Community Balance Patch

[chem]

While the patch has been a complete wipe out of a failure,  I think its a good thing if EA see that it is so they see how important it is to the fans to keep the game as close as possible to the original and let them know that even a small deviation could = a total failure for the remaster. Very important feedback I think?

Edited May 1, 2019 by chem

[ore_truck]

7 hours ago, X3M said:

what is the strategic advantage again of this unit(Chem-warrior) over the flamethrower?

More damage, tiberium immunity, less collateral damage from death explosions and can destroy barriers (sandbag/concrete walls, chain link fences, barbed wire) thanks to the HE weapon type.

Still, I think they are less useful than the flamethrower because of their more expensive price (they are still equally vulnerable except to tiberium) and higher tech level (by the time they're available, there are better alternatives of what the chem soldier is good at and the tiberium on the map would probably be harvested making their tiberium immunity not so useful).

Because of their tech level, I see them like the commando using them to kill group of infantry and take down a vulnerable building - both units are good at that and has high tech level but chem-warriors need to work in groups while the commando can work solo - something like Flamethrower & Tanya in Red Alert. Though practically, people always choose the commando over the chem troopers to kill infantry and bomb buildings. The good side of using chem-warriors is that you can deploy them in groups and still get the job done after taking a few losses.

[X3M]

What about standing under a blossom tree?

[AchromicWhite]

On 4/23/2019 at 11:57 AM, X3M said:

What about standing under a blossom tree?

 

Yeah, I think they still take damage from the tree... I'm pretty that even vehicles take damage from the tree, although, only very small amounts.

Chem warriors don't die in packs and they do more damage. That's the big advantages.
And yes, I'm on your guys side, I want to see it buffed. Probably HP buff.

We wanted to move forward faster, but also thought people would want to give feedback. But, like most projects around here, if you want it done, you have to do it yourself.

(The irony of that is that the very people that have decided they want this project to fail are doing exactly that, and then blaming the creators of it for that failure. And yet, if we took away their ability to give feedback, would throw the toys from the cot).

[X3M]

I think. I am one to give feedback. I like the fact that it is now an option.

What is a shame is that weapons can't be altered. Because weapon changes give more personality to units.

[cn2mc]

The irony is that the very people who are pushing this aren't actually playing it... or TD.

[X3M]

Who was pushing but not responding?

Edited May 3, 2019 by X3M

[AchromicWhite]

6 hours ago, cn2mc said:

The irony is that the very people who are pushing this aren't actually playing it... or TD.

On 4/23/2019 at 11:57 AM, X3M said:

 

You're not wrong, but most of the reason behind that is that whenever I come on, everyone's just trying to play FFA maps, even if it's for 1v1 purposes and I'm just bored to all hell.

I want to compete and improve, but the groundwork for it just isn't there.

There's one person who's on this thread a few times just trying to bad mouth it, and I've had a couple of others too. I really CBF with names (though, the person on this thread is not too hard to pin point anyway), as I don't want to make it personal. I just want to try and make the best groundwork for competitive C&C95 as I can.
It's been that way for years, for those that know me.

 

[cn2mc]

Still, I believe this to be a misguided effort, even if the intentions behind it are good. No real testing has been done beforehand, no statistical data has been gathered to pinpoint what exactly should be changed, changes are too much and all at once, making it impossible to gauge their individual effect. It's a mod done on a whim basis, because a few people decided "the game should be like this". Trust me, I know that feeling. I used to mod RA 15 years ago, thinking I can make it a better game. Turned out I'm not as good at balancing games as the team that actually made them and created the RTS genre. Good that I grew out of that. Weird that you haven't. Although I can kind of understand it from the perspective of Jacko and Ferret, who are both quite younger.

[X3M]

Statistical data is needed for a after balance party.
When you balance a game after the math, you balance on your personal preferences.
Even if it is one unit out of the bunch. Players might already think, "no thank you". While the rest is good.

Mine would be more range on the mrls and artillery. And perhaps the chem a bit stronger.
But maybe the chem is used to rarely. So, having them sooner is also an option. Just to see what happens.

In case of the mrls, my battle was shorter. I raped those B&B. Perhaps because the enemy didn't have had that nuke yet to get rid of mrls before rushing in with the B&B on the tanks themselves?? Who knows what should have happened there.

---

I have a decent experience on balancing games (even if no one on this forum believes me).
Not only did I study the balances of other games. And learned some powerful techniques.
But also went through a "idea"/"testing"/"gathering feedback" cycle myself at one point for RTS.
Please note, the "idea" part of that cycle is always a personal preference of some one.
And it is this "idea" part that can also include a misinterpretation of the game as it is.

Make sure the balance is on the intended economy. (Money maps, or not, or both?)
Balance 1 thing at a time, test it. Then go to the next.
Make note of changes, what they where, and why they where.
Keep personal preference of yourself out of it. If it is a community balance, the preference should be of the community.
How many people out of 100% requested a certain balance? And how many people have been asked?

[SpeedyDasher]

This patch needs to leave. Fast.

I applaud the effort to bring underused units more in the game, and especially, solve real problems. However, this patch only creates a different game. Further, clearly this patch is made by players who haven't played a good count of 4+ multiplayer games. Yes, I know it's you, Lovehandles.

> an attempt at rounding out some of the game's rougher edges, and giving some of the more undertuned units a bigger chance to shine

So, what are the rougher edges? I need to see problems, *before* I see a solution. Here, I see a solution for problems that are not mentioned.

> The patch is completely optional.

No, it is not. And that's the biggest problem here. Because what now will happen is that our multi-million playerbase will be divided into two multi-million playerbases. Oh, whoops, nope, we hardly have ten players online which will now get completely different games. Where people do not know that it even is a completely different game, because the UI of the balance patch is one from the 70s.

So, what will happen is that players will want to play the game they played for over 25 years. On their many-core, multi-4K display, surround-sound last-gen OS PC system. Not a different incarnation which does not solve any problems.

 

So then, you ask me, what are the problems?

1. apc-engie-rush
2. apache-rush

1 is a serious problem which I have not seen solved by any player, including PhD. 2 is a less serious problem, especially in 4p+ games.

1. **The apc-engie-rush**

Let's dig in. The apc-engie-rush is a serious problem, because the apc cannot be killed with reasonable amount of troops. The opponent simply cannot create a normal troop count to kill it, **unless it builds it specifically anti-engie-rush**. Yes, you can have some luck killing it with a few troops, but skilled players who know the behavior of the apc can drive around it pretty well. The second factor of why the apc-engie-rush is a problem is apc behavior. You're able to position the apc in such way, that the time of the engie coming out of apc and going into target MCV is less then a second or around a second. Not enough to kill it. These two factors combined make the apc-engie-rush too powerful. 

A rough guess of mine is that n00bs counter them <10% of the time, mediums skilled players <20% of the time and pro's counter them <40% of the time. PhD counters them <50%. I'm reasonably sure that these numbers are somewhat correct, as I have played hundreds of games where I observed apc-engie-rushes.

2. **The apache rush**

Build 4 apaches, kill target MCV. This is a very powerful rush, but it is not nearly as problematic as the apc-engie-rush. Good scouting and building an extra hand/barracks can counter this one pretty well. Furthermore, in multiplayer scenarios apache-rushing is a big risk. Even if you manage to kill of an mcv, you're now severely under threat as the apache-rush builder don't have any defenses. Yet, you can get a new MCV by one of your teamies. Still, an apache rush is something to reckon with, and is very powerful. I'm unsure yet if it crosses the line, but at least is is very dang close. 

Now, solve above two problems in an elegant way. Maybe I will try your patch then. 

 

By the way: I love and even adore stuff that Lovehandles and Ferret and many other in this community do. Please keep up the good work. But this patch makes me angry.

Edited May 3, 2019 by SpeedyDasher

[chem]

3 hours ago, SpeedyDasher said:

This patch needs to leave. Fast.

I applaud the effort to bring underused units more in the game, and especially, solve real problems. However, this patch only creates a different game. Further, clearly this patch is made by players who haven't played a good count of 4+ multiplayer games. Yes, I know it's you, Lovehandles.

> an attempt at rounding out some of the game's rougher edges, and giving some of the more undertuned units a bigger chance to shine

So, what are the rougher edges? I need to see problems, *before* I see a solution. Here, I see a solution for problems that are not mentioned.

> The patch is completely optional.

No, it is not. And that's the biggest problem here. Because what now will happen is that our multi-million playerbase will be divided into two multi-million playerbases. Oh, whoops, nope, we hardly have ten players online which will now get completely different games. Where people do not know that it even is a completely different game, because the UI of the balance patch is one from the 70s.

So, what will happen is that players will want to play the game they played for over 25 years. On their many-core, multi-4K display, surround-sound last-gen OS PC system. Not a different incarnation which does not solve any problems.

 

So then, you ask me, what are the problems?

1. apc-engie-rush
2. apache-rush

1 is a serious problem which I have not seen solved by any player, including PhD. 2 is a less serious problem, especially in 4p+ games.

1. **The apc-engie-rush**

Let's dig in. The apc-engie-rush is a serious problem, because the apc cannot be killed with reasonable amount of troops. The opponent simply cannot create a normal troop count to kill it, **unless it builds it specifically anti-engie-rush**. Yes, you can have some luck killing it with a few troops, but skilled players who know the behavior of the apc can drive around it pretty well. The second factor of why the apc-engie-rush is a problem is apc behavior. You're able to position the apc in such way, that the time of the engie coming out of apc and going into target MCV is less then a second or around a second. Not enough to kill it. These two factors combined make the apc-engie-rush too powerful. 

A rough guess of mine is that n00bs counter them <10% of the time, mediums skilled players <20% of the time and pro's counter them <40% of the time. PhD counters them <50%. I'm reasonably sure that these numbers are somewhat correct, as I have played hundreds of games where I observed apc-engie-rushes.

2. **The apache rush**

Build 4 apaches, kill target MCV. This is a very powerful rush, but it is not nearly as problematic as the apc-engie-rush. Good scouting and building an extra hand/barracks can counter this one pretty well. Furthermore, in multiplayer scenarios apache-rushing is a big risk. Even if you manage to kill of an mcv, you're now severely under threat as the apache-rush builder don't have any defenses. Yet, you can get a new MCV by one of your teamies. Still, an apache rush is something to reckon with, and is very powerful. I'm unsure yet if it crosses the line, but at least is is very dang close. 

Now, solve above two problems in an elegant way. Maybe I will try your patch then. 

 

By the way: I love and even adore stuff that Lovehandles and Ferret and many other in this community do. Please keep up the good work. But this patch makes me angry.

 

 

Well said speedy totally agree.

People that don't even play our beloved game or get involved with other players in a sociable way are somehow able to call the shots and make something really bad for our small community. If this patch was really good that would have been really bad for everyone, as it would have caused a split in our what 10 players,  if Ferrets mod was any good that too could have killed cnc1 online, again because it would have spit the few players we have up.

 

Fortunately white and ferret are not getting their own way because they and their stuff isn't well received or liked,, but somehow the top brass are letting them try patches and have influence and wow they should strongly reconsider and listen to the true community the ones that play together and actually play the game, we are cnc1. I urge the top brass to listen to the people that play day in day out for years on end  because we are the community we are cnc1, without us it would be dead and you are giving influence to a few individuals that are trying to kill our game,  and our community -  intentionally or not if they had their way that's exactly what would happen, cnc1 would die.

 

Imo we should max out popularity and try to recruit as many people as possible that's what our community really needs right now, perhaps focus exclusively on that, keeping the community alive and healthy and try to draw the numbers in,  so implement popular ideas that everyone likes rather than unpopular ones  that only a few individuals like?

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by chem

[Hungry Mike]

I was first against it, but then saw myself to be a bit hypocritical. Because i am for free speech and free market, i am as well for people making their own mods. Its their right to have fun; and its the purpose of the game to have fun. So if they have more fun with these settings, they have any right to make a mod, as long as it is optional.

Its like when people change a original work of Bach: Many complained that that would be even heresy. But any thing X is thinkable and therefore IS without a thinker thinking it; a Bach on another Earth may have made another Passion with exactly the notes we are complaining about here. Not that Bach made it, makes the work great, but that it gives us joy; because we dont listen to it for mathematical purposes.

So: I dont get all the hate for the work some guys did to enjoy their game, even tho i may dont like these particular guys. But hate should not drive my thinking skills (even tho it does on certain games...). I was against it, because i thought it was against a certain type of player or gameplay and to harm them, and that may be true for the intention of some of these moders, but it is not able to inflict any harm whatsoever, so therefore, it is not a matter.

That said, what has to be criticized is the wording ("patch"), the information to all players that there is a "patch" and that the same people, who are defending it, proposed ideas of sorting maps to categories like "competitive" or not. Because it isnt a patch. A patch would be finally giving harvs atleast the iq of flies, stop commandos move through mcvs without destroying them, stupid unit movements or apcs from freezing, when being shot. But instead, it forbids helis and engineers, pumps GDI up and makes Nod weak. Thats not a fix of objective mistakes or bugs of a game, it is just a subjective change to have more fun. So dont call it patch, call it Mod. Secondly, dont inform players that there is a mod, but just let them try it for themselves, because otherwise it looks like anyone, who doesnt use it, uses a worse version of the game.

So, these are real solid points, not that people want to play a X, call it game or mod, in a certain way.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by OnePostPony

[Hungry Mike]

On 5/4/2019 at 12:37 AM, SpeedyDasher said:

1. **The apc-engie-rush**

Let's dig in. The apc-engie-rush is a serious problem, because the apc cannot be killed with reasonable amount of troops. The opponent simply cannot create a normal troop count to kill it, **unless it builds it specifically anti-engie-rush**. Yes, you can have some luck killing it with a few troops, but skilled players who know the behavior of the apc can drive around it pretty well. The second factor of why the apc-engie-rush is a problem is apc behavior. You're able to position the apc in such way, that the time of the engie coming out of apc and going into target MCV is less then a second or around a second. Not enough to kill it. These two factors combined make the apc-engie-rush too powerful. 

A rough guess of mine is that n00bs counter them <10% of the time, mediums skilled players <20% of the time and pro's counter them <40% of the time. PhD counters them <50%. I'm reasonably sure that these numbers are somewhat correct, as I have played hundreds of games where I observed apc-engie-rushes.

Pros can defend it. Chem does quiet well. And if the opponent fails, he has a high chance of losing the game, so he has the pressure. Bluysy once told me, 20 years ago many people used it. If you cant use it as good as your opponent, you are responsible for it, not your opponent.

I would say: With noobs: 0,01 %, medium skilled: 4 % of time, "pros": 20 %, Chem: 35-70 % based on gameplay of his opponent...

[tac]

Just had a few games with this mod. I see two major functions of this mod: 1)promoting the use of underused units and 2)making GDI stronger/Nod weaker. I won't talk about the minor changes like MCV/Construction sight radius increase and the removal of Visceroid threat.

Personally, I like the idea of making underused units more useful like bringing the Rocket Launcher and Chemicals tech level down. I'm aware having Rocket Launchers sooner can still change the game, but it's still the same unit, we can still use the same counters... even increasing starting unit count makes a bigger difference.

However, I don't really like how they put in the changes that makes GDI stronger alongside it. It really made the game a lot different than the C&C I'm used to. It just eliminates certain tactics that people are used to. Some of the high risk high reward tactics to destroy a Cons. Yard are no longer viable. Weapons Factory can survive a nuclear if the player repairs it right away, that's like the only thing besides power plants worth nuking against GDI.

I understand it's an effort to make it more competitive. I love what you've (Lovehandles and White) done for the community, but I'll be honest, I disagree with the overall changes. Maybe if this mod is all about making underused units better only without the Nod "nerf", I might give it another try.

[Nyerguds]

You know, editing weapon stats is totally possible... I can tell you everything you need to know on that. And the bare value dumps are already available.

http://nyerguds.arsaneus-design.com/cnc95upd/inirules/

[AchromicWhite]

4 hours ago, Nyerguds said:

You know, editing weapon stats is totally possible... I can tell you everything you need to know on that. And the bare value dumps are already available.

http://nyerguds.arsaneus-design.com/cnc95upd/inirules/

Yes, we often use this resource to check values, so thanks for uploading this stuff... even if the website is literally just a bunch of folders xD
(hey, if it works, right?)

Part of the issue was that neither of the people directly working on the patch have hacking ability, and are relying on editors or begging other hackers to get in there and change the values.
If you're offering a hand, we'd much appreciate it. Heck, I wouldn't mind chatting to you about it anyway. I know you might not be up with the current meta of play, but you've obviously got a lot of knowledge about the game in any case.

Edited August 14, 2019 by AchromicWhite

[Lovehandles]

Have a cheeky lil' bump from me -- Release 2 is officially out! Check the original post, or click here for the full changelogs to see what's new. :- )

[AchromicWhite]

17 hours ago, Lovehandles said:

Have a cheeky lil' bump from me -- Release 2 is officially out! Check the original post, or click here for the full changelogs to see what's new. :- )

Thanks for taking the time to get this. Thanks to Funky, too, for letting us test all of this over cncnet.

I'm really interested to see how this stuff plays out as a more focused patch. I think the last one, while it had good ideas, were probably too much to really gauge the individual issues, because there was so much going on.

[X3M]

A lot has been reverted. Good.

 

[Nyerguds]

On 8/14/2019 at 3:45 PM, AchromicWhite said:

If you're offering a hand, we'd much appreciate it. Heck, I wouldn't mind chatting to you about it anyway. I know you might not be up with the current meta of play, but you've obviously got a lot of knowledge about the game in any case.

Sure, hit me up on Discord any time.

[Skybee]

Original C&C game balance was for solo play, not multiplayer, and the stealth tank demonstrates this. Anyone using the stealth to their advantage as is done in solo play? Nope!

I like this balance patch. This balance patch will help C&C be fun in multiplayer.

Balance changes are very thoughtful. Thank you for this!

MLRS minimum range is unfortunately since there are so many NOD units that can easily snipe defenses. So, basically, defenses become useless when playing against NOD other than to defend against the occasional suicide squad attack.

[rabidsnypr]

Judt as a selectable option to make the "patch" enabled and same with visceroids or how ever you spell it. just like you do with crates and short game. problem solved.

[AchromicWhite]

On 4/9/2020 at 3:43 AM, rabidsnypr said:

Judt as a selectable option to make the "patch" enabled and same with visceroids or how ever you spell it. just like you do with crates and short game. problem solved.

That's literally what the case currently is. Which is why it's crazy to assume that the patch is going to sweep out the original.

[Hungry Mike]

On 10/24/2019 at 3:21 PM, Skybee said:

Original C&C game balance was for solo play, not multiplayer, and the stealth tank demonstrates this. Anyone using the stealth to their advantage as is done in solo play? Nope!

Perfect unit to secure  a draw or molest harvs in late game.

On 4/8/2020 at 5:43 PM, rabidsnypr said:

o make the "patch" enabled

Mod

On 10/24/2019 at 3:21 PM, Skybee said:

I like this balance patch. This balance patch will help C&C be fun in multiplayer.

Balance changes are very thoughtful. Thank you for this!

It wont save your base from getting eaten by my hungry engineers