Eugen please watch this.

Uppy
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu 14 May 2015 00:11
Contact:

Re: Eugen please watch this.

Postby Uppy » Mon 18 Apr 2016 23:13

A flat increase will make rush much stronger early game , I'm all for it , but is it what the community want ? I doubt

My suggestion in the patch note will kinda fix viper and javelins problem

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

Re: Eugen please watch this.

Postby Megiddo » Mon 18 Apr 2016 23:20

lincrono wrote:First off, I'd like the thank the OP from the bottom of my heart, for linking a youtube vid, and not a replay.


Yep, that's practical. Thanks for that.

lincrono wrote:my opinion: keep the missile speed, for all the faction's indirect missiles, they needed it and it helps to micro around the unit delay


Totally agree with that. It helps with the overkill issue, and the gameplay is a bit punchier with those units.


lincrono wrote:However it is very clear that
- ALL CWIS needs a buff (in fact blazers and GAU Humvees have always struggled to match the CWIS of enemy auto cannons)


Quite agree about Blazers but imho it could be quite counter productive to give an insane buff to 450 (+250) oil Humvees and more generally the first light vehicles. We don't want the first Gatling light vehicles to be the perfect anti missile units and so advantage early rushes only, with a single type of unit, maybe particularly for those able to transport infantry...Don't we?

Breaking those risk-free openings with a more expensive vehicle bay was the goal right? Just like breaking the spams with only Humvees and Thunderbolts in our groups? At least i hope so...;)

Then the Phalanx turrets were quite honest in their role i think. 2 of them were able to defend against 7-10 javelins approximately which is quite efficient.

lincrono wrote:- Vehicles need a damage buff vs infantry. For the longest time howitzers (what he built) have been the only real counter to infantry unless you're lucky to have chimera's 'all our vehicles have 30mm cannons yo'


I saw no defense with Marines/javelins + Dustoffs, when those last ones could have performed big time vs Javelins unable to attack them. Infantry mortars came very late and here again those units could have benefited from the AoE healing of the Field Hospital. I saw no FCS mortars i think, placed defensively. Instead, along with, as usual, Thunderbolt spams, the choice of going towards the pricy Heavy bay timings and NLOS-C Howitzers. Though, 2 of them reaped a good bunch of those Javelins + the Barracks. I saw the Guardians staying behind where they could have attacked directly the constructor or the Barracks for an efficient and early counter...even after that, bringing those Guardians closer and almost above the javelins could have allowed to fire with missiles + gatling while staying safe...I won't even talk about the Osprey as the Helipad was already built...

Okay, the video was about showing the Javelins speed, i admit that, but "ridiculous" is a bit excessive i think. Sounds like obvious lobbying Guys :P ... Plenty of people want to have a gameplay where heterogeneous groups and precise counter relations are the key, and see something else than just Humvee + Thunderbolt easy spam rushes. From this point of view this update is really great ;)

Finally i agree about Chimera, but Chimera doesn't have a cheap and spammable rocket/ATGM infantry unit ;)

lincrono wrote:-missile infantry efficiency vs other infantry needs to be addressed. now I don't want to see another infantry armor vs HE buff (that is I think part of the issue here), and I don't want to see javelins loose lock on to infantry but
--why are snipers so short range vs rockets?
--why do rifles have so low health/dmg
--why do mortars suck vs infantry?
--why do .50 Cal HMGs and gatling guns kill infantry so slowly?


Yeah, this efficiency argument sounds somewhat fair...

- For Snipers, it stays understandable. most Snipers have a max efficient range going, in general terms, from 1000 to 1500 meters. ATGMs go for 2500 to 3000 meters efficient range approximately. It stays plausible.
- I basically agree with Riflemen having a quite low HP. Healing units are here for that. (in my dreams all units cost way more but have way more HP)
- Little mortar/Grenadiers units could use a little buff to their AoE radius imo.
- for .50 cal and more generally HMGs/Gatlings, they often outrange basic infantry units and are way more mobile. Some advantages to use wisely. Basic Infantry units in comparison are very slow. If they don't have this light resistance/dodge rate vs those type of armaments, we'll fall again in the old problems, with a basic infantry which is almost totally useless outside of buildings.

lincrono wrote:-missiles probably need a cost increase, especially no that their overkill issues have gotten some love (with faster missiles)
--please don't make any cost increase individual upgrade, it's annoying as hell, just give a flat cost increase.


This i agree with, to be honest. Javelins could cost more than a Marine, that's for sure. Or Javelins (more generally ATGMs) should have a counterpart, so to say not be able to lock on and fire at infantry units. It could only advantage the counter relations, with more important basic infantry, snipers, infantry mortars and light mortar vehicles, HMGs...I'm not begging for anything of course, but allowing ATGMs to fire at infantry, outside of buildings of course, is a design choice that looks really strange to my eyes.
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.

User avatar
AndreB
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 18:49
Location: Mars Republic
Contact:

Re: Eugen please watch this.

Postby AndreB » Tue 19 Apr 2016 01:23

I just want to drop in and say that he used guardians versus my infantry.

You can also smoke your own javelins and they still shoot trough smoke, a handy tactic to avoid any kind of tanks or infantry attacking your own javelins in the open field.

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

Re: Eugen please watch this.

Postby Megiddo » Tue 19 Apr 2016 01:30

AndreB wrote:I just want to drop in and say that he used guardians versus my infantry.

You can also smoke your own javelins and they still shoot trough smoke, a handy tactic to avoid any kind of tanks or infantry attacking your own javelins in the open field.


- At a good distance, at missile range only the major part of the time. Anyways Guardians could have aimed directly at the constructor or the barracks, without taking a risk. At worse, to be sure, a recon move with a Little bird costs 800 oil if i remember well. With a sniper as well.

- Smoke versus mortars and generally arty units is inefficient, particularly if you force the attack on a precise location. It works the same for several units.

AndreB, honestly, even if i agree that Javelins and vipers could use a little price increase, this 3 barracks rush was normally a really good way to be countered and murdered :geek:
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.

razgriz91
Sergeant
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun 19 Jul 2015 18:10
Contact:

Re: Eugen please watch this.

Postby razgriz91 » Tue 19 Apr 2016 11:39

I agree that the missle speed buff makes the game Feeling a lot more dynamic and action loaded, it is waaaay to fast. I picked a random CnC 3 match and compared the missle Speed of both games. I thought cnc should be the faster one but doesn't feel that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuHOhyfp6b8
Have a Special look an 12:20/22:24/23:50

Most of the things have already been said (like rockets/missles too effectife against infantry and Anti-Infantry weapons too unefficient and so on) so i won't write them down here. Has anyone played Red Alert 3? It is the perfect example of how counters can work and are really needed. A bunch of javelins couldn't even stop less numbers of soviets rifleman.

I'd say eugen should slow missles down slightly and buff CIWS also.


Megiddo wrote:Quite agree about Blazers but imho it could be quite counter productive to give an insane buff to 450 (+250) oil Humvees and more generally the first light vehicles. We don't want the first Gatling light vehicles to be the perfect anti missile units and so advantage early rushes only, with a single type of unit, maybe particularly for those able to transport infantry...Don't we?


+1

User avatar
AndreB
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 18:49
Location: Mars Republic
Contact:

Re: Eugen please watch this.

Postby AndreB » Tue 19 Apr 2016 11:40

Megiddo wrote:
AndreB wrote:I just want to drop in and say that he used guardians versus my infantry.

You can also smoke your own javelins and they still shoot trough smoke, a handy tactic to avoid any kind of tanks or infantry attacking your own javelins in the open field.


- At a good distance, at missile range only the major part of the time. Anyways Guardians could have aimed directly at the constructor or the barracks, without taking a risk. At worse, to be sure, a recon move with a Little bird costs 800 oil if i remember well. With a sniper as well.

- Smoke versus mortars and generally arty units is inefficient, particularly if you force the attack on a precise location. It works the same for several units.

AndreB, honestly, even if i agree that Javelins and vipers could use a little price increase, this 3 barracks rush was normally a really good way to be countered and murdered :geek:


On that video sure, you are completely right, snipe the shredder or the racks with the guardians, and gg no more javs or stingers get out.

Normaly when i barracks crawl with cartel i have arty turrets, scorpios and even jackals for support.

With US, you still need other units like NLOS-Canons, sometimes even blazers, stingers and little birds for vision, and some ACCE for transporting javelins or just to serve as a mobile defense force.

But the issue of both these types of compositions is that the main core units are javelins and vipers, everything else is support. Its almost as if Tanks in general are support to infantry, kinda of the french tanks of WWII where they mixed them with infantry for support only.

These are cool unit compositions, but what id like to see is instead of a 80 to 90 percent javelins/vipers maybe just 20 to 30 percent.

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

Re: Eugen please watch this.

Postby torinus » Tue 19 Apr 2016 12:39

AndreB wrote:
Megiddo wrote:
AndreB wrote:I just want to drop in and say that he used guardians versus my infantry.

You can also smoke your own javelins and they still shoot trough smoke, a handy tactic to avoid any kind of tanks or infantry attacking your own javelins in the open field.


- At a good distance, at missile range only the major part of the time. Anyways Guardians could have aimed directly at the constructor or the barracks, without taking a risk. At worse, to be sure, a recon move with a Little bird costs 800 oil if i remember well. With a sniper as well.

- Smoke versus mortars and generally arty units is inefficient, particularly if you force the attack on a precise location. It works the same for several units.

AndreB, honestly, even if i agree that Javelins and vipers could use a little price increase, this 3 barracks rush was normally a really good way to be countered and murdered :geek:


On that video sure, you are completely right, snipe the shredder or the racks with the guardians, and gg no more javs or stingers get out.

Normaly when i barracks crawl with cartel i have arty turrets, scorpios and even jackals for support.

With US, you still need other units like NLOS-Canons, sometimes even blazers, stingers and little birds for vision, and some ACCE for transporting javelins or just to serve as a mobile defense force.

But the issue of both these types of compositions is that the main core units are javelins and vipers, everything else is support. Its almost as if Tanks in general are support to infantry, kinda of the french tanks of WWII where they mixed them with infantry for support only.

These are cool unit compositions, but what id like to see is instead of a 80 to 90 percent javelins/vipers maybe just 20 to 30 percent.

Outside of very open desert like areas that is actually how it is. Infantry is the main force and everything else is support.

Considering how slow is infantry, I think it is good how it is now.

As for CIWS buff, I will leave that to Eugene to figure out. It might be too early for us to scream that it needs a big buff, after all they nerfed CIWS in Reboot for a reason.

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

Re: Eugen please watch this.

Postby Megiddo » Tue 19 Apr 2016 12:48

Yeah i can understand this argument Andre, but this is how most armies work. About 70% of their total forces are infantry/motorized divisions. The rest are mechanized, armored, support, arty and air divisions...

Brought to the game it stays coherent. Through the prices of units and the fact that infantry is logically more represented on the battlefield. Then the wise choice of support units is what really matters ;) ...Here again you haven't spoke about some specific infantry counters like infantry mortars, FCS mortars, Amos...if we could spam only tanks the game would be completely boring from my humble point of view...and fortunately the last patches since the beginning of the Beta seem to go in the right direction, to lead the player towards the real counter moves. Imho the price curves for all units after the first vehicle could even be higher to emphasize on more critical choices through the game course...

Vehicle/tank forces can protect themselves vs infantry or other ATGM launchers with CIWSs, quite honestly i think, then infantry units take damages from almost all units, and they also have a kind of dodge/armor rate versus those damages...fortunately.

But yeah, i agree that the price curves could be really higher for all units in order to prevent the spams, then that the HP levels, the "toughness" of the best armored units could be higher as well regarding their limited number on the field. This kind of "Tanky feeling" is not fully rendered i agree.

Edit : Ah, Torinus already got the point :)
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.

User avatar
AndreB
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 18:49
Location: Mars Republic
Contact:

Re: Eugen please watch this.

Postby AndreB » Tue 19 Apr 2016 13:01

Megiddo wrote:Yeah i can understand this argument Andre, but this is how most armies work. About 70% of their total forces are infantry/motorized divisions. The rest are mechanized, armored, support, arty and air divisions...

Brought to the game it stays coherent. Through the prices of units and the fact that infantry is logically more represented on the battlefield. Then the wise choice of support units is what really matters ;) ...Here again you haven't spoke about some specific infantry counters like infantry mortars, FCS mortars, Amos...if we could spam only tanks the game would be completely boring from my humble point of view...and fortunately the last patches since the beginning of the Beta seem to go in the right direction, to lead the player towards the real counter moves. Imho the price curves for all units after the first vehicle could even be higher to emphasize on more critical choices through the game course...

Vehicle/tank forces can protect themselves vs infantry or other ATGM launchers with CIWSs, quite honestly i think, then infantry units take damages from almost all units, and they also have a kind of dodge/armor rate versus those damages...fortunately.

But yeah, i agree that the price curves could be really higher for all units in order to prevent the spams, then that the HP levels, the "toughness" of the best armored units could be higher as well regarding their limited number on the field. This kind of "Tanky feeling" is not fully rendered i agree.

Edit : Ah, Torinus already got the point :)


I mean sure, if amos, mortars, grenadiers, mortar strykers, rhinos actually countered infantry.
And white phosphorous worked on pushing infantry out of buildings.

Then this mass infantry issue wouldn't be a problem at all.

Mass CIWS should in theory be the dream composition for a heavy tank force, something that you could only get in the mid late game stages.

atdsutm
First Sergeant
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed 22 Jul 2015 06:44
Contact:

Re: Eugen please watch this.

Postby atdsutm » Tue 19 Apr 2016 13:30

The missile buff is obviously an attempt to make CIWS less effective at taking out missiles at close range, so I think this should stay. If CIWS needs a buff, they should only be effective at fending off indirect ones. For me the indirect missiles need a speed nerf a bit. Straight-forward launching missiles should stay the same. Maybe EUGEN should put a skill for CIWS units a skill that increases it's ability to intercept missiles for a short span of time.


Also for the mortar damage versus infantry, they need a damage buff but not too strong. This will still make field infantry useful and not just used in an APC.

Return to “Act of Aggression”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests