What units/structures would you nerf/buff and why?

[chem]

Also how would you nerf /buff them?

APC to radar tech?

Apache damage down?

Chem troop availability lower tech? (radar)

MRLS availability lower tech for GDI (radar)

Engineer walking speed reduced?

Flame Tank lower cost to encourage its use which is seldom?

War factory more armour to that of a conyard?

 

 

Edited May 17, 2018 by chem

[X3M]

Apc movement speed reduced. And on radar tech plus barracks.

Mrls also on radar.

Rocket soldiers some more health. 

Apache damage on 66%. Thus 6 for a cy kill. Not 4.

Artillery and mrls plus 1 range or even 2.

That's it.

 

The flame tank and artillery are bully units when the enemy is forced to infantry only. If crushing is removed or reduced. Or tanks are more expensive. Then anti infantry weapons are more common.

Edited May 17, 2018 by X3M

[chem]

2 minutes ago, X3M said:

Apc movement speed reduced. And on radar tech plus barracks.

Mrls also on radar.

Rocket soldiers some more health. 

Apache damage on 66%. Thus 6 for a cy kill. Not 4.

That's it.

good choices bro!

 

[Ferret]

I would agree on MRLS on Radar.
I wouldn't mind seeing Apache's stay the same if the AGT got a buff against air.
I'll join in...

-MRLS to Radar
-AGT buff, against air mostly
-Light Tank, potentially slight HP buff

All I can think of at this moment.

[X3M]

You will be getting those MRLS way faster if they are on radar. Then the AGT doesn't need that buff that much. It would be 1 AGT + 1.2 MRLS instead of just 1 AGT. The MRLS is cheaper and as I can recall, does more damage to vehicles AND air. Is that correct?

1 thing at a time. And oversee the consequences.

[chem]

6 hours ago, X3M said:

You will be getting those MRLS way faster if they are on radar. Then the AGT doesn't need that buff that much. It would be 1 AGT + 1.2 MRLS instead of just 1 AGT. The MRLS is cheaper and as I can recall, does more damage to vehicles AND air. Is that correct?

1 thing at a time. And oversee the consequences.

it would be so cool if we did try out a balance mod with a tick box just to see if we could make the game even better,  1 thing at a time like you said , just think of the impact 1 unit early can make on the balance  , not only would mrls help vs heli's it would help wreck buggies and bikes, in base and in the field

Edited May 18, 2018 by chem

[chem]

9 hours ago, Ferret said:

I would agree on MRLS on Radar.
I wouldn't mind seeing Apache's stay the same if the AGT got a buff against air.
I'll join in...

-MRLS to Radar
-AGT buff, against air mostly
-Light Tank, potentially slight HP buff

All I can think of at this moment.

really like it sensible, would probably enhance the fun in the game while not taking away the potency of some of the units which would probably not be welcomed by many players.

Do you still have that rant video where you talk about nod being OP? Or is that taken down for good?

[AchromicWhite]

21 hours ago, chem said:

Also how would you nerf /buff them?

APC to radar tech?

Apache damage down?

Chem troop availability lower tech? (radar)

MRLS availability lower tech for GDI (radar)

Engineer walking speed reduced?

Flame Tank lower cost to encourage its use which is seldom?

War factory more armour to that of a conyard?

 

 

APC: GDI only, OR make it so it can't crush.

Apache: Less ammo. 6-7 (Orca has 6. Half of what it currently has would be 7).

Chem Warrior: Comm tech, 80 HP (is 70, make it 80, maybe 100... commando is 80)
Flamer troop: nerf flamer HP from 70 to 50. 50hp=gren (This should give the chem warrior a real role in the Nod army)

MLRS: Comm tech

Engineer: Comm tech

Flame tank: Honestly, maybe a speed increase. It just needs to be able to DO the job a bit better. Current speed is just as fast as grens. So if it's chasing them, it'll pretty much never catch them.

Stealth tank: More HP and/or make it NOT smoke at half health (like dino/viceroid).

Weapons Factory: I actually like the idea that it's weak, but I think that it should have a BIT more HP. 4 Orca should still kill it (as it is now, 3 can do it with no repair on the factory when the attack happens, so 4 well over kills it). So more, but not heaps.

Air Strip: Nerf HP. It's boring that the airstrip is not vulnerable to many weapons/units. Keep the heavy armour so that it has a sense of immunity vs some weapons, but lower the basic HP so that 4 orca can also kill it (currently needs 6). I think that'd give orca more of a role in GDI v Nod and make scouting more important. Basically, better meta game. (Note that it'd still have more HP than the factory AND a better armour type, as AP weapons, like the orca rockets, do more damage against heavy than against light armour).

Light Tank:  Needs increased range. It currently has less range than a med, less base damage than a med AND less rate of fire than a med. Probably also raise the RoF, but the range is the most obvious issue. Currently the range is the same as a recon bike/rocket trooper. What this means is that in the case of tanks vs tanks, in larger battles: Imagine you have a 2 cell deep line of tanks on both sides. As they engage, medium tanks can fire before the light tanks can even do anything... then, once the first row of light tanks is in range, BOTH lines of medium tanks can fire, while only one line of light tanks can fire. It's a BIG deal.
It also means they cannot stand behind light vehicles and fire, as they're on par with the recon bikes.

Artillery: Better turn rate.

That's all I can be bothered with for now. Feel free to rip into it, lol.

[X3M]

The range thing only counts when you play money maps or choke points.

LT is a defensive unit. Being meat when obelisks do their job.

But still, if you want LT and MT to be better balanced, what are their current statistics?
(I never got to it, to put the ini into an excel file. For comparison. I don't see the point to do this.)
(Also remove a big section that I quoted from the ini file. This forum needs the spoiler tags!!!)

They are both actually heavy armored. Thus both dealing 100% damage. No rounding damage, which makes it easier.
Costs: 600 vs 800
Health: 300 vs 400
Damage: 25 vs 30
ROF: 60 vs 50, where lower means faster. Middle speed settings give us 4 vs 3,33 seconds.
Range 4 vs 4,75, which is weird since that would be 5 indeed? It involves rounding, but it must have a reason. And the top vs down is also an issue here. I don't know the health/damage ratio, but this is closely linked to the range and speed factor.

The DPS is 6,25 vs 9.
Speed: 18 vs 18, what the fuck, the LT has the same speed? That is just lame.
Speed is included in my calculations, but it is the most inaccurate factor that I will suggest. So keep that in mind.
Range in NOT included in my calculations. I pretend to have the range being set equal either way. I suggest raising the range of the LT to 4.75. Don't put both on 5, since there is a reason for 4.75.

We have several options to change here. And I am assuming that these unit hav 50% of their worth in the health factor, and 50% of their worth in the damage factor. I don't know if and how the space saving factor is implemented, but MT compared to LT is simple. Seeing as how the health and the costs are linked. I bet that the ssf is not implemented. I don't know the health to damage ratio either. Or else I could include the range.

Pick your change:
- Price only, including space saving factor: €924 for the MT. OR €519 for the LT.
- Price only, including the DPS: €832 for the MT. OR €576 for the LT.
- Price only, including both ssf and the DPS: €942 for the MT. OR €510 for the LT.
Choice 1: Obviously, €900 for the MT, would be more suitable here, but €550 for the LT is also an option.
- Only changing speed, including the DPS: 20 for the LT would compensate against the DPS/€ factor. At least, the LT could escape. But this change doesn't do much for gameplay.
- Only changing speed, including ssf (the one of €924 becomes 800): 24 for the LT.
- Only changing speed, including the DPS and ssf (€942 becomes 800): Again 24 for the LT.
Choice 2: 24 speed for the LT. Most noticeable speed, is faster then many other tanks. But not faster or equal to any other unit that is supposed to be faster then the LT.
- Only changing DPS: 54 ROF for the MT. OR 55-56 ROF for the LT.
- Only changing DPS, including the ssf (only the one of 924 applies here): 57-58 ROF for the MT. OR 52 ROF for the LT.
Choice 3: A ROF of 55 for either the MT OR the LT.

The advanced power plant. Should be an option for players, not just for saving space.
400 versus 600 health and 100 versus 200 power supply. With that, the true price of the advanced power plant should be €525.
Although, if you include the space saving factor. The price comes scarily close to €700 (694,51). Why isn't the ssf applied to units? Also, most maps these days are to open to include this space saving factor. Except money maps. And base creeping is done with large buildings, something they certainly never factored in.
So €600 would be best from all kind of perspectives. You pay twice the price for twice the power. You save 50% space. But you only get 50% more health. (An obelisk of light, including power costs, would be €1950)

PS. Can there be an option on : line 64

TiberiumExplosive=no ; Does the harvester explode big time when destroyed?

That would reduce harvester hunting. Which is something that a lot of players dislike.
Or doesn't that work? Crashes it the game?

Edited May 18, 2018 by X3M

[AchromicWhite]

Is this assuming that the L.Tank should be as good as the medium tank, price for price?
We're aware that the humvee is certainly not the right value, price for price with the buggy, right?

I'd suggest that the L.tank is meant to be worse, it's just... it's TOO bad.

Good post, though.

[X3M]

Yes, well, all other units where not taken into account with the LT/MT comparison.
I feel that they went much further than just the basic balancing rules.
Was it just theory?
Did they include dimension effects that have influence on strategies? surrounding, combat lines, single unit battle's.
Did they assume a fixed income rate? 700 per harvester. 1 harvester per field for prolonged money. Depletion rates. Grow rates.
Did they assume an average design of maps? open vs closed. Base and/or army placements and/or movements.

Looking at the difference and my suggestion of having the MT cost 900. This 100 difference is put in the buggy/humm-vee. I see only very rare occasions that the humm-vee is truly worth that of 400.

I guess, that is why I love having both the buggy and the MT in my forces. Since both are relatively cheap.

I could get loose on the health of the humm-vee, keeping the buggy at 300.

[cn2mc]

One question: did the guy(s) who invented chess think of every possible opening and strategy?

[X3M]

Chess evolved, kinda like how Starcraft evolved over the years.
C&C got designed in a very short time and never really changed afterwards.
Chess evolving took hundreds of years. One of the first versions actually had dice, is what they told me. And I have no idea, how that played out.

[cn2mc]

Starcraft is a geat game, but it took half of the concepts from C&C. I'd like it if everybody stopped bringing up starcraft and their great knowledge of game design, which amounts to posts in forums, and just played. This is the I-don't-even-know-which time we had this thread. My answer is always the same. I'd not change a thing. If anyone else wants to change C&C: make a mod. Play. 

[X3M]

I think that Starcraft got great because the creators where not conservative.

Meaning, they where open to changes.

Maybe you might say that the game became to commercial.

But that is the goal of a company, making money.

What most contributors to this topic have, is that they like to be flexible in idea's.

Maybe someone with programming knowledge should make a mod with just minor changes.

Until then, these topics keep popping up.

If it bothers you, look away.

If it bothers you that the original game might disappear. Simply say that only a mod should be the case. Which could be that tick box that we mentioned. Because I agree with you that the original game should not disappear. [Separate helipad, Redeployable MCV]
Both tick boxes, not original.

If you want to put in something positive and constructive in the progressive kind that this topic needs. Please with all means.

I could also mention Warzone2100, Homeworld, Total Annihilation, Warcraft, KKnD. Those are only examples. Which can be mentioned because they have something that C&C has not.

---

Going back to topic a bit further.

A tick box for the MRLS to radar. Is it feasible? Especially looking at Ferret on this one. Since he agree's and has the connections?

[cn2mc]

MRLS at radar would be OP for GDI.

Also, the topic is not progressive. As I said, it's repetitive.

 

[Myg]

What happens when you change something:

"Oh yea, the previous guys made changes, so should we".

Goto start of post (and repeat).

[cn2mc]

cue openra

[X3M]

1 hour ago, cn2mc said:

cue openra

Great Idea! I got TD installed already. And enjoyed my first little 1 on 1.

I am curious what future events hold for me with this mod.

[AchromicWhite]

Yeah, I more just see these posts as fun. Even if I had the option to patch the game, I don't think I'd be that keen to do so.

(Sorry to bring up SC again)... With BW, there was a % imbalance between Zerg and Protoss with only a 45% win rate from protoss in PvZ... One of the best players in the world (and probably the very best protoss player) invented a new strategy using 2 units that were considered "bad" units. That strategy changed that match up to be 55% in protoss favour after he showcased the tactic in tournament play.
Before then, people could have argued that either P needed a buff or Zerg needed a nerf, yet the answer was IN the game the whole time.

The only unit in C&C that makes me sad is the MLRS... because the unit seems fine, but needing to put down 2700 PLUS the (1000 to get the first comm) just to unlock it makes it near impossible to get in any game other than a mass tib map (and even then you're usually better to just make more factories and some AGT for defence).
I don't even know how strong the unit is. I have no idea how it'd play out if you could access it. Honestly, despite what cn2mc says on that front, I don't think anyone knows how strong it is.
Last time someone made it vs me, it was LoveHandles and I shot them with orca. 

[cn2mc]

Oh, the MLRS (like AGTs) is almost completely useless vs. GDI, another tank would be better to have. It's going to suck for Nod because GDI would be able to do pushes with no/little infantry.

[X3M]

Well, I too do these post for fun.

Some one wants to deny me that fun. Why?

And I will bring up SC any time I need. The difference in practical balance is <2% these days. And that for a tournament game.

---

buggies and bikes are no contest against mrls.
2 mrls can snipe a bike!!!
I think 3 can snipe a buggy??

If we don't do the mrls. Then the APC to radar tech would be an option.

Seeing as how the flame tank and stealth tank fit that category. The APC in it will have to deal with a flame tank too, once it rushes out. Although, 1 flame tank can only protect one corner of a structure, since it is slow.

With barracks and radar as requirements. The APC will come after the flame tank and stealth tank.

[AchromicWhite]

4 hours ago, cn2mc said:

Oh, the MLRS (like AGTs) is almost completely useless vs. GDI, another tank would be better to have. It's going to suck for Nod because GDI would be able to do pushes with no/little infantry.

See... I thought that too.
AGT creep, on maps with a short rush distance, is actually pretty damn good in GDI v GDI.
It allows you to produce for more rocket troops, because you don't need the grens to protect them. With so much anti armour, the tanks become more and more useless.
So it could change the meta... at least beyond comm tech.

Against Nod... It'd be very map dependant, as always. On a map like Quarry, yeah, it'd be awesome. Sounds crazy, but I think that Apaches would be the answer.
Interesting that you consider the idea that a fully mechanised composition is a lot better... it certainly takes a lot longer to produce the units. I think one of the big advantages to infantry is how they're produced. The fact that you can bring in a lot of money and then use cheap $300 production structures to spend it all whenever you want to push. For that reason, I see MLRS being used more defensively (as you're choosing tech over factory production... less vehicles over all AND obviously unlocking AGT).
If you want to be offensive, I think the better option would still be grens.

So my guess would be that the MLRS would be only used offensively in the later parts of a match anyway.

4 hours ago, X3M said:

Well, I too do these post for fun.

Some one wants to deny me that fun. Why?

And I will bring up SC any time I need. The difference in practical balance is <2% these days. And that for a tournament game.

 

---

buggies and bikes are no contest against mrls.
2 mrls can snipe a bike!!!
I think 3 can snipe a buggy??

If we don't do the mrls. Then the APC to radar tech would be an option.

Seeing as how the flame tank and stealth tank fit that category. The APC in it will have to deal with a flame tank too, once it rushes out. Although, 1 flame tank can only protect one corner of a structure, since it is slow.

With barracks and radar as requirements. The APC will come after the flame tank and stealth tank.

Personally, I don't see a need for APC to be comm level. The early engineer is more of the issue.

[cn2mc]

Yes, to me full or almost full mech. seems to be the way to go once Nod get enough SSMs. Of course, on more open maps you'd still want infantry roaming about and chasing off bikes and buggies that try to flank you and stuff.

Regarding X3M's comment: I'm not trying to deny anybody their fun. I was just pointing out that this topic has been discussed a lot in the past with basically the same propositions and the same results, i.e. nobody even tried it. It would be more fun to actually do these easy mods and try them out by using hamachi, old cncnet4 (if the server still works that way) or some other alternative. Then the topic can also be constructive, because you can report back and say 'we changed so and so, and got this and this result.'

It just doesn't seem to me like a right thing to do, to involve the developers and potentially the entire community in the testing of these changes when in fact all you need is a few skilled players to do it (which are apparently available). Otherwise, I have nothing against this discussion or the joy it brings people, as you see I even actively participate. It's just that it keeps going around in circles.

I'll do my bid: I've always said that a) allowing helicopters to be targeted in flight, or b) at least giving the player the ability to set them to guard mode, like the AI can, will fix a lot of early GDI apache problems. b) seems realistic, a) not so much. 

[AchromicWhite]

I'd argue that at the time where Nod has SSM, infantry are not almost useless, and the MLRS is needed, especially in places where there are turrets. The issue with the Nod turret is that the key units for taking it out (in the meta) is the medium tank, yet the med tank is also the exact thing the turret is designed to counter. If bikes are nearby, you need to push with infantry to snipe the bikes and soak damage. it becomes an impossible territory is there are also SSM. With MLRS you can then push the bikes out of the way so that you can actually siege the area.
That's very late game, though, as the bikes are build at, I think (would have to check) faster than 2/3 the speed of med tanks/MLRS.

Yeah, it's certainly one more thread in a long line.
And you're right, it is indeed just people giving their ideas with no testing.