Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject:
Balancing
Firstly New artillery, is this better, creds go to gamingroach/roaches ( I cut the turret off of an M110 he gave me, thanks roach )
Secondly, balance. The old way of doing things is to have anti-infantry, anti-tank and anti-building units/infantry/defences. This is blatantly stupid, but inherently roughly balanced.
In RA2:MV there exists no balance problem so far, the machineguns on tanks are more for graphical effect than greater damage, although those who do not crawl such as those laden with AT weapons or light machineguns will fare worse than the more mobile who can hit the dirt. My explanation is simple. Have you ever tried aiming a machinegun from a moving steel box with below-average visibility at a human-sized target semi-crouched behind cover? I haven't and I sdoubt many have (except maybe DatS, gangster or our other resident servicemen). It's difficult, isn't it?
My idea is this. There are two types of defences: Those that are armoured enough to resist tank shells, and those that are not. Anti-infantry defences are usually relatively fragile as they must ony be proofed against small arms, AT weapons and hand grenades etc. Barbed wire can be used to prevent demo-charging. Then there are those which are, they are usually the AT defences, however, barbed wire is of no use against a tank so there is little point in it, this allows the satcel-charging or firing at more vulnerable, harder to hit targets by infantry.
In short, Infantry kill AT, tanks kill AP, you will need both. AA falls into neither category and can be blasted by either given enough time, they aren't the most heavily armoured structures because they aren't supposed to be at the front, which is logical. Then you have buildings, they don't take too much damage from Artillery and are reasonably vulnerable to airstrikes, but tanks or infantry? Goodbye...
Artillery is moderate versus everything except armour, it deals light damage to defences, moderate damage to buildings and moderate to heavy damage versus infantry (luck dependant... will it hit or miss? )
And basic infantry are getting explosives, allied rifle infantry have APHE grenades (a little bit of an attack VS tanks, not much). Soviets I haven't decided, suggestions?
*oops, just taking screeine now, 1 minute* _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. Last edited by Lt Albrecht on Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:03 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
You must also consider that 1 shot usually kills a person. However, due to innaccuracy 1 shot may do nbo damage whatsoever. Considering this, one must take into account the average shots fired to kill a target and then assign a health value to the target, and then divide this health amount by the average shots needed to destroy and/or kill the target. That said, weapons designed for eliminating smaller tagets are usually far more accurate than those designed for destroying larger ones, so a tank designed to shell an area will take more shots on average to kill a soldier than another soldier armed with say, an assualt rifle. In conclusion, the balance of damage infliction should be so as to relfect the average of shots fired to kill the target rather the potential one shot has to kill a target. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Yes, however, selfheal and such negate the apparent advantages of this system, and people can hide behind things, innaccuracy is of course factored in, an AK47 fires a larger, more dangerous bullet at an equally fast rate to a G36. However the standard of accuaracy is much lower and therefore the guy with the G36 in game does more "damage" as a way of representing increased accuracy, fire control and training over the 7.62mm spraying conscript. So in a way it's factored in, however, artillery is inherently inaccurate and thereforte has a flakscatter, so the shell might not strike on/near the intendided target, however 1 direct hit will kill all standard infantry except everybody's favourite cybernetic socialist and a near miss will cause a 50% loss of health if my memory serves me correctly.
And what do you think of the artillery? Better than the last one? _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
The whole point of my point was accuracy. If you shoot an AK 10 times, and only 1 hits the target, then you should make each shot 1/10 of points nessecary to kill the target. That way the hit/miss is totally reduced to the way to game works.
I think the best way to do it is to have specialized units (sniper, tank destroyer, aegis) and then have general jack-of-all trades units (grizzly tank, GI, IFV). That way, you have the rock-paper-scissors, but then again you don't. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject:
Artillery looks like what it should look like, but whats with the clustered barracks? Somebody did some poor base building... _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
nah, it was vs 7 soviet AIs on a FFA, they were more occupied with attacking each other's naval yards with subs, they still are actually I just clustered them because I wanted the fastest possible infantry buildspeed without having to find 4 seperated points. And the yellow stuff on the side is a functioning autoloader BTW, it uses the turretchanger logic to load the next shell. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Orca, what do you mean by matching chassis?
And dafool, that's easily the biggest gun so far, this isn't a 155 or 203mm heavy howitzer, I was thinking more a 105mm lighter, more rapid weapon. I could try and make the barrel bigger though... _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Yeah, I know, but how do you think it should fit the turret? I know English I live in the country that invented it, I just need expansion of that statement to give me more of a clue of what the F*ck to do... _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Location: Modding other games.
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:05 am Post subject:
Thats actually nice, I like the new chassis you made for the new artillery. Gives me that Allied D-Day green feel on the unit. As for the chopped up turret, you can modify it a bit more to give the muzzle exit area a dark burned shade effect seen on this mammoth below me.
notice the the the metal gradient gets darker as it goes towards the muzzle exit of the barrels. _________________
Quote:
Everybody knows a mod that doesn't update every ten seconds is dead.
Ah, very nice artillery, Albrecht. I'm lovin' it, a lot.
Also the dark burned shade effect was what I was trying to suggest for the tank barrels, but I couldn't get the name through _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
When one becomes fixed, I've got two or three "theoretical" ones on paper, but none agreed on by staff and made "official". _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Whats the debate about? Names or if units should actually be in the mod or not? _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
I haven't shared all of my thoughts, there's a whole load of stuff that exists nowhere more solid than my head. I need to group my team together (Dutchy, Destiny and Secret/Deformat) and do an MSN conference to sort stuff out. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
I should be on MSN...tomorrow or the next couple of days. Things getting pretty hectic on my side. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Besides trying to make my matches last shorter (Which usually fails since I LOVE to drag matches against the AI), I have to buy my books for next year, and finish up some other stuff, hide my spare cash from a DVD+RW plastic case into a tissue box, clean up the area around my computer (I don't have a room)...lots of stuff. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
...crap. I know she's kawaii, so there. PM me for shopped stuff, I might be interested...?
Turtle-boy? Yea, against the AI primarily. Though it's not really an effective tactic in MV, quite challenging because ATM the defenses aren't _very_ cheap to mass, using the units to defend is kinda more efficient in MV. You'll have to fear the Howitzer. I usually use Bay of Pigs to base on my tactics and balance tests, I guess. Hate leaving the base...I used ships to attack rather than moving my MBTs away from the defence perimeter...which is a single entrance. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Well, destiny has the right idea, with enough cash it is possible to set up a spaced pillbox-turret line (gotta love the pillbox tracer bullets in the next version ) However, mammoths easily bulldoze it and tesla tanks have this annoying habit of sitting and zapping the pillboxes. Looks epic but costs you anti-infantry defence. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject:
I'd say: keep those defences as they are. In RA1 pillboxes could also take on light vehicles, if they where in range. I think it's a bad idea if you make anti-inf defences very weak (armour wise) against vehicles. It will also be hard to balance, and you must sacrifice some armour-types for that. Also, I think it's better if we move this to staff... QUICK_EDIT
To Albrecht and the team:I'll have problems these days,because these idiots(From Romania Data Systems) have cut my net,and didn't come to fix this,so I'll change my internet provider,which will mean some delays.
Hopefully,wednesday it should be fixed(hopefully...)
Untill then,everthing will move slow.
Also,in the week of New Year,I'll work on in reinstalling my Windows,so it will take some time too,but,after this,it should give me an little time bonus,as this comp has lots of lag.
Other than that,good luck,I'll still work on the work we have to do,and,hopefully,with good luck,on Christmas or New Year,I should be presenting an update.Hopefully. QUICK_EDIT
British telecoms=wankers
Romania Data systems=appear to be the same
And no worries secret I'm at a friends and I've got french shiz to do tomorrow, so no mv this weekend. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Balancing
)
)
