Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
ReaperAA

Is Rhino vs Grizzly (or Lasher) situation balanced?

Recommended Posts

Is Rhino vs Grizzly (or Lasher) situation balanced? If not, then how would you balance this.

I personally think that Rhino tanks pretty much outclass Grizzlies(and lashers for that matter) mostly due to their range advantage (5 vs 5.75) and also due to damage advantage per cost (65 damage per shot for 700 cost of Grizzly vs 90 damage per shot for 900 cost of Rhino). And I think this is one of the 2 main reasons why Soviets beat Allies in most pro vs pro games.

My personal balance/tweak idea would be to increase the range of Grizzlies/Lashers to match that of Rhinos (from 5 to 5.75) and also increase the damage per shot from 65 to 70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rhinos are unbalanced which is obvious from the fact that the only counter to rhinos is build rhinos yourself. even if you tweaked the firepower/cost ratio of grizzlies, there would still be the disadvantage of needing to get more tanks in firing range at the same time to make it work. 

if rhinos were slower it would be more ideal, but i can hear the metafags autistic screeching at the notion of having to find a new way to play already.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, McPwny said:

rhinos are unbalanced which is obvious from the fact that the only counter to rhinos is build rhinos yourself. even if you tweaked the firepower/cost ratio of grizzlies, there would still be the disadvantage of needing to get more tanks in firing range at the same time to make it work.

This is true. Rhinos would still beat Grizzlies in larger numbers. However now Grizzlies would at least have a fair game against Rhinos in small amounts.

 

20 minutes ago, McPwny said:

if rhinos were slower it would be more ideal

 Maybe, but then Rhinos (just like Apocs) would get utterly wrecked by late game Allied units (Battle Fortress, mirage tanks etc.). So I think their speed should stay the same. They are already very slightly slower than Grizzles right now.

 

23 minutes ago, McPwny said:

i can hear the metafags autistic screeching at the notion of having to find a new way to play already.

LOL this made my day. This is one of the main reasons why I am slightly hesitating in making threads like these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you arent wrong about the battlefortress thing. though battlefortresses themselves are big chonky bois that are faster than apocolypses and with guardian GI's have an obscene range of 8 x 2=16. times that by five, add a 1.2x damage modifier, and let it shoot backwards while moving, and you have the second most egregious fault in game balance. one that blatantly enough, can only be countered with rhino spam. making them also slower would be common sense, but this is just wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2020 at 7:46 PM, ReaperAA said:

Is Rhino vs Grizzly (or Lasher) situation balanced? If not, then how would you balance this.

Why do you think this should be balanced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ezer_2000 said:

Why do you think this should be balanced?

Ask yourself, why do most players in 1 vs 1 match play as Soviets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They function differently. Rhinos are meant to beat grizzlies. You can’t really compare them from a balance perspective. In red alert 2 they built a lot faster, so you could try to out tank a sov  about mid Game and win. But ultimately you had to tech to win. 
 

in yuris they built slower so you were more forced to tech. That’s why I like robot tanks cause they built at red alert 2 grizzly speed and I could  take them on water. 
 

Edited by rocker219

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, rocker219 said:

They function differently. Rhinos are meant to beat grizzlies. You can’t really compare them from a balance perspective. In red alert 2 they built a lot faster, so you could try to out tank a sov  about mid Game and win. But ultimately you had to tech to win. 
 

in yuris they built slower so you were more forced to tech. That’s why I like robot tanks cause they built at red alert 2 grizzly speed and I could  take them on water. 
 

I understand what you are trying to convey. Soviets have better early game (because of Rhinos being simply better per cost compared to Grizzlies) and to balance it, Allies have better late game (due to BFs and Mirages being more useful than Apocs).

But that, in my opinion, is actually a big problem with the balance. This means that on small (1 vs 1) map, Soviets are better as games usually are decided before things go to late game. While Allies are better on very large maps.

In a very well balanced game (like in say Starcraft), all factions are roughly even in power at all stages of the game.

Edited by ReaperAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2020 at 5:30 PM, ReaperAA said:

Soviets have better early game (because of Rhinos being simply better per cost compared to Grizzlies) and to balance it, Allies have better late game (due to BFs and Mirages being more useful than Apocs).

That used to be the belief, but top pros don't even need to stop making Rhinos, ever, Soviets still dominate all stages of the game thanks to the cost efficient Rhino Tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RaVaGe said:

That used to be the belief, but top pros don't even need to stop making Rhinos, ever, Soviets still dominate all stages of the game thanks to the cost efficient Rhino Tank.

That’s not true at all. Soviet are strong but not as powerful as people make them out to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rocker219 said:

That’s not true at all. Soviet are strong but not as powerful as people make them out to be

I see you speak out of all knowing wisdom and experience, because it's true that only 95% of the competitive player base plays Iraq (Soviets) and all they do is spam Rhino tanks in every circumstance oh, and don't forget the Iron Curtain.

Soviets are too efficient in the economy, production, anti-air and superweapons department.

You're just an stubborn old RA2 Allied player, A.K.A people in denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soviets are easier to play and stronger. Allies rely on misdirection and speed.  Rhinos are almost a tier better than grizzlies in my opinion. For example, I feel pretty safe splitting 3 rhinos to attack parts of an enemies base, but if I’m not pressuring hard with other units or something I wouldn’t dare split 3 grizzlies by themselves. Now I understand allied infantry  counter this but the main OP is the desolator. I suppose what I’m getting at is it’s hard to just compare rhino to grizzly without bringing up other units from their faction, so I wouldn’t balance them based on tank vs tank unless you do that for every unit 1by1 on the tech tree. I don’t have an answer how to balance it, but I do have an idea that may spark creativity. What if a gi in yellow/red health spawns after each grizzly is destroyed?  Just random thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2020 at 10:05 AM, RaVaGe said:

Soviets are too efficient in the economy, production, anti-air and superweapons department.

You're just an stubborn old RA2 Allied player, A.K.A people in denial.

 

In a perfect world, where both sides would be play flawless, Allies is theoretical the strongest fraction, even stronger than soviets. The problem with Allies is, that the perfect control (micro) is not reachable consistent in real. On the other hand, soviets are compared to allies easy to play. You have one main tank which is used in offense, defense, to pressure and so on. For the defense part you have also desolators. In the most cases, nothing more is necessary. Allies needs more units, more micro control, more focus on economy, etc. One minor wrong move can cost the whole game for allies in early and also in late games.

So the value for allies in terms of risk and profit ist far below of soviets. Players who can play allies consistent on a high level are rarely for 20 years on this game.

 

In my opinion, allies are not weaker than sovs, they are more difficult to play and that is the real "balance problem", even for pros. In a theoretical world with perfect gaming the balance would be Yuri > Allies > Sovs. In terms of the handling the balance shifts to Yuri > Sovs >>>> Allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...