[AoA Reboot Beta] Patch v.304

torinus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri 15 May 2015 22:39
Contact:

Re: [AoA Reboot Beta] Patch v.304

Postby torinus » Tue 5 Apr 2016 22:25

lincrono wrote:
there are several strategies to counter artillery, including chimera's rhino, which is less artillery, and more counter artillery . . . then you have terminators (or other units) CWISing the rocket artillery.

All 3 factions have non missile artillery and that one map only had part of it on high hill. On most other maps you can attack much easier some positions with oil (and even on that map some oil spots are out in the open).

lincrono
First Sergeant
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed 23 Sep 2015 16:34
Contact:

Re: [AoA Reboot Beta] Patch v.304

Postby lincrono » Tue 5 Apr 2016 22:29

torinus wrote:
lincrono wrote:
there are several strategies to counter artillery, including chimera's rhino, which is less artillery, and more counter artillery . . . then you have terminators (or other units) CWISing the rocket artillery.

All 3 factions have non missile artillery and that one map only had part of it on high hill. On most other maps you can attack much easier some positions with oil (and even on that map some oil spots are out in the open).



I know all 3 factions have non-missile artillery, that was the 'strategies vs artillery.' my main issue is on limited funds it's too easy to conserve your forces and once you reach your (easier to get with reduced funds) functional invulnerability, spam bombers/nukes to win or just keep building up to a force your enemy can't stop when you switch to offense.

It's not a situation that happens often, and it happened more in vanilla since chimera could build a self replicating economy, but there are a few maps predisposed to this.

I brought It up more or less as 'something to consider' when balancing.

bvb09
Specialist
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat 18 Jul 2015 00:37
Contact:

Re: [AoA Reboot Beta] Patch v.304

Postby bvb09 » Tue 5 Apr 2016 23:49

Losats still OP.

pathatas85
Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2016 18:14
Contact:

Re: [AoA Reboot Beta] Patch v.304

Postby pathatas85 » Wed 6 Apr 2016 07:37

but now passive player is more rewarded. Because he will not lose so many units, when he only defends himself. All this dollars can invest to income buildings. When he has more and more, is faster and faster.
I played ffa 4 players, I secured mid with 2 oilspots and 3 banks, destroyed 2 players.
But one guy, I didn't see him whole game after he lost mid.
He built 50 sh.t outposts 10 anteys 15 nukes. I built many admin centers too, but simply not 50 or 100 because I had another job too, not only shiftclicking outposts

this is disgusting.

User avatar
Megiddo
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu 23 Jul 2015 22:57
Contact:

Re: [AoA Reboot Beta] Patch v.304

Postby Megiddo » Wed 6 Apr 2016 10:39

Honestly the more i think about it, the more i'm convinced that this feeling of a "broken" game course and consequently an almost impossible balance mainly come from the availability and order in which the buildings can be obtained, so how the units and the builds become available.

If it was parallel for all the factions, with clear and more classical dependencies between the buildings, a good part of the balancing problems with the price of buildings, then the price levels for units, then finally the combat balance could be erased.

Imo every faction should have a more classical and parallel "build tree" with buildings, starting with the barracks as a preriquisite for all factions, then with the real build choices and other preriquisites between buildings in a second phase...of course Cartel would have less buildings to build, but this could be more easily balanced in a second step with the price of buildings or price of units compared to the other factions...and at least we could more easily obtain a good balance for combat and the kind of progressive builds with a good equilibrium between the prices of units, given the levels of income at a particular time mark. And overall WAY less spams all game long.

Of course the question of an early transporter would come back, but here again, i'm pretty sure that something as simple as a cheap transport truck IN the barracks could do the trick. anyways the levels of prices for buildings also have to be reevaluated imho.
That's the saddest part of the story. I was getting used to think, after nearly three decades of its existence, that the word "Strategy" was the main cornerstone of the RTS genre and golden age.

torinus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri 15 May 2015 22:39
Contact:

Re: [AoA Reboot Beta] Patch v.304

Postby torinus » Wed 6 Apr 2016 12:45

Megiddo wrote:Honestly the more i think about it, the more i'm convinced that this feeling of a "broken" game course and consequently an almost impossible balance mainly come from the availability and order in which the buildings can be obtained, so how the units and the builds become available.

If it was parallel for all the factions, with clear and more classical dependencies between the buildings, a good part of the balancing problems with the price of buildings, then the price levels for units, then finally the combat balance could be erased.

Imo every faction should have a more classical and parallel "build tree" with buildings, starting with the barracks as a preriquisite for all factions, then with the real build choices and other preriquisites between buildings in a second phase...of course Cartel would have less buildings to build, but this could be more easily balanced in a second step with the price of buildings or price of units compared to the other factions...and at least we could more easily obtain a good balance for combat and the kind of progressive builds with a good equilibrium between the prices of units, given the levels of income at a particular time mark. And overall WAY less spams all game long.

Of course the question of an early transporter would come back, but here again, i'm pretty sure that something as simple as a cheap transport truck IN the barracks could do the trick. anyways the levels of prices for buildings also have to be reevaluated imho.

Prices of everything and their availability always are balanced against possible income of players at that part of the game.

Knowing income rates at any part of the match is basis for any other change. In vanilla AoA that was almost impossible to predict and balance around because a greedy player could make so many refineries but standard play was not about taking all refinery first.

Now greedy player can take 3 oils spots and 2 banks. Normal player will in that time take 2 oil spots and 1-2 banks. It is much easier to balance the game around those numbers.

But in late game greedy player will take 30 admin buildings, while standard one will make 5. The guy with 5 has no way to catch up now. Difference is too huge and longer the game goes on the difference becomes bigger. Also it is impossible to balance late game now as one player might spam 5 terminators in 1 minute while another might spam 15 in same time.

Before end game the guy that went greedy would have 1-2 units more.

Also during early and mid game, players spend part of their income on teching up and getting upgrades. Now in late game they paid all these costs. Now all that is left is spamming tier 3 units and spending money on admin buildings to get more money.

Even without unlimited admin centers Tier 3 units are not expensive enough for this stage of the game and player can spam them and overrun anything.

User avatar
Megiddo
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu 23 Jul 2015 22:57
Contact:

Re: [AoA Reboot Beta] Patch v.304

Postby Megiddo » Wed 6 Apr 2016 13:31

torinus wrote:
Megiddo wrote:Honestly the more i think about it, the more i'm convinced that this feeling of a "broken" game course and consequently an almost impossible balance mainly come from the availability and order in which the buildings can be obtained, so how the units and the builds become available.

If it was parallel for all the factions, with clear and more classical dependencies between the buildings, a good part of the balancing problems with the price of buildings, then the price levels for units, then finally the combat balance could be erased.

Imo every faction should have a more classical and parallel "build tree" with buildings, starting with the barracks as a preriquisite for all factions, then with the real build choices and other preriquisites between buildings in a second phase...of course Cartel would have less buildings to build, but this could be more easily balanced in a second step with the price of buildings or price of units compared to the other factions...and at least we could more easily obtain a good balance for combat and the kind of progressive builds with a good equilibrium between the prices of units, given the levels of income at a particular time mark. And overall WAY less spams all game long.

Of course the question of an early transporter would come back, but here again, i'm pretty sure that something as simple as a cheap transport truck IN the barracks could do the trick. anyways the levels of prices for buildings also have to be reevaluated imho.

Prices of everything and their availability always are balanced against possible income of players at that part of the game.

Knowing income rates at any part of the match is basis for any other change. In vanilla AoA that was almost impossible to predict and balance around because a greedy player could make so many refineries but standard play was not about taking all refinery first.

Now greedy player can take 3 oils spots and 2 banks. Normal player will in that time take 2 oil spots and 1-2 banks. It is much easier to balance the game around those numbers.

But in late game greedy player will take 30 admin buildings, while standard one will make 5. The guy with 5 has no way to catch up now. Difference is too huge and longer the game goes on the difference becomes bigger. Also it is impossible to balance late game now as one player might spam 5 terminators in 1 minute while another might spam 15 in same time.

Before end game the guy that went greedy would have 1-2 units more.

Also during early and mid game, players spend part of their income on teching up and getting upgrades. Now in late game they paid all these costs. Now all that is left is spamming tier 3 units and spending money on admin buildings to get more money.

Even without unlimited admin centers Tier 3 units are not expensive enough for this stage of the game and player can spam them and overrun anything.


Prices of everything and their availability always are balanced against possible income of players at that part of the game.


Really i don't think so. I mean, what you say is right, but this criteria alone is not satisfying without a progressive organization for the buildings and the units : Everyone knows and underlines for example that the only efficient build is to have the vehicle bay first if you want to be able to cross the map and attack efficiently at early game, or at the contrary to prepare against an early all-in...

So finally we don't really have the choice anyways and we end up with this : a broken balance between spammable infantry units vs more expensive vehicles because they're all directly available at start...honestly it can't be satisfying this way... there is strictly no risk in opening with a more expensive vehicle bay...is it really fair?....and the same occurs later in the game course. the builds and counter builds lack progressivity in their chronological order, so to say, they somewhat overlap or collide too early between themselves. Hard to tell in English :)

More than that : where are, for example, the 2 or 3 barracks opening builds while we're still mining on the first oil field? with healing units as a support? This kind of early build is simply inexistant and couldn't possibly be efficient because of the same reasons, just as their possible counter builds : who the hell is going to pay for mortars or HMG vehicles when you already have the bigger armored guns on the battlefield? You see what i mean?

Why is it possible in SC2? Because on B1 the choices are quite restrained to the barracks at first, and, in a second step, possibly with a little and progressive support with medivacs or light vehicles. This allows some balanced early builds to exist with cheap units, for some defensive, offensive, or all-in moves btw, and these same builds can even stay relevant later on the game course (infantry drops for example). Moreover, this progressive parallel pattern is applied to all factions. As said, imo a better structure for the building/unit availabilities and then the price levels could change the face of the game. Hell, even the said cheap transport truck in the barracks could solve the scouting problem and the transport problem at once...

So here we are. This is specially demonstrative at early game maybe...Because of the lack of some progressivity and parallel structure for the game course for all the factions regarding the availability of the buildings and also the units. Almost all the strategies are available at once, so we only choose the best units obviously : All is available, so somewhere the choices seem meaningless, compared to the real importance the counter build decisions and switches to other production buildings, tiers or techs should have during the entire game course.

A first fundation and map control with Infantry + light HMG transports + maybe healing units are almost condemned builds because we have already access to what i call the next builds : tanks, choppers...etc...almost directly from the first resource node and the start of the game... How could you possibly contain the spams and have a satisfying combat balance going this way? You simply can't. whatever the levels of income are at a particular time mark of the game course. Although, i understand perfectly your arguments.

Of course we wanted a bit more action and choices at early game, but honestly all strategies should stay viable with some more progressivity in the game course...For sure, another solution could be to increase drastically the price curves for units very early, even if the buildings and unit availabilities almost stay the same...But imo the barracks requirement for everyone at start could be a first improvement along with something, even unarmed, able to transport infantry very early. And i mean, very very early.

The end game is another problem i agree, and i join your opinion about the too low prices for the best units...even if, from my point of view, a better player, uncontested, who succeeded in seizing more resource sites or PoW , having the time to build more Administrative centers, have earned his advantage by himself, so this is not particularly shocking at end game from my point of view...not the first priority, even if those buildings could have a higher price.

But still...As i see the things, it would really be a waste to keep a quite broken game course and balance where some builds or gameplay phases are simply skipped instead of taking the time to do the necessary changes and test them during a longer beta phase before the Reboot edition goes final. Specially as the reboot has a great potential.
Last edited by Megiddo on Thu 7 Apr 2016 03:53, edited 9 times in total.
That's the saddest part of the story. I was getting used to think, after nearly three decades of its existence, that the word "Strategy" was the main cornerstone of the RTS genre and golden age.

Bosspower
Master Sergeant
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2015 20:02

Re: [AoA Reboot Beta] Patch v.304

Postby Bosspower » Wed 6 Apr 2016 14:53

EUGEN SYSTEM should remove this fucking income buildings!!!!

This income buildings are for low noob players!



Remove this shit!

If all oils are empty, you have only the pows left!
That makes it more tactical!

not again spaming income buildings in the lategame!

remove it!

In AOW we needed no income buildings for massive epic games!

pows buildings have to get much ARMOR, that enemy needs to attack the pows buildings with many units.


without income buildings, a player who wont attack gets no pows for lategame.


2 income buildings creates the same as 1 bank! This is horrible!! Nobody is fighting to get the bank back.
And the banks have to get more more more armor.

Bosspower
Master Sergeant
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2015 20:02

Re: [AoA Reboot Beta] Patch v.304

Postby Bosspower » Wed 6 Apr 2016 15:08

LOSATs kill infantry like jesus!

wtf is that?

Losats got a massive attack damage vs everything?!!!
Man this game is only rubbish... i hope they will fix it before the beta ends.

Bosspower
Master Sergeant
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2015 20:02

Re: [AoA Reboot Beta] Patch v.304

Postby Bosspower » Wed 6 Apr 2016 15:49

@MADMAT

every cartell player is spaming infantry!

viper cost only 200!! and infantry is overpowered in this game!

Remove the ability of viper rockets to attack moving tanks. the rockts have to fire on 1 point, but dont have to follow the target! Only the sharsheen rockets have to follow tanks. but only tanks and not infantry!

Every fraction needs a elite infantry unit back to the game. Like it was the delta force, future worrior and camo soldir in AOW!

And the viper and jevelin costs need to be increased to 400 or 500.

And every tank has to kill 1 infantry with 1 shoot to bring back the reality. puma needs 1000 shoots for 1 infantry, how low it that.

Bring us the ELITE WORRIORS back into the game!!!!!!!!!

DELTA force dont needs anti tank rockets, they have to be the ultimate elite infantry vs INFANTRY!


Do you know what i hate with chimera or every infantry.... the shit movement that felins or other soldirs stop movement and lay on the ground, if enemies firing at the infantry. You got no chance to run into the enemies bank, cause they dont move.

U need a massive change on the whole game infantry!

Bring us the VETERAN units back.
>> 5 kills > level 1 ( higher life and damage)
>>10 kills > level 2 ( higher life and damage and armor)
>> 20 kills > level 3 elite soldir( higher life and damage and armor and self healing)

Return to “Act of Aggression”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests