-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
USA's Bombardment and HoldTheLine Battleplans are rarely used #1212
Comments
|
The radar is also a nice Lotus/Burton/Demo Jarmen counter. If Strat is placed at the center of the base, Lotus etc. can't do anything. 44% > 20% > 11.1111% It's really as simple as. |
Nice analysis, few a remarks/questions though.
|
No. It doubles health of Strat Center and independently from that, it gives +10% armor to ground units, except dozers and drones. Anything that gets shut down on battle plan change is affected, if you're in doubt.
Yes. Crusader has +60% effective health with both compared to no upgrade.
It's hard to quantify range bonuses. If you judge by perfect play, it makes your units invulnerable, because now Rockvees outrange enemy rocket infantry, while also being faster. |
Was in doubt because you said "CC" in the first post :P |
I was thinking about this the other day, it is silly how USA has 3 strategies, but 95%+ of the time only uses one. Whilst USA remains the vee army, extra range is always going to be so much better than the other two. You could make it so HTL and Bombardment gave 50% extra and SnD would probably still be better. |
There is also this setting:
Reducing or nulling this could make it more attractive to toggle Strategy Plans, but that may introduce Plan change spamming in return... |
Typo for SC. Muscle memory. Even if you were able to perfectly mathematically balance out the 3 battle plans, all that would achieve is making it so it doesn't matter which plan you chose. I see no advantage of changing plans as long as all of them affect the same units anyway. This whole battle plan feature is not well thought out game design and can't really be fixed without a complete overhaul. S&D is op, but changing it would not be a good idea, as it fundamentally changes USA play. HDL is underpowered, but you wouldn't really improve the game if you were to buff it. I don't think any of this should change. |
I think it depends on what type of units you make. For Rockvees S&D will always be the choice most probably. For Towvees it might be different story since they are attack-moved in masses, they typically aren't controlled as precise as Rockvees. Same for Tanks, they only get a few extra shots off before the enemy is in range and can't be microed back at all, so increased Armor/Damage might be the better choice depending on the values. |
Agree with Exile, i think it does make a difference if all three strats were equally strong, it also would be better overall to see less SnD since it's the most frustrating to deal with |
So maybe bombardment +25% same as AP bullets/rockets. And HoldtheLine armor to +20%, or +15% if overpowered with Tanks, though I doubt it. Both need test simulations. |
+20% armor would equal +25% health |
Whatever results in +20% health then. 0.83 or something? Though +25% health nicely cancels out AP Rockets/Bullets. |
+0.16667 armor, or armor = 83.333% would equal +20% health. Exactly, a health bonus perfectly balances out an equal damage bonus. |
Honestly i think the double armor for USA tanks is stupid, they both own without composite armor anyway, and it was due to a bug they had that buff, and it's inconsistent compared to other armor buffs. I know it's unrelated, but i think the extra armor should be removed And with hold the line armor increase we give, it should be equally the same again, instead of being over the top |
If HoldTheLine can make up for it and beat S&D (or be equal atleast with Tanks) then I would be fine with removing double armor buff. |
Offtopic: It should've been adjusted to be +25% health, so 480+120=600 after upgrade. |
I think you cannot get past Jundiyy to reduce it. |
Lol haha. We should take this to the other topic. With our fix, it's no longer a bug, all units now get 200hp. |
Microwave gets 100 still. |
Not sure if calculations are correct. 1.04:
Patch (current):
HoldtheLine +15%CompositeArmor 30%:
CompositeArmor +40%:
HoldtheLine +20%CompositeArmor +20%:
CompositeArmor +25%:
CompositeArmor +30%:
HoldtheLine +25%CompositeArmor +20%:
CompositeArmor +25%:
CompositeArmor +30%:
HoldtheLine +30%CompositeArmor +20%:
CompositeArmor +25%:
|
I think HTL +25% and CA +25% is the best model imo, i think it balances it out nicely and it's a consistent with other armor buffs while still keeps values close to original while also making HTL a viable Choice, next is probably making strat change shutdown bit shorter |
May I suggest to compile a list of defensive Upgrades and see what they do to get a better overview where Hold The Line stands? It is not clear to me whether or not +XX is reasonable, because it lacks context to other factions. |
Not complete:
Note that Battle Bus is subject to the Battle Bus premature wreck bug, which makes armor buffs less effective than they would be. |
I think the relevant comparisons are these: CompositeArmor vs damage upgrades like AP Rockets etc. HoldTheLine vs S&D, at which point it becomes attractive to actually pick this Battleplan? Requires test simulations. |
Also comparing to old stacked values (CA+HTL) is irrelevant because it was literally never picked. It always was S&D (maybe Bombardment with tank spam but I've never seen/done this, it might even be better). This is what was considered maxed performance in 1.04:
So if we don't make HTL attractive enough, then the CA nerf will be an overall nerf. |
So here a few tests we need to conduct then (both 1v1 and in masses):
Anymore tests? Results of fighting against themselves should also reflect performance vs other units right? |
That would need two players to test, i can help with that |
MTKing and I tested 1.04 yesterday. Interestingly we found that Bombardment is actually slightly better than S&D with attack move. This should make it the better choice with Tanks but also Towvee spam, unless microed. Now with this fact in mind, do we still want to buff Bombardment? I think it's risky because Towvee spam is already too good. Another obvious result is that both S&D and Bombardment beat HTL, so it should be safe to increase health bonus to 20% (0.833), that should make it on par with Bombardment. |
If that is the case, leave as is. |
I think this is a very important point and needs addressing. As all heroes (now) have a sight range of 400, options for reacting to a Strategy Center's presence before being detected are incredibly limited. Not only this, but the structure's extensive stealth detection range over the owner's entire base effectively renders heroes useless - on top of the substantial range bonus that Search and Destroy provides. Reducing the stealth detection range would be a reasonable way to counterbalance the incredible effectiveness of S&D without directly affecting the bonus itself. A range reduction could also have some additional benefits / implications, such as the increased importance and skill involved in Strategy Center placement - it makes sense that there would be some strategy involved in placing the Strategy Center, after all. In 1.04, players can practically place the structure down anywhere and be covered, but with a reduced stealth detection range, the building's location might have to be more carefully considered. This would also somewhat increase the prospect of stealth / guerilla tactics for opponents and diversify strategies a bit more. It may even increase the utility of Sentry Drones (and Spy Drones - for opposing USAs as well), and it could certainly benefit / reward players who actively pursue stealth detection / awareness, which is far more meaningful than having it handed to them on a silver platter. A stealth detection range of at most 350 (-150) would likely be necessary for heroes to be able to react accordingly. Another thing to note is the Strategy Center's extreme shroud-clearing range, which is doubled from 400 to 800 under the effects of Search and Destroy, and is another unnecessary advantage that discounts map awareness. This could certainly be reduced to 300 → 600 (-100) or 400 → 600 (×1.5). I believe both of these changes would be fairly subtle and unlikely to be noticed by the majority of players. Thoughts? |
Stealth detection range is absurd, i agree, could do with a reduction a bit |
I agree aswell. You named all the right reasons for it. If detection for heroes is too easily avoided, 375 could perhaps work aswell. It requires a bit more awareness and carefulness then. |
Very good observation. I agree that a reduction appears reasonable. USA has many other options for stealth detection already. |
I really like to include skill here. We should aim for exactly this. All battle Plans should make sense on their own. If we need go cut one to make it work, we shall do it. |
We can test what happens setting it to 0. If the game acts fine with it, it would allow USA to switch Battle Plan more often. 5 seconds is a considerable penalty, which makes it unpractical to switch in adhoc battle situations. It is not clear to me if a more frequent Battle Plan switch is desirable. It could result in too frequent battle plan changes, for example switch to "Bombardement" for using Burton Bomb, then switch to "Search and Destroy" to attack with long range weapon, then switch to "Hold the Line" when the enemy Carpet Bomber approaches. Such a change likely would only be an option if we somehow made USA much weaker than China and GLA. Also, Battle Plan change is a global radar event. If its change frequency was to change, it may would have to be a local radar event, such USA Battle Plan would no longer be discoverable, nor would it matter much, due its volatile state, apart from revealing the building on the map. |
Spamming and changing midbattle should never be possible imo, it could perhaps be a bit faster though, because even in 'safe' situations it does feel quite long and to the point where it's often too risky to change at all. |
Perhaps increase Bombardment Gun range, damage or radius. |
I think the cannon is quite ok, it can really help defending. It's just that S&D is overall much more valuable. |
Compared to
|
Think you would have to compare to a firebase or capturable artillery platform. Anyways, it's good vs infantry, they can't dodge and it one shots them. |
didnt read but u cant buff bombardment canon, its beyond a joke as it is, You will also alienate the entire no money community and similar communities, bombardment already destroys half ur base most maps, the damage as well is crazy. |
The Strategy Center Gun attack bug has been fixed, so the Bombardment Battle Plan is now better than original. |
Does not look possible to change Health depending on battle plan. Would require new code feature. Global health modifiers are limited to
There however is this setting
I set it to 0.1 and units will take much less damage accordingly. So Hold The Line does reduce damages, not all that much however. |
These are pretty much only used with AFG when he flies, since it doesn't affect Aircraft. The Bombardment Cannon then helps out defensively and HoldTheLine makes the Strat center a tougher target.
Other than that there's basically no reason to initiate these battleplans as they are much inferior with Rock/TowVee spam. Probably same story for Tank (+ Tommy) spam.
Proposal 1
Increase Bombardment bonus to +25%, same as AP Bullets/Rockets, Uranium Shells, Chain Guns etc.
Proposal 2
Increase HoldTheLine bonus to +25% HP (0.8), to cancel out AP Bullets/Rockets.
Might need to fix the double Composite Armor bug.
Proposal 3
Increase Bombardment Gun range, damage or radius.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: