Community Balance Patch

[Ezer_2000]

Quote

Community Balance Patch

On 3/21/2019 at 2:43 PM, Lovehandles said:

Patch is an entirely optional

Here is a trap.

This is a mod, not the original game.

"Community Balance Patch Mod" would be more precise.

[AchromicWhite]

18 hours ago, Ezer_2000 said:

Here is a trap.

This is a mod, not the original game.

"Community Balance Patch Mod" would be more precise.

Yeah, the name was brought up earlier by Cn2. Understandable that note everyone in the community is a fan, but it's still a community patch, as opposed to an official patch.
Could be right, though, the name could be changed (I think the RA2:YR patch used the same name, and it was just adopted here)

[FunkyFr3sh]

"Lovehandles' and White's Private Balance Patch Mod for the non-money-map-playing CnC Community"

 

So what changes do you guys like and what changes should be reverted? Maybe could have a multi choice poll with each change listed?

[AchromicWhite]

55 minutes ago, FunkyFr3sh said:

"Lovehandles' and White's Private Balance Patch Mod for the non-money-map-playing CnC Community"

 

So what changes do you guys like and what changes should be reverted? Maybe could have a multi choice poll with each change listed?

Something like that could be good.
I will say, not all of the changes are stand alone. A good example of that is that we purposefully didn't directly over nerf the apache, but instead just made some of it's targets (like the con yard/WF) more tanky. This obviously also makes them less vulnerable to other attacks, but these changes still need to be looked at as a whole.

It'd be nice to see more feedback from people actually playing the maps. Then, when that happens, we should then use the poll. Then it'd actually be interesting. Hard to know how good a change is without playing with it... changes shouldn't really happen just using theory crafting, which is the purpose of this thread and having the test patch open to people.

You are right, though; the community, like many other RTS communities, is split between those who play the money maps and those who don't. The difference is that our community is so small that it's hard to build players for your game if you completely separate yourselves into two. Bit of a pain, really.

[[CC] RaVaGe]

On 3/27/2019 at 12:48 PM, Ezer_2000 said:

Here is a trap.

@FunkyFr3sh @AchromicWhite He indicated he's trolling, so maybe don't communicate with him as you'll be wasting your time, he said the exact same bs on my patch for YR, guy doesn't even play anymore and when he did he talked a lot of smack all the time.

[Nyerguds]

Y'know, I'm fairly sure I know where the visceroid spawning happens. Can probably just disable that outright.

[AchromicWhite]

7 hours ago, Nyerguds said:

Y'know, I'm fairly sure I know where the visceroid spawning happens. Can probably just disable that outright.

Honestly, having that as a check box in cncnet is something that a LOT of people have wanted for a long time. So, if you have any power to get that done, it'd be MUCH appreciated.
Also, good to see you man.

[X3M]

12 hours ago, Nyerguds said:

Y'know, I'm fairly sure I know where the visceroid spawning happens. Can probably just disable that outright.

Do, please do!!!

[Ezer_2000]

On 3/28/2019 at 5:16 PM, FunkyFr3sh said:

"Lovehandles' and White's Private Balance Patch Mod for the non-money-map-playing CnC Community"

 

So what changes do you guys like and what changes should be reverted? Maybe could have a multi choice poll with each change listed?

You can make a kind of poll in the game clint: make an option for every cahnge in your mod. Or for groups of them. Host will pick necessary options.

Also you can make it possiible for other players vote for options in lobby. Most votes define enabled options.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Ezer_2000

[Kampfkekskrieger]

I thought this was for RA1, to enable mine layers finally to group place anti tank mines - too bad

 

The Patch is good, but for the APCs CAN crush infantry, thats their only use and they are designed for it. also how weak must one be, not to kill the engineers of C&C1???

As if they were toxic. they are the most important unit to make the game popular. Its as if a tri-cycle with training wheels is still too difficult to balance, so lets try it with some 6. and 7. training wheel: The child will not learn it.

[AchromicWhite]

Has anyone played this and had any interesting experiences to report?

A good amount of people decided it's probably unfair... but did they play it?

This thread is supposed to be for feedback about matches first and foremost (though obviously other feedback is welcome also).

Edited April 1, 2019 by AchromicWhite

[Nyerguds]

On 3/29/2019 at 7:26 AM, AchromicWhite said:

Honestly, having that as a check box in cncnet is something that a LOT of people have wanted for a long time. So, if you have any power to get that done, it'd be MUCH appreciated.
Also, good to see you man.

Well, I have no idea how cncnet makes its checkboxes... but I can look up where the spawning code is located in the exe.

I remember that when I experimented with adding new units I originally used the dinosaurs, which required me to change the unit IDs of the dinosaurs... and through that, when checking where the game used those IDs, I discovered that when Funpark mode is enabled, the game randomly spawns dinosaurs in multiplayer, just like visceroids. So I'm fairly sure I found the code that handles that spawning for both of them.

[[CC] RaVaGe]

2 hours ago, Nyerguds said:

Well, I have no idea how cncnet makes its checkboxes...

I'm sure you can have a word with @FunkyFr3sh

[FunkyFr3sh]

I can add the checkbox, just let me know when you found the code and/or made the patch.

[Nyerguds]

@FunkyFr3sh

Well, the code starts at 0044AB83. First it differentiates between funpark and normal. It seems the spawn chance is 1/1000 for normal games, and 1/450 for dinos. The actual call to the randomizer is at 0044ABA3. If the test fails, it aborts.

Then once again it checks if funpark or normal, and if funpark, it creates an object for one of the 4 dinos. If not, it jumps to 0044ABF6, where it creates an object for the visceroid. Then it picks a random location inside the map bounds and spawns it.

The simple fix for all this would be to replace the first funpark check by your own check, and make it either abort, or jump on to selecting the value "1000" to check.

#EIP=0044AB83
cmp     byte [????????], 0 ; your variable for disabling visceroids; "not 0" would mean they are disabled.
jnz     0044AC80 ; abort
jmp     0044AB9C ; set eax to 1000 and continue random spawn check

This would end up being just 15 bytes:

Offset 3AF83:
80 3D ?? ?? ?? ?? 00 0F 85 F0 00 00 00 EB 0A

As I said, though, I dunno how you make your checkboxes and how you communicate that to the game. You'll have to save your config value somewhere and then insert the address in the code above.

(Ideally, the whole thing could be rewritten to actually choose to spawn either nothing, visceroids or dinosaurs, but I'm betting whoever ends up in the north will strongly disagree with me on that )

Note that according to this code, visceroids only appear if you are playing on Tech level 7. This rule does not apply to the dinosaurs.

[X3M]

Nice work!!

 

[X3M]

I had the chance to play this on a money map. Having those MRLS sooner than my opponent expected was a great benefit. I raped his army (twice). That was a lot of fun.



Either way, I have been thinking about your Stealth Tank adjustments. While they remain a Recon Bike with Stealth option. It is this Stealth that makes them what they are. A surprise amount of damage when hunting harvesters or fending of air units. Also, the scouting of your opponent.
So here is my suggestion:
Instead of health increase and cost decrease. How about just one extra rocket that they fire? Increasing their damage with 50%. This way, their price stays loyal to the original. And they look a bit like their big brothers in C&C3.
 

[AchromicWhite]

On 4/20/2019 at 10:18 AM, X3M said:

I had the chance to play this on a money map. Having those MRLS sooner than my opponent expected was a great benefit. I raped his army (twice). That was a lot of fun.



Either way, I have been thinking about your Stealth Tank adjustments. While they remain a Recon Bike with Stealth option. It is this Stealth that makes them what they are. A surprise amount of damage when hunting harvesters or fending of air units. Also, the scouting of your opponent.
So here is my suggestion:
Instead of health increase and cost decrease. How about just one extra rocket that they fire? Increasing their damage with 50%. This way, their price stays loyal to the original. And they look a bit like their big brothers in C&C3.
 

Thanks for the feedback!
I'd love to know more about how the units were actually interacting.

Can I ask what the opposite army composition was? (that MLRS took down)

Regarding stealth tank changes; I somewhat agree with what you're saying (pushing MORE for the glass cannon effect), but we simply don't have the tools to be able to make stealth tanks fire more than 2 rockets. We can't even make the rockets do more damage.

Edited April 22, 2019 by AchromicWhite

[X3M]

Feedback

MRLS:
The opponent was massing buggies and bikes. I had M.tanks and grenadiers. The basic battle if you will.
I decided to build the Comm Centre in order to get Adv.GT and Adv.Comm Centre. And eventually thus the MRLS.
Since the MRLS was available right away. I build those instead of Adv.GT for the reasons we all know.
And simply added more factories instead.
Since the opponent was panicking, he simply build more bikes.

Stealth Tank:
It is to bad that it can't be changed.
What about other factors? ROF, Range etc?
I remember something vaguely about some units having the same weapon from the ini. Is this a fact for the Stealth Tank?

[AchromicWhite]

13 minutes ago, X3M said:

Feedback

MRLS:
The opponent was massing buggies and bikes. I had M.tanks and grenadiers. The basic battle if you will.
I decided to build the Comm Centre in order to get Adv.GT and Adv.Comm Centre. And eventually thus the MRLS.
Since the MRLS was available right away. I build those instead of Adv.GT for the reasons we all know.
And simply added more factories instead.
Since the opponent was panicking, he simply build more bikes.

Stealth Tank:
It is to bad that it can't be changed.
What about other factors? ROF, Range etc?
I remember something vaguely about some units having the same weapon from the ini. Is this a fact for the Stealth Tank?

Yeah, is probably pretty damn good against a bunch of bikes. In most of the games we'd played, it seemed more useful vs infantry/flyers. But this just shows that we really do have to keep an eye on it's effectiveness vs light vehicles.

Yes, all the anti-armour rockets (rocket inf, bike, orca, stealth tank) are all the same weapon. If we COULD change one, it'd change all of these. But at it stands, the only way we could really change weapons is to swap one weapon out for another... which is obviously quite limiting. 
Frustrating, as I very much want to know much much better a light tank with infantry, is when it's weapon is the same range as other tanks.

[X3M]

Maybe changing the weapon is the answer here to all the problems.
What happens when the range is +1(or even +2)?

Rocket infantry already needed a boost. More range means better of use in all situations.
The Bikes, can have a little less health to counter the rocket distance. They get a bit more of a support/hit'n'run function this way. I know that grenadiers are less useful now. But the Rocket infantry has more of the role in this regard.
I don't know the effect on the Orca.
The stealth tank would also benefit from that +1 range. You still can use the extra health. But please keep the price at 900 because of the stealth.

If +1 range isn't your cup of tea. Or not sufficient. Have the rockets do a little bit more damage. +15 or +20% or so?
If rocket infantry have the chance to shoot only once. They do more damage.
For the stealth tank, this would be good as well.
I don't know about the orca and bike though.

Then there is changing the ROF for the rockets. What would that do?
Would rocket infantry still have their first shot? Maybe slowing the fire rate while increasing the damage. This would mean better rocket infantry and stealth tanks, but the bike remains roughly the same in direct combat. They only benefit from the hit'n'run effect. I am talking about the "first shot" here.

Just think about it and let me know if you see use to it.

[AchromicWhite]

I think I didn't explain the situation properly; we can't actually edit the weapons, but if we DID find a way, then it'd effect all the weapons on those units. 
The idea of buffing it on things like the bike would do more than you'd think. It'd easily let bikes fire on grens without being shot, for example. They'd have MORE range than a tank at only +1 range. (same with rocket soldiers, obviously).

I think the double rockets IS enough firepower on a stealth tank, but it's just making sure that you don't have to over pay for it, as it seems to be currently the case.
The other big thing that I found useful with the new stealth tanks (when I used them) was that unlike bikes, they can crush. So structures with infantry around them are more vulnerable to their attacks, and by having less price for the stealth tanks, you can get more tanks and therefore flat out crush more guys.

RoF  (again, we don't know currently how to change this without deeper hacking), but it'd be a flat buff to their attack. Currently a rocket does the same damage as a med tank shot, but fires a little less often. So buffing this will basically bring it to the same effectiveness of a med tank. 

I think the main part here that I disagree with is buffing the recon bike; we didn't really want to touch the most basic parts of how the units interacted, but instead just bring in technical units that are underused and also give minor buffs to a couple of over used technical units that overshadowed other strategies.

[X3M]

You can't change anything regarding weapons. Gotcha. I missed that point because you said 4 units shared the same weapon.

Regarding the bike. I never said to buff them. I named a counter solution, and that was less health.
+20% damage requires -20% health or something along those lines. It depends on the game play really.
The only way that this less health would be of "less" use as a counter is indeed the range.

Overall. You guys don't seem to have much options except for health, speed, the costs, prerequisite and swapping weapons?
What else can be changed?

[AchromicWhite]

22 hours ago, X3M said:

Overall. You guys don't seem to have much options except for health, speed, the costs, prerequisite and swapping weapons?
What else can be changed?

Armour type, Crusher yes/no, I think we can make units stealth

[X3M]

While the prerequirements for the chem warrior are changed. Are any other changes planned on this unit?

I gave it a thought on which units I never build. And it really is the chem. Only one time as fun. But never for strategic reasons. And I thought, what is the strategic advantage again of this unit over the flamethrower? It sure can't walk through tiberian. Maybe give it the vehicle status. No crushing, nor damage from tiberian. Just an idea.

Even artillery have been build for strategic purposes by me.

Further more, can you reduce the speed of the engineer by 1 more? This way other infantry are better choices to fill in that APC.

Hear from you soon.