the A-ten instead of Planes like the Fa/18C/Su27M.


Air
Spoiler : :
6. Issues with fighters. We do not see a lot of ASF play in high level games. After the first couple of minutes of game play to deny or scout cheese the usage tapers off especially as map size expands. Larger maps require CAP for interception which means more planes total and more management. The price of ASF makes this inaccessible for that setting.

A common issue is the fact that it is rarely worth chasing towards the enemy AA net because F&F manpads can get two CTH rolls. From tests and experience GUID manpads will only get one real CTH roll. After testing evacing over a front line it’s been found that F&F manpads have the ability to put out a lot of damage on fixed wing. This is part of the reason why we have seen the manpads use dominate from the start of the game. It looks like infantry damage will not change. Perhaps the ASF range or the manpad range could change.

ASF at rookie is a common complaint because players are not able to kill by interception due to not getting the hits they need with 130+ point ASF.

Some ASF are simply cost ineffective. Namely the early Eagle, Euro fighter, Tornado F3, SU-27 and Mig-29 NK. Price drops for these may make them more playable.

7. Uncommon bomber issues. Certain bombers are not seen in competitive play. Clusters and F&F bombers like the nighthawk. When clusters are used they suicide for very little damage in return. If they could release their payload before they currently do, in a dive toss manner (Loft Bombing) they will become viable. An Increase the range for certain cluster bombers would do nicely, perhaps with a wider dispersal area to ensure damage is delt. F&F bombers seem to have issues with carrying out orders against units that could be in an optimal situation like open ground with recce on them. They will just fly right over the target after aiming for a short time without firing.

8. Low tier ATGM helicopter issue. This is all about helos with the tow, hot and some using the Itow. At their current price and accuracy they are never worth the activation points. I will never use that cool cobra with the teeth on it. They are forever the newbies folly. There is also a general consensus that kokon helos are 5 or 10 points too high.

Flame vehicles
Spoiler : :
9. Napalm VEH issue. All ground flame vehicles need reworking after their ability to fire beyond their LOS was (ninja) removed. 5-10 point reductions are in order. Different quantity per pack would prevent spam on 10 point reductions.

Support (AA & Arty)
Spoiler : :
10. Radar AA issues. Many mid/lower tier radar AA including SPAAG feel near useless. Since beta the feeling of power for gun AA has faded away. SEAD is very solid and maintaining a good critical mass is very difficult to achieve. Mid tier radar AA feels woefully ineffective while some like the roland 3 stand out. Some price and quantity changes should help the situation a lot for SPAAG and uncommon AA units. Supply cost drops or additional ammo should also be considered for radar AA with 3 or 4 shots.


11. Artillery as a whole has a lot of issues. A lot of artillery are cost ineffective or supply ineffective. A select few have poor aim times.
Many rocket artillery pieces are not viable while napalm artillery for China is too supply cost effective. Long reload times. Prices. Supply costs.
Redfor 203 aim time is a lot longer than blufor 203s by a considerable amount and 170mm go unused.
Small caliber (105/122/130)howitzers are not viable.
Low tier artillery including low 155/152 eat up too much supply to be useful in competitive format games leaving only top tier howitzers playable.
Supply aside obtaining a critical mass is not cost effective either at current prices for the majority of howitzers. The game should have effective and diverse artillery choices from competitive 1v1 to long 4v4 format.


Type Decks
Spoiler : :
12. Deck type variety. There isn’t very much. Four, maybe five decks are playable for red. Mostly USSR and RD. Nato has more variation for big games because it has to diversify. Nato is definitely in a more entertaining place for the majority of players. If the other issues are taken care of then we should see a lot more type diversity emerge. It should just be known that decks should not be unittype casted into uselessness. If a deck needs a piece of AA, an infantry type, or a certain type of plane to become viable they should get what’s already there. A good conversation will emerge once the coalitions are in a great place.


About Triumph:
I have been actively playing the game since closed beta. Mostly 3v3 and 4v4 against teams. My group does 2v2's as well. Have played some. Don't find them or the prospect of ranked fascinating however I have spoken with great players who do.
My blu to red is about even( http://imgur.com/7euAV4V ) although I am sure there is inflation from tests and false starts / rematch on drops. Here is a copypaste replay dump which contains aprox the last two weeks of games. Tried to delete test, mod, and team games that ended early due to a reason resulting in rematch. If any slipped by well that's just too bad. http://www.sendspace.com/file/ngrat2


Before posting:

Spoiler : :
1. Don't bring bunk.
2. Do bring replays.
3. No, 10v10 commentary is not relevant.
4. I don't care unit you want added. Go become an investor in Eugen or Focus if you want that. I want a pony. I'll name him Marshmellow.
5. Be specific about what player count, mode, maps, et cetera you're talking about. A conversation about 1v1 ranked map rotation play will look completely different than a conversation about 3v3/4v4 on bloody ridge or paddyfield.
6. Feel free to not mention your [off-shoot mode]. The games competitive community and designers have based the game around conquest.


*edit: Clairity. List of players involved. If I missed someone, go ahead and nag me on steam.
Image
Transcend Excellence

User avatar
Minenfeld!
Master Sergeant
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu 1 Mar 2012 21:10
Location: CT, USA
Contact:

Re: 13 issues compiled from competitive and top player insig

Postby Minenfeld! » Fri 6 Jun 2014 14:13

These are great suggestions. Especially since the only other suggestions we have are the well documented and thoughtful suggestions from people like Vasiliy Krysov and Shanakin. What we needed we short and vague suggestions to balance that out.

Shukran
Master Sergeant
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu 6 Jun 2013 16:00
Contact:

Re: 13 issues compiled from competitive and top player insig

Postby Shukran » Fri 6 Jun 2014 14:25

i would like to ask, before stating my point (which come from a "nobody" wargame' player who dont even have WRD),

on which number of players is the game competitive balanced (if it was)?

because as u stated, it is different speaking about 1v1 or 3v3 and 4v4. so should be taken as a reference point the number of players involved in a match.

balancing stuff for 1v1 may be op for 3v3 and viceversa.

-sorry for bad english
-sorry if OT

User avatar
shuai-jan
Lieutenant
Posts: 1248
Joined: Sun 24 Mar 2013 15:48
Contact:

Re: 13 issues compiled from competitive and top player insig

Postby shuai-jan » Fri 6 Jun 2014 14:34

I see your points on most issues and often you are right, however I disagree on further loadout reductions on Su-27M, it already got reduced from 6 to 4 and the soviet union has already a lot of 2 ATGM planes.
It is necessary to counter USA or EUFOR because they can bring in a lot of 20AV+ tanks and they are already hit less than reliably (about 62% CTH per missile). The chance that a SU-27M takes out 2 tanks is 14,8%.
I agree on the ECM buff for Su-25T, lot of ecm was built into that little bugger.

User avatar
triumph
Major
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2011 20:12
Contact:

Re: 13 issues compiled from competitive and top player insig

Postby triumph » Fri 6 Jun 2014 14:38

@Shukran
ALB seemed to be balanced around 2v2 while attempts were made to make sure that bigger games were not broken through map changes. There has been a competitive community for 3v3 and 4v4's for some time now. At the very least we can assume that the game has to be playable for 1v1/2v2 and they are watching over playability for larger player counts. Edit, more: I recall making a thread that was fully focused on 3v3 and 4v4 play about the 2800 range game and soviets being god-like on many maps. It took a while but the changes implemented down the line helped the situation. This leads me to think they do care.


Minenfeld! wrote:These are great suggestions. Especially since the only other suggestions we have are the well documented and thoughtful suggestions from people like Vasiliy Krysov and Shanakin. What we needed we short and vague suggestions to balance that out.


Well, it seems for a thread to be S-tier it needs charts and graphs. Enjoy.
Spoiler : :
Image


I respect to the good fellows behind the Steel balance mod. They're the only team that is attempting to reach out and provide proofs without turning the game into a sort of game approaching a total conversion.

Me,
I'm not a marshal.
I am not going to post a massive change list without doing prototyping with a team of seasoned players and people who have deep insight.
However there are clearly big issues and many are agreeing about them(see rangroos attempts at becoming conan o brian). Many who play and exploit the game mechanics very well be they old timers or newbies to the franchise.
I merely want Eugen to know that there are problems and I hope that the fellows who are working post release support / balance design are aware. I don't need to tell them how to do their job when I am not on the same level, using the same tools and they didn't follow through with a friend in who actually works in the field, at a triple A+ RTS making company.
I am merely a fan enjoying the game who wants to get another 345897354789342567896478564 hours out of it.
Last edited by triumph on Fri 6 Jun 2014 14:42, edited 3 times in total.
Image
Transcend Excellence

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: 13 issues compiled from competitive and top player insig

Postby Sleksa » Fri 6 Jun 2014 14:39

Shukran wrote:i would like to ask, before stating my point (which come from a "nobody" wargame' player who dont even have WRD),

on which number of players is the game competitive balanced (if it was)?

because as u stated, it is different speaking about 1v1 or 3v3 and 4v4. so should be taken as a reference point the number of players involved in a match.

balancing stuff for 1v1 may be op for 3v3 and viceversa.

-sorry for bad english
-sorry if OT


IIRC the game's been mostly balanced around 2v2 conquest with 40min time limit and 500 points to win with 1000 money per person- game settings
Image

User avatar
Custer85
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 797
Joined: Thu 2 Aug 2012 13:36
Contact:

Re: 13 issues compiled from competitive and top player insig

Postby Custer85 » Fri 6 Jun 2014 14:43

Though I agree on some of your points, I have to say that this posts brings nothing new to the table that has not yet been discussed in other threads.
Most players have allready noticed that RD is in a questionable shape, as far as the current meta is concerned. It needs no competitive and/or high level players to tell you that.

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: 13 issues compiled from competitive and top player insig

Postby DoktorvonWer » Fri 6 Jun 2014 15:06

Custer85 wrote:It needs no competitive and/or high level players to tell you that.


Absolutely agree, we can do without the attempted use of the opinions of so-called 'competitive and top players' as some sort of way of validating the issues you/they have found as more valid or important than the rest of the things discussed on these boards.

You and some people you've talked to have come up with these. Nothing more. Whether they're 'competitive and top' or not is utterly irrelevant. We don't need some sort of CV on who you are and who you play with either. In the world of balancing and bug reports, such things are meaningless ego trips.

Many of the points raised are valid, but they can stand on their own merit as issues with the game, and many have been raised by us non-competitive non-top peasants already.
Image

Ritterlich
Warrant Officer
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri 7 Jun 2013 23:20
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 13 issues compiled from competitive and top player insig

Postby Ritterlich » Fri 6 Jun 2014 15:20

+1 Very good summary and suggestions, agree on all points.

To those who think "this has all been said before": The important things cannot be said and repeated often enough, up until the point in time they are fixed.

@Triumph
I'd like to add that you may want to polish your posts towards a bit more politeness, and less so perceived condescending implications. Why I say that? Because then people would listen to your suggestions alot more. I have already had to mute fussel because of this elitist carp that sips through every now and then - The social dynamic emerging from your guys' playergroup may prove to become a dead-end, if you want to push things. Some here seem already annoyed by certain phrases, and it would be a shame if this (again) would let the dislike grow over the importance of this summary. Because these thoughts you posted need to be read and listened to. No harm intended.

ALEX8
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu 23 Jan 2014 01:04
Contact:

Re: 13 issues compiled from competitive and top player insig

Postby ALEX8 » Fri 6 Jun 2014 16:38

Very good post indeed. I like to reiterate the issue of ASFs like SU27s, and F15A and similar ones. They are simply way too expensive for their performance. A price cut must be applied to many of these planes.

Regarding the bombers, aside from F-111C, none of them worth the activation point. Simply because they get shot down in their first or second run. Why would you ever want a bomber when you have access to high-end 155mm artillery, especially in Bluefor decks. I think they have to make bombers more effective or less prone to get shot down so easily. the problem is with high-end 155mm artillery you can shell almost anywhere on the map, so why bother calling in a bomber to get the same job done with more risk and less efficiency. I don't think that reflects RL scenarios. Maybe a universal cut on artillery range would help that.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests